iran nuclear deal

[STURM]

You forgot to mention the fact that they (Israel) stole their original nuclear material.

Yes. Mentioned in detail in Hersh's '' The Sampson Option : Israel's Nuclear Option and American Foreign Policy''. A very interesting read.

A rather worrisome article about possible political diversion by Trump.

The U.S. hardly said anything about recent civilian deaths in Yemen [of course this wouldn't have been the case if civilians in rebel held areas were killed by Assad's forces], the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse [the U.S. due to flawed decisions in the past shares a big blame], China is getting stronger [unlike the U.S. it faces no diversions and has a good idea of what it needs to do in line with its interests], Israel continues to build settlements on land illegally occupied in violation of international law [not to mention that it killed unarmed protesters protesting on their side of the border], North Korea hasn't started to bin its nuke programme [why should it when its nukes prevent regime change and the U.S. is focused on the Middle East] and relations with Turkey [a key NATO ally] have gone ratshit [the Russians, Chinese and Gulf Arabs will be laughing] on the pretext that a U.S. citizen is being held under house arrest; yet the U.S. for some reason thinks that focusing on Iran should be at the top of the agenda. The Israelis and the Gulf Arab states would be extremely grateful to Trump should a war break out.

 

[ngatimozart]

A rather worrisome article about possible political diversion by Trump. Even as little as 6 months ago I would not have considered this possible but his control of the news cycle has been his best defence. The recent cancellation of N. Korean meetings hardly raised an eyebrow. However it may actually have reached the point where nothing short of military action against Iran can divert a negative outcome from the Mueller investigation. In order to prevent this, the Republican Party leaders are really going to have to step up.

What If the Mueller Investigation Pushed Trump to Attack Iran?

A Moderators note. If this discussion evolves into a political nationalistic tit for tat, dick size or waving competition we will lock the thread immediately and the worse offenders sanctioned. This is a very important topic that has been raised that needs to be discussed because it's impacts go far beyond beyond just the domestic politics of the US.

It is very concerning John and Trump's habit of diplomacy by anger fuelled tweet does have serious ramifications for the US, but one day those ramifications could be catastrophic. You can push people and nations only so far, and the Iranians do have long memories regarding the US engineered 1953 coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq the legally elected leader of Iran. They have watched subsequent US regime change efforts since then and are very wary of the US.

Since Trump has pulled the US out of the Iran Nuclear deal (and the Paris Climate Accord), they now believe, rightly of wrongly, that the US cannot be trusted to honour its agreements. Watching the US since the Trump inauguration they will also believe, rightly or wrongly, that the US has enacted more hostile policies towards Iran and that at some stage it will become inevitable that war will occur between the US and Iran. If they are smart they will let the US start the war, giving the Iranians the moral high ground, by claiming the US has committed a war of active aggression. The Iranians for all intents and purposes, would be on reasonably solid ground there, because according to the other signatories to the agreement, they have fully complied with the conditions of the agreement so far, and it is the US who has abrogated the agreement.

If Trump does decide to attack Iran:

• Can he get approval from Congress to do so? He has a continuing resolution for the War on Terror, but attacking a nation state is a big step and the US should be wary after the 2003 attack in Iraq based on wrong intelligence.
• Can the American people stomach another war? They've been at war for 17 years now, which is a long time, about as long as their combined time in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam.
• Can their military handle another war at the moment? They are reasonably stretched with their deployments at the moment and their personnel are undertaking multiple combat deployments. Their equipment is getting pretty worn because of constant use, political shenanigans in Washington and sequestration, preventative and routine maintenance has fallen by the wayside. Sometimes the political system in Washington reminds me of a kakistocracy, but they need not feel special, because I can name probably 200 plus other countries where the same definition would fit.
• I don't think that if Trump went ahead with such an attack that the US would have many willing allies apart from Israel, Saudi Arabia and maybe the UAE. Apart from that I think that there would be worldwide condemnation with nations such as Russia and China arming and providing quite a bit of support to Iran. They may even ally with Iran.

That's my halfpenny's worth.

 

[John Fedup]

All your points above wrt international/diplomacy are right on but my point was this wouldn’t be Trump’s primary concern. He really seems to be convinced that any significant change of topic lessons the pressure from his legal problems. To date this has been working. Recall his confrontation with Kim, he was criticized for his stance but it changed the conversation away from his problem. He seems to realize any further confrontation with Kim is both dangerous and won’t be as effective in diverting attention so he’s moved on to Iran. His attacks on domestic critics, same thing, changing the conversation. Although his anti-Iran advisers may believe the missile deal is bad and Trump may even buy into this, I think any attack decision wouldn’t be for them or appeasing Israel or the Gulf States, it would be all about diversion. Are their people in his camp that can convince him this possible diversion option isn’t worth the damage the resulting international chaos will cause?

 

[ngatimozart]

Ok, I was really giving a bit of background, setting the scene so to speak.

Given that Trump has a history of diverting attention and not adverse to letting the truth stand in the way of a good story, the only 2 people in his administration who I think have any real conception of the path to hell a war with Iran would be, are SECDEF Mattis and Trump's Chief of Staff Kelly, who are both retired Marine Generals. Mattis I think is probably the better thinker and I think that he isn't afraid to tell Trump what's what, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly does too. Unlike many others in the White House, Mattis strikes me as the one person who isn't there for the power, glory and perks, but more so as a way of continuing to serving his country in what ever capability he can.

Over the last 3 or 4 days Trumps legal problems appear to have deteriorated to an almost deleterious state, so he'll really have to pull something out of the bag to try and slither out of this lot. If the democrats gain control of one House in the upcoming election, then Trump will be in for a very difficult time. If the Democrats gain control of both Houses then his position will become untenable and unlike tricky Dicky, who finally accepted it was time to leave, Trump will most likely not, which will create a very dangerous situation, not just for the US, but for the rest of the world.

 

[STURM]

Trump's actions have actually bolstered Iran's hardliners who have long been saying that the U.S. can't be trusted and that whatever Iran does will not be enough as the U.S. [with strong urging from Israel and the Sunni Gulf Arabs] will only be contend when Iran is in a position where it is weak and has little influence beyond its borders. This of course is gaga/cloud cuckoo land thinking as it ignores the fact that Iran is a regional power in its own right and has tremendous influence beyond its borders. Granted Iran has 'interfered' in the Lebanon, Iraq and Syria but these countries are in in its backyard and viewed objectively; who played a bigger part in rolling back IS, the U.S. and its allies or Russia and Iran? To me the biggest irony is that Iran actually has the potential to be a more useful ally to the U.S. than the Sunni Gulf Arabs [both have cooperated in the past over Afghanistan and Al Qaeda]; it is given however that just like Iranian hardliners who want to prevent a U.S/Iran rapprochement, there are elements in the U.S. government who are convinced that going after Iran [with all the risks and consequences it entails for the U.S] is the right approach.

The question is whether U.S. policy over Iran is driven more by internal politics [including the need to please the pro Israel and Sunni Gulf Arab lobbies] or because there are actually people in the Trump administration who feel [despite the U.S. being checkmated in Syria or maybe because of it?] that going after Iran is the right approach? Then again, a previous U.S. administration was convinced that invading Iraq was the right approach; turned out to be a major disaster, not only for the U.S. but for Iraqis [who are still paying the price] and the region as a whole. Focusing on Iraq also played a big part in the failure/disaster that we now see in Afghanistan.

 

[John Fedup]

With regard to your last paragraph I think the only player with juice wanting to stir things up in Iran is Bolton from a foreign relations point of view. For Trump it is due to internal domestic problems. Mattis is is likely the only restraint left and rumours are he may depart after the midterms. That’s bad especially if the Republicans lose the House.

 

[STURM]

Yes but what do they hope to achieve? With Iraq it was hoped that doing away with Saddam would remove a threat to Israel and the Gulf Arabs and the hope that the Baathist government would be replaced with a Western friendly/compliant government [one that of course was not too democratic due to fears a new Iraq might have been too independent for Uncle Sam's liking]. With Iran it's harder to figure out what they intend or hope to achieve. A coup in Iran is unlikely to happen and Iran under the present leadership will never bow to American pressure. Iran will never cease aiding Assad and Hezbollah as these are its only allies and are vital for its interests. Since 1979 America has tried to make the Iranians give in [through sanctions, diplomatic pressure and aiding Saddam in the war he started] but has failed.

What makes the Trump administration think it can be more successful this time? As it is; most Iranians, even those opposed to the current leadership, are united in standing up to American pressure; they view Trump's actions as smacking of bullying, double standards and hypocrisy. If it's a war certain elements of the Trump administration are seeking; it won't be hard to start. What comes after is the very worrying part; especially given America's track record in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Feanor]

Yes but what do they hope to achieve? With Iraq it was hoped that doing away with Saddam would remove a threat to Israel and the Gulf Arabs and the hope that the Baathist government would be replaced with a Western friendly/compliant government [one that of course was not too democratic due to fears a new Iraq might have been too independent for Uncle Sam's liking]. With Iran it's harder to figure out what they intend or hope to achieve. A coup in Iran is unlikely to happen and Iran under the present leadership will never bow to American pressure. Iran will never cease aiding Assad and Hezbollah as these are its only allies and are vital for its interests. Since 1979 America has tried to make the Iranians give in [through sanctions, diplomatic pressure and aiding Saddam in the war he started] but has failed.

What makes the Trump administration think it can be more successful this time? As it is; most Iranians, even those opposed to the current leadership, are united in standing up to American pressure; they view Trump's actions as smacking of bullying, double standards and hypocrisy. If it's a war certain elements of the Trump administration are seeking; it won't be hard to start. What comes after is the very worrying part; especially given America's track record in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think the US feels its global hegemony slipping through it's fingers. In the 90s and early 2000's the US was THE world superpower. After two indecisive Middle Easter wars, a series of failed attempts to prop up friendly regimes in the ex-USSR (installed through color revolutions), all while China, India, and the EU grow stronger, and even Russia recovers from its collapse, the world has become decidedly multi-polar. I think there are people in the US elites and government who think that if they can "win" another Cold War against Russia, and shut down Iran, they can restore US status as the leading super power. Hence their efforts to isolate Russia and show that they're still the ones calling the shots. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on ones point of view) they're very much mistaken, and many of their actions have actually caused the first fractures of the US-led alliance system (look at Turkey for example,or Germany and North Stream 2, or the very Iranian nuclear deal we're discussing).

This adequately explains the media hysteria over alleged Russian election meddling (which so far seems to amount to financing ads on social media), and the incessantly increasing levels of sanctions which aren't correlated to any real efforts to change Russian policy or behavior (as so many EU allies have pointed out, it simply doesn't work like that). It also adequately explains the apparently irrational anti-Iranian stance. The US will close its eyes to Saudi Arabia executing dissidents or invading Yemen (as its not a US ally or client), they're not ok with Iran challenging their regional influence.

 

[John Fedup]

Guys, I really believe the elites in favour of a military strike are secondary. There are still enough wise men to sway Trump if the issue is foreign policy only. Unfortunately it may be Trump will act because of domestic considerations and American interests will be ignored if he becomes desperate enough.

 

[STURM]

A major problem for the U.S. is that it is bound by various treaties with NATO and non NATO allies. This is unlike China and Russia which are not. Whilst the U.S. - despite all the rhetoric and muscle flexing - may not be eager for a war with Iran; there is always the danger that actions undertaken by allies could drag it into a war. As for 'wise men' in the administration and foreign policy; there have always been 'wise men' in all administrations but this hasn't stopped the U.S. from making colossal blunders in the past. On Trump, I recall reading somewhere that he has regular sessions with Kissinger to seek his advice/input. In the past, Kissinger was willing to adopt policies to suit the U.S. and Israel but were damaging for others and had long term implications for both the U.S. and the region. His master stroke was Camp David. He brought Egypt out of the Soviet orbit, made into a compliant U.S. ally [it became the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. aid] and removed it as a threat to Israel [further dividing the Arabs]. Israel promised a gullible Sadat that it would return the Sinai and resolve the Palestinian issue.

Afghanistan. Almost 2 decades after the invasion the country is still a mess. At a time when AQ was defeated, the Talibs had mostly fled across the border and locals welcomed the presence of foreign troops in the hope that it would lead to genuine change; the U.S. decided to invade Saddam on the pretext that he had nukes. Despite all the statements made, billions spent, various American experts and think tanks that could provide advice on almost everything and thousands of Afghans killed; the country is not at peace, remains politically fragmented and the Taliban have become a political force that is here to stay. Sure Pakistan's actions played a part but it is expected that Pakistan had to put its core interests first before that of America's. Even if Pakistan had done all that the U.S. wanted it to do; flawed American policy and actions [lack of a sustainable national development plan, reliance on warlords which the locals detested, Afghans killed by mistake, the high handedness of certain U.S. units, etc] would still have prevented a total victory over the Taliban.

Syria. Despite having allies [in the form of 'moderate' rebels who benefited from U.S. largesse] and despite all the military efforts put in by the U.S. and its allies; Assad was not defeated and it was Russian and Iranian 'boots on the ground' that played a major part in rolling back IS; alongside the Syrians. The result : America and its allies failed to achieve its objectives and Assad and Russia did. Russia has also reasserted itself as a player which can't be ignored.

 

[yavar]

Iran nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi,we could enrich uranium to 20% within four days, if exit the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal )

Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi,gestures as he speaks to Reuters during an interview in Brussels in November. | REUTERS

GENEVA - Iran can enrich uranium up to 20 percent within four days, its atomic energy chief said on Tuesday, a comment apparently aimed at showing Tehran could quickly expand its enrichment program if its nuclear deal with world powers collapses.

Iran’s 2015 accord with world powers caps the level to which it is able to enrich uranium to 3.67 percent purity, well below the 20 percent it was reaching before the deal, and the roughly 90 percent suitable for a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the deal last May, calling it flawed, and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Tehran refuses to renegotiate and has said the deal could fall apart unless European signatories preserve its economic benefits for the Islamic Republic against U.S. pressure.

“If we want to come out of the nuclear deal and produce, within four days we could start our 20 percent,” Ali Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told the semi-official Fars News Agency. “But we already have stockpiles of 20 percent, and the capability.”

Salehi did not elaborate on his remark about stockpiles. Iran’s reserve of 20 percent enriched uranium was downblended, shipped abroad or turned into fuel plates for a research reactor after the nuclear deal was clinched.

Salehi told Reuters in an interview last November that Iran could resume enriching uranium to 20 percent purity — seen as well above the level suitable for fueling civilian power plants — if the 2015 deal’s trade spin-offs do not pan out for Tehran.
Iran could enrich uranium to 20% within four days, nation's atomic energy chief says | The Japan Times

 

[2007yellow430]

From the looks of things, I believe the US is headed for war against Iran. It may start with something minor, but quickly escolare. Trump is in huge political trouble, and I think that only a war will turn attention from him. The newspapers mentioned a military plan to attack Iran last week was in the works, so something is going on. With the partial shutdown, and facts coming out about suborning perjury to Congress, the wag the dog syndrome may show up quickly. I hope not, but am realistic.

I used nbc rather than wsj because wsj requires a subscription to read. The White House reportedly asked the Pentagon for military plans to strike Iran

Art

 

[ngatimozart]

From the looks of things, I believe the US is headed for war against Iran. It may start with something minor, but quickly escolare. Trump is in huge political trouble, and I think that only a war will turn attention from him. The newspapers mentioned a military plan to attack Iran last week was in the works, so something is going on. With the partial shutdown, and facts coming out about suborning perjury to Congress, the wag the dog syndrome may show up quickly. I hope not, but am realistic.

I used nbc rather than wsj because wsj requires a subscription to read. The White House reportedly asked the Pentagon for military plans to strike Iran

Art

And that is the the danger because Trumps domestic problems aren't going away, in fact they are worsening and he's lashing out already. Mattis and Kelly are gone, so the two voices of reason have exited stage right. Bolton is a diehard hawk from way back and he's in his element now. However I don't know if Trump will attack Iran because he's an isolationist at heart and he's always wanted to get out of the wars that the US have been involved in since 2001. He also is wanting to withdraw from NATO as well, so we'll see. However, having said that, he has a short fuse temper wise, and it doesn't take much to set him off, especially if he sees it on Fox.

 

[John Fedup]

No idea where the US Senate stands on the latest revelations but Republican members are soon to face awesome decisions and I am not sure which will happen first, a total freeze on any foreign military adventure to divert attention from his legal situation or a yes verdict on the soon to come House impeachment vote.

 

[yavar]

Iran cascade of 20 advanced IR6 nuclear centrifuges in Natanz
Iran starts installing chain of 20 IR6 centrifuges

 

[yavar]

Iran Supreme National Security Council: Iran suspended some commitment in JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) and gives 60 days to EU before further Action
Iran gives JCPOA parties 60 days before reducing further commitments

 

[yavar]

Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif: failure of EU INSTEX will led to Iran exiting NPT



Leaving NPT one of Iran's numerous options: FM Zarif
Leaving NPT one of Iran’s numerous options: FM Zarif

 

[yavar]

Iran President Rouhani: EU failure in INSTEX (oil and Banking trade) after 60 days period will led to cancelling enrichment level, China failure in JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) start work on Arak reactor IR40 after 60 days period will meet with father action

 

[yavar]

EU rejects 'ultimatums' from Iran over nuclear deal JCPOA
EU rejects 'ultimatums' from Iran over nuclear deal: EU statement

 

[2007yellow430]

I guess it’s about getting what you bargained for. Iran was promised better trade, economic benefits. When the US withdrew, and reimposed sanctions, causing these benefits to disappear, they felt the deal was breached. It’s old term law that when one side breaches, performance is excused. Legally Iran has an excuse. This is not going to play well. Iran won’t be able to trade, irrespective of what the EU does if they don’t deal with the US, by imposing sanctions. Benton-Woods set the dollar as the reserve currency. The EU could decide if the US won’t comply, the won’t accept dollars. So it’s put up, or shut up time. Will the EU act to give Iran what they bargained for or not? If not, expect Iran to declare the deal void, and go about their way. Then you either let them, or go to war. Not good at all.

Art