A Yuge Mistake, by Robert Gore
Trump is overplaying a weak hand. There’s no 4D chess here; he just hasn’t thought this one through. His gesture pleases Israel, Saudi Arabia, and neoconservatives back home, but it will be Trump and the United States, not his “friends,” who will bear the cost of failure.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article, please click the link above.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article, please click the link above.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/op...
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/...
The Trump administration’s show of support for the anti-government demonstrators is a much better foreign policy move than the $400 million planeload of cash that was delivered to their oppressors by the Obama administration.
Hmm, now that I'm comparing the former two sentences, me dino thinks I'll stick with the afterthought.
1) It was a unilateral arrangement from the Executive Branch of the Obama Administration. It is not a treaty, meaning that is has no force of law.
2) It was an excuse for a payoff to Iran of $400 BILLION - which Iran just turns around and uses to fund their military and foment terrorism around the globe. This alone was an act of treason and material support for a known enemy which should have seen President Obama Impeached.
3) The agreement does absolutely nothing to restrict Iran's nuclear ambitions. The terms for all of the inspections completely defeat the purpose. Any request for an inspection has to be agreed to 30 days before the actual inspection AND Iran gets veto power over what was inspected and which sites. It was a complete joke.
4) The UN is decidedly anti-Semitic. That they were given the responsibility under the IEA to perform the inspections is a joke.
A few more reminders on Iran itself:
1) Yes, China and North Korea have supplied expertise regarding nuclear engineers to further Iran's position. Ostensibly, this is to pull attention off them so that they can pursue their own ends (for China that is intimidation in the South China Sea and Taiwan). But this also gives significant assistance to Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
2) Iran is controlled by the Mullahs. The President is for show but illustrates the kind of leash wielded by the religious hegemony. That the Presidents for decades have openly called for the destruction of Israel and the United States tell much about the sentiments of the Mullahs.
3) Iran's religious rulers are not logical. In very fact, their ideology - the ideology of hardcore Islam - is bent around world domination. Worse, the religious ideology justifies the killing of anyone and everyone who get in the way of this goal. It justifies self-destruction if it purportedly damages proclaimed enemies (suicide bombers) and Iran even monetarily supports the families of suicide bombers.
4) Iran's antipathy toward Israel and the United States goes back to at least the 1960's and Iran has been a terrorist supporter since then. They are tied to the Khobar Towers bombing as well as Hezbollah's attacks on the Golan Heights and the support of Hamas - the military wing of the Palestinian Authority.
5) Russia supports Iran by selling them weapons, but Russia's conflicts with Muslim separatists such as those in Chechnya or Afghanistan do not make them supporters of the regime itself. China is in the same situation - their conflicts with Islamic separatists in the western regions near the disputed Kashmir region of India have long been a thorn in the side of the Dragon. Do not confuse the sale of weapons with support for the regime or support for Islam.
Your article is based on a strong Iran agreement with real teeth - and nothing could be farther from the truth. The Iran agreement Kerry and the Obama Administration agreed to is tissue paper - it has zero real power. That EU countries such as Britain and France are still clamoring for it to remain in place is because they have caved in to the Islamists taking over their respective nations - not from any real sense of self-preservation. The Iran Deal was and continues to be a joke of massive proportions and anyone who followed Obama's foreign policy should take a jaundiced view of every action he ever took. Trump is absolutely right to exit this faux agreement or renegotiate it to include REAL inspections - spot inspections with no warning anywhere they want and run by US inspectors - not UN inspectors. While you normally do good work, your foreign relations understanding in this area is sorely lacking.
The previous ruler was the Shah. He was both less efficient and less corrupt than was normal for the region. The nation was moderately prosperous and peaceful at the time.
Iran then had normal diplomatic and trade relations with Israel.
The revolution remains an example how fast things can be changed by determined fanatics where there are few safeguards.
The comments from blarman are spot on apart from that 1979 date.
2) The money released to Iran was $100, not $400, billion. It was an unfreezing of frozen Iranian assets, or in other words, their money.
3) Any request for an inspection of a military facility has a 30-day period. However, all previously nuclear facilities have continuous on-site inspectors and cameras.
4) The UN is decidedly anti-Semitic.
From "A few more reminders."
1) How is it that if China asserts itself in the South China Sea, and Iran asserts itself in the Persian Gulf, it’s regarded as an intolerable interference with the US’s ability to go anywhere on the seven seas it wants, but if China or Persia were to send military vessels into the Caribbean, it would be intolerable and tantamount to a declaration of war?
2) While the Mullahs and Iranian government officials have called for the destruction of Israel and the US for decades, the US has actually destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and has fomented uprisings in Syria and Ukraine for the same purpose. How is calling for the destruction of other countries wrong to the point where it precludes negotiations, but actually destroying countries is not, as long as it’s done by the US?
3) “Iran's religious rulers are not logical. In very fact, their ideology - the ideology of hardcore Islam - is bent around world domination. Worse, the religious ideology justifies the killing of anyone and everyone who get in the way of this goal.” How many countries has Iran invaded and regime changed the last 39 years? How many has the US invaded and/or fomented regime change? If any country is bent on world domination, it’s the US. And the US certainly has had no problem killing “anyone and everyone who get in the way of this goal.”
4) Until 1979, Iran was ruled by the US and British puppet, the Shah. He was installed in 1953 in a coup against Iran’s first and only democratically elected president. SAVAK, the Shah’s CIA-trained secret police, kept the Shah in power through the usual repression, secret arrests, incarceration, torture, and executions. (Gee, why do they hate us so?) Everything you say about terrorism and its links to Iran’s “religious ideology” can be said about US ally Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist ideology. Saudi Arabia has sponsored far more global terror than Iran, including 9/11.
5) Please cite the parts of the agreement that support your contention that it has no “real teeth,” that it’s “tissue paper” with “zero real power,” that it’s a “a joke of massive proportions.” Also, please specify how Iran was violating it, and please, don’t cite habitual liar Benjamin Netanyahu. I don’t think the other 5 nations that are party to the agreement spent years working on a joke, but I’m open to persuasion if you can cite provisions I didn’t cover in my article that you feel render it a joke. I don’t know the exact nature of either China or Russia’s support for Iran. Neither do you. However, a prudent assumption would be that Russia and China are against Trump’s withdrawal, and will render the assistance to Iran necessary to circumvent US sanctions. That may be incorrect, but at this point it’s a prudent assumption.
I’m glad you think I normally do good work. I question your foreign relations understanding in this area, especially because you got so many basic facts wrong.
With regard to China, much of China's territorial ambitions are playing out as they seize and militarize foreign-claimed atolls such as the Spratlys. These allow them to control the trade routes in the area just as Iran threatens in the Strait of Hormuz. The Phillippines, Taiwan, a resurgent Vietnam, and others in the area are all threatened by expanding Communism.
As to the Caribbean, what business does an Iranian or Chinese warship have in the Atlantic? The US borders on both oceans and so one can argue with support that they have strategic interests in both oceans - especially for trade. No such claim can be made on the part of either Iran or China.
2) Who was the aggressor in Libya? Qaddafi. Remember that long before Obama's ouster of Qaddafi was Reagan's bombings after the Lockerbie incident. Since Reagan, Qaddafi had been a non-belligerent in the region and had even offered monetary remuneration to the families of Lockerbie. Obama's inflammation of the region which led to Qaddafi's execution only served to embolden and enthrone the Muslim Brotherhood. Two separate policies which each deserve their own attention, but Obama's in particular ties into Iran if looked at from a broader picture. (One can also point to Obama's foreign policies towards Egypt and Syria as inciting regime change there which has only emboldened terrorism.)
Afghanistan is a hideout of drug traffickers (most of the opium in the world) and terrorists. Whether or not it was wise to go in there is certainly a debatable point (and I'm sure the Russians are laughing at us after their 30-year occupation). I will say that I was personally briefed by an US field commander in Afghanistan about the region, and there's simply nothing to "destroy" there. They have almost no roads or public infrastructure. Only mountain hideouts of terrorists were being bombed by US forces there.
Iraq was being led by a murderous dictator and invaded a US Ally who asked for our help (Kuwait). Yes, the US utterly obliterated the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard. If one wants to debate the internal power struggle which has since taken place, we can go there. I think the US was rather stupid in insisting upon elected officials so early on because the existing power structure had the minority Baathists in power supplemented by the Sunnis, but the majority are Shiites - like those in neighboring Iran. Iran took full advantage of its religious ties to foment unrest and terrorism (bombings of police stations, etc.) including their support for various militant/terrorist groups like Al Shabab and Al Qaeda. But if one wants to debate our foreign policy actions in Iraq, again I would point out the huge differences between Bush II and Obama which I think are germane and critical to the conversation. Obama's actions unquestionably led to the rise of militant forces throughout the Middle East and his fettering of the US military there was IMHO not feckless but intentional. The success of our troops after Trump took control has been what should have been happening the previous eight years.
Remember, we occupied West Germany and Japan for years afterward trying to help them get back on their feet economically. I think that the US thought it could do the same in Iraq. What they failed to account for was the culture of the region - especially the religious background. That was (and is) the proverbial wrench in the gears.
To address your last point, Iran not only calls for the eradication of Israel and the United States, but actively supports terrorist activities with those ends in mind. I'm not really sure why you are trying to draw unsupported parallels between the US and Iran - especially when if you want to look at US foreign policy, it must be done by administration - not wholesale.
3) That's quite the hyperbole. Are you going to cite John Kerry about ears getting cut off or actually back your statements with real data? I was personal friends with several soldiers who served in Iraq and though they weren't really happy about being there, they told real stories about being under fire alongside the real stories of the Iraqis who saw us as saviors.
4) All you say here is true. Saudi Arabia is no friend of the United States (although the current Crown Prince is remarkably democratic). At best it is an alliance of convenience. Saudi Arabia benefits from their sales of oil and military contracts and the US has one fewer "enemy" in the region. But a note regarding the Shah - at least he kept the religious zealots under control and didn't sponsor terrorism. He won't go down in history as a great humanitarian to be sure and the US made a huge mistake in allowing his ouster. But his replacement by the Mullahs has loosed a religious zealotry that threatens nations across the globe and the non-Shia Muslim nations are certainly on that list.
5. Please cite any single national intelligence agency - even from a European nation - which refutes the Israeli intelligence. Your own opinion on the matter is irrelevant. (One can also point back to the incident several years ago where a specifically-crafted virus destroyed Iranian centrifuges they weren't supposed to be operating in the first place.) Similarly, I would point you back to my original post where I laid out the terms for the IEA inspections. They are right there in the original document and you are welcome to look it up for yourself. They allow Iran veto power over inspections and a 30-day window is preposterous - they simply move things to another location. They are completely one-sided terms which do nothing to halt or curb Iran's ambitions.
"I don’t know the exact nature of either China or Russia’s support for Iran. Neither do you. However, a prudent assumption would be that Russia and China are against Trump’s withdrawal, and will render the assistance to Iran necessary to circumvent US sanctions. That may be incorrect, but at this point it’s a prudent assumption."
Uh, if you don't know, how can you then claim prudence in your assumption? Again, Russia wants influence in the region and is certainly willing to sell arms, but the Russians don't like Muslims. Look at Putin's support for Assad in Syria. Assad isn't a religious fundamentalist. Russia's support for Egypt and Libya back in the 1980's and '90's was similarly for military dictatorships - not religious caliphates. China is in the same boat. If you want more background and insight, check out Dan Bongino's commentary (former Navy Seal who operated in the area).
"I question your foreign relations understanding in this area, especially because you got so many basic facts wrong."
Feel free to point out anything you want. Just expect me to do the same to your errant assertions.
3) It was not intended as hyperbole.
5) The US intelligence agencies in both 2007 and 2011 stated with "high confidence" that Iran had abandoned its effort to develop nuclear weapons in 2003. George W. Bush publicly stated that the 2007 report prevented him from launching an attack against Iran. Virtually everything Netanyahu proferred pertained to Iran's efforts pre-2003. And as I've said repeatedly, given Netanyahu's demonstrated propensity to lie and the skill of Israel's intelligence in fabricating documents, everything they offer should be taken with a shaker of salt. Checkered as it is, I would be more inclined to accept US intelligence than Israel intelligence on Iran, although I wouldn't trust either one as far as I could throw them.
I don't think it's a mistake, like NK, we have to deal with it now...kicking the can down the road will only make things worse.
At some point, The middle east must wake up and grow a conscience and become conscious human beings...( I would hope).
" what does Trump hope to accomplish?": I think he's after attention, convincing himself and showing he can beat President Obama at something. Undoing a deal that Obama negotiated gets him attention and shot at beating Obama at something.
" Iran may continue to abide by the JCPOA if sanctions are evaded or rejected by the Europeans."
Even if the EU agrees with this, European investors will be less keen to invest in a country where US can't invest buy from because of US sanctions.
I do not think the three objections you mention are the real reasons anyone opposes the deal:
1. Procedural issues of getting it through Congress
2 Sunset clause - We could just wait for the sunset to happen and then threaten to withdraw if we didn't get more time. There's no advantage to acting now.
3. Inspections are insufficient - Reports I've heard say they are sufficient. If that were an issue, couldn't the US have started by trying to negotiate that point.
I don't have any predictions about whether Iran will try to develop a nuclear weapon and whether that will eventually lead to an invasion and occupation of Iran.
Stepping back to the broader picture, I think people have become complacent about nuclear weapons. When I was a kid, we were rightly scared to death that half of humankind could be wiped out. What if East Germany did something to West Berlin, NATO forces intervened, and Russia provided support to East Germany? How long before one side used a tactical nuke? Could cooler heads stop it from escalating? In combat those situations, shit happens. We a big deal of the nuclear "football" as if it had an iron clad safety to authorize or prevent any nuclear weapon from being used, but most nuclear weapons are can be armed by two rank-and-file officers, and sometimes there are informal work-arounds to circumvent the two-person rule.
I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm scared of some modern scenario like that, maybe involving Ukraine and Russia feeling boxed in by NATO expansion. We say we'll treat an attack on Romania as an attack on the US.
I'm just old enough to remember the Cold War. Horrific as it would be if North Korea attacked a US city with a 250 kT bomb, it's nothing like Cold War nightmares.
So I think we can't be careful enough about non-proliferation. Once a country gets nuclear weapons, I don't see them relinquishing them. (So I have no idea what North Korea's game is, but I think they have no intention of giving up their nukes under any circumstances.) It makes sense to me to do everything possible to prevent proliferation as long as possible to decrease the chance of taboo being broken and thereby decrease the risk of the unthinkable.
Remember that the USA first used nuclear weapons and we opened the door to all this during WW2. I know that if we didnt do it, Germany would have, and we might all be speaking german now.
It reminds me of the insanity about banning guns. Its not the guns that kill, its the people who pull the trigger. Its not the existence of the nuclear bombs that kill, its the people who push the buttons.