On Poison Pills and Game Changers (by CP)

The US-Iranian nuclear deal has many enemies, most notably Israel (and their volunteer/hiree US proxies) and the Saudis, who are getting bonkers about the prospect of a shifting regional balance of power in which Iran emerges as a regional power again. Both are lashing out angrily, on several fronts:

Israeli Theatre

♦ The DC Front

Israel has mobilised its surrogates and its more deep pocketed partisans have shifted campaign contributions to Republicans in order to punish the Democrats and disincentivise them from supporting Obama's rapprochement with Iran, while at the same time making it a partisan issue, leveraging the US partisan divide in Israel's favour.

♦ The IAEA and Sanctions Front

Former IAEA nuclear inspector Robert Kelly has lined out in an interview with the Deutsche Welle how the deal with Iran contains a poison pill that can be used to delay a clean bill of health for Iran by perpetuating inspections forever:

Since dispelling any doubt about a possible military use of Irans nuclear program is a precondition for lifting the sanctions, perpetuating doubt is a way to perpetuate the sanctions.

"Robert Kelley: The IAEA is receiving external information, primarily from intelligence agencies in Israel and the United States. And they have written up ... a whole series of allegations that Iran had a nuclear weapons program prior to 2004 and it may have continued past that point. ... All those things are thrown out as accusations with very little proof or information where the allegations came from.

DW: How credible are those accusations in your eyes?

Robert Kelley: Many of these accusations I find to be quite incredible. ...

DW: ... Could those allegations be part of an effort to derail the nuclear deal with Iran?

Robert Kelley: Absolutely yes! It is a poison pill that is included in the deal. People know that the IAEA is going to be unable to reach a decision on these issues because it is beyond their capability. So when the IAEA needs to be satisfied before the sanctions are lifted, history tells you: This will not happen."

That is the very point, the idea being having the IAEA inspect ad nauseam and keep it that way by periodically throwing in new accusations (perhaps a Laptop of Doom II), which then too, must to be investigated ad nauseam to dispel any lingering doubt etc. pp. and keep the dance going, with the added hope that Iran at some point, nauseated, quits.

♦ The Lebanon and Syria fronts

All is quiet on the northern front, for now, with the exception of occasional Israeli attacks against against targets of opportunity in Lebanon and Syria.

The Israelis are itching for revenge for their embarassing defeat in 2006, to 'restore deterrence', which, miraculously, wasn't restored by bombing Gaza the last time, and the time before, and the time before that or by the sack of Southern Lebanon and Beirut from the air in 2006. Puzzling!

Suggestion: Maybe the whole idea of periodically 'restoring deterrence' is BS? After all, for that periodic restoration to be necessary, deterrence needs to get lost all the time. How come? Perhaps there is something fundamentally flawed in the approach.

In the Israeli view, the reason for the dysfunction is that Israel has not achieved a decisive victory. They seek a Siegfrieden (i.e. winner-take-all), not the status quo or, it's a bit naive, I know, peace.

Israel sees Hezbollah engaged in Syria fighting with Assad against the headchopping Jihadis and may conclude that Hezbollah is overstretched. They also probably estimate that that constitutes a weakness and that if they attack Hezbollah now, they'll have an easier time than in 2006, perhaps even be supported by Jihadis from Syria, catching Hezbollah in a two front war. Given that Saudi Arabia and Israel form a de-facto alliance against Iran, the Saudis would probably be delighted to see Jihadis join that fight.  Already, there are Jihadi incursions into Lebanon.

Israel would, in an attack against Lebanon, massively attack civilian infrastructure in an act of deliberate collective punishment. Their capability to do so has only increased since 2006, and even then the effects were already devastating.

Beyond that, Israel would pursue several objectives in a war in Lebanon - harming Hezbollah and getting even for 2006, helping the Syrian Jihadis against Assad (Israel already treats wounded Jabat al-Nusra fighters from Syria [to wit: Al-Qaeda, swore allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, re-branded]) and perhaps achieve his fall, and aggravate Iran so much as to scuttle the deal.

To be able to aim at all that in one go is for Israel a strong incentive for war in Lebanon. For the Netanyahoo - what's not to like?

Trita Parsi and Paul Pillar have recently published an OpEd in which they line out how Israel in pursuit of a game changer might this summer attack Lebanon.

"There are signs Israel may be at war again this summer. This time, not with Hamas in Gaza but with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such a war may be the result not only of spillover from the Syrian war or ongoing Israeli-Hezbollah tensions. The deciding factor may be an Israeli calculation that war will shift momentum in the U.S. Congress decisively against the pending nuclear deal with Iran -- a deal that critics say will increase Iran's maneuverability in the region, including its support for Hezbollah."

They are probably right. I think that Israel, led by the Netanyahoo, is absolutely capable of such a violent tantrum, which would likely plunge Lebanon into a second civil war (made worse with Jihadis joining the fray from Syria ... so many more apostates to behead). In doing so, Bibi would get a whole lot more killed than just the Iran deal.

One would suppose that what the region right now needs is stability, but the Israelis appear to not think so. Pat's suggestion that Israel's goal appears to be the pauperisation of its neighbours seems disturbingly accurate.

Indeed, with Syria ruled by Jihadis, the Israelis would probably in their inimical way claim that they now (finally) must annex the Golan, for security reasons - after all, in the Jihadis they 'don't have a partner for peace', and while at it, why not take the entire West-Bank too, for security reasons, as an indispensable buffer zone against the Jihadi threat (that they helped create, but why bother).

Saudi Theatre

The Saudis are right now at Peak Paranoid about all things Shia and have convinced themselves that Shia are under every stone, and that they must roll back what in their fertile imagination amounts to a global Shia threat- the Shia Crescend.

There is the Shia minority in Saudi-Arabia proper (~15%, probably under-reported, and treated as second class citizens and potential 5th columnists), there is Iran (~89% of the population being at least nominally Shia), there is Iraq or what's left of it (Shia make up ~70% of the population), there is Yemen (Shia there are ~45% of the population, and never mind they are 5ers), Syria (allied with Iran, and worse, ruled by also apostate Alawites, so, all the same) and even Lebanon (where Shia make up ~27% of the population, also probably under-reported).

I'd like to point out that the Shia live there for a very long time, so their presence shouldn't come as a surprise. And yet, to the Saudis the Shia, once empowered, are a threat, and are all surrogates of Tehran, hear each other think, and have no will or interests of their own.

Apparently to Saudi thinking a Shia is what a Jew was/is to a Nazi, and is being treated with Nurembergish laws, the occasional pogrom and regarded in fear of a Shia World Conspiracy.  Given that Saudi attitudes about Shia as apostates and not much better than dogs are obviously informed by religious bigotry, this now officially extends to their foreign policy.

♦ Yemeni Front

In Yemen the Saudis appear to be content with strangling the Yemenis while bombing them at will with impunity ant try not to go there since a ground war is too costly (and that Pakistani Corps is staying home). The Houthis are apparently quite a handful to deal with Mano-a-Mano and merrily warlike, and the Saudis are not.

In the meanwhile, the UN is reporting that a large scale humanitarian crisis is imminent because of the blockade's effect on food supplies, meaning that widespread hunger is imminent since Yemen must import about 70% of the food it needs. The US aid the blockade and are silent.

 ♦ Syria Front

Saudi and Turkish support for Jihadi groups appears to bear fruit and there have been gains against the Syrian government by the almost completely foreign sponsored opposition.

Under the Nicaragua precedent the support of insurgents in other nations is a violation of national sovereignty and the mandate of non-interference in internal matters of the targeted country. That is so even when one invokes R2P as an extraordinary justification (i.e. legalising conduct otherwise illegal) to intervene anyway (which, notably, the Turks and Saudis don't do).

Turkey and Saudi Arabia are for all practical purposes at war with Syria and support opponents of the Syrian government with supply, intelligence and training in violation of international law. Washington, having been supportive of regime change and the overthrow of Assad from the onset, is more or less silent even as it observes with increasing unease the rise of the Jihadi elements that Turkish and Saudi support is empowering. Not that that slowed the Turks or Saudis down.

Musings

I observe that these days we're back to the Cabinet Wars of old (pre-1914), in which countries, after more or less thorough deliberation, decide in national cabinets to go to war, just as if it still was the prerogative of monarchs.

Another curious parallel is that Washington ever since Clinton has increasingly pursued a 'Politik der freien Hand' - emphasising 'Freedom of Action', in which 'all options' are always 'on the table' - much like Wilhelm II  abandoning the system of alliances and restraints forged by Bismarck to protect Germany from disastrous two-front wars. It didn't serve Germany well.

Today's Cabinet Wars are being waged in violation of the prohibition of war and in violation of national sovereignty, as if war was still, or is again, a normal tool of statecraft. No more, but - who cares? In my impression it was primarily unbound US conduct and precedent since the Clinton years, much exacerbated by Bush 43 and his troupe, that has legitimated such behaviour by states, which had the predictable destabilising effect.

In a sense, I miss the old days in which nations at least had the courtesy to formally declare war. That was in many ways more honest, if just as dumb. O tempora, o mores!

 

Comments

[rich]

Is the US shifting goal posts on Iran deal?

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/05/28/us-shifts-the-goal-post-on-iran-deal/

[William R. Cumming]

CP! This is an amazingly astute and comprehensive post. Yes, the war-lovers remain in charge. THOSE WHO LIVE BY THE SWORD?

[William R. Cumming]

The Armed Forces of the USA about to be totally ignored because they do NOT love war IMO!

[ISL]

Thanks very much for for this summary. Taking a bigger, global picture, it looks like many regional actors in the middle east are quite effectively confounding the super power into flailing wildly and ineffectively.

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2015/05/28/superpower-in-distress/

Reminds me of a pack of hyenas and an isolated elephant (with baby - aka Israel). Only in this case, there are a few other, smaller male elephants in the fog, waiting......

Or non-allegorically, the crisis de jour approach to foreign policy is being overwhelmed.

[b]

Thanks CP, agree but with this bit:

"to wit: ex-Al-Qaeda, having sworn allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, since re-branded]) and perhaps achieve his fall, and piss off Iran so much as to scuttle the deal. "

These ain't "ex-AlQaeda". In the recent Aljazeerah interview Jabhat al-Nusra head Jolani had the AlQaeda flag on his table and reconfirmed strongly that he keeps to his oath to Zawahiri and takes orders from him.

JAN is as much "ex-AlQaeda" as the perpetrators of 9/11 were "moderate rebels".

Current U.S. policy though, and that of its allies, is to support JAN by nearly all possible means against the Syrian government. This U.S. government aligned media (start with the NYT) will tell you that JAN are now "moderate rebels" and that they are indeed pretty nice and not scary at all. Even ISIS is now lauded for its generous family support and the sponsored honeymoons their fighters can have in Raqqa.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/56445f3cc1ca4f51af716c71d54ed483/fighter-paid-honeymoon-caliphates-heart
We can soon expect that IS will also be called somewhat "moderate" or at least "legitimate" while that the governments of Syria and Iraq are seen as barely existing.

[confusedponderer]

b,
thanks for the hint, I corrected that in the text.

[toto]

Great summary of the situation, with a comprehensive take on US-Saudi-Israel shenanigans.

A similar overview of Iranian skullduggery would be a nice complement.

[Valissa]

The article that MKB linked to at the end of his post is worth reading.

Does Obama Really Want an Agreement with Iran? http://www.lobelog.com/does-obama-really-want-an-agreement-with-iran/

While I have always been a supporter of improved relations with Iran, I have remained skeptical about the reality of that. What little optimism I had is fading fast.

[Valissa]

Thanks for the link.

Here's an interesting post by George Friedman (the free weekly report) from last month that is clearly attempting to tactfully say something similar to the power elites he serves with STRATFOR. Naturally this comes with plenty of whitewashing regarding how the US accidentally stumbled into being an empire, but one can disregard that as a polite fiction he's using to make a larger point.

Coming to Terms With the American Empire https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/coming-terms-american-empire
"Empire" is a dirty word. Considering the behavior of many empires, that is not unreasonable. But empire is also simply a description of a condition, many times unplanned and rarely intended. It is a condition that arises from a massive imbalance of power. Indeed, the empires created on purpose, such as Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany, have rarely lasted. Most empires do not plan to become one. They become one and then realize what they are. Sometimes they do not realize what they are for a long time, and that failure to see reality can have massive consequences.

...I have been deliberately speaking of the United States as an empire, knowing that this term is jarring. Those who call the United States an empire usually mean that it is in some sense evil. Others will call it anything else if they can. But it is helpful to face the reality the United States is in. It is always useful to be honest, particularly with yourself. But more important, if the United States thinks of itself as an empire, then it will begin to learn the lessons of imperial power. Nothing is more harmful than an empire using its power carelessly.

[turcopolier]

valissa

I am so old that "empire" does not have a jarring effect on me. My immediate family served for long periods of time in the pre-war2 US empire in the Caribbean, Pacific Ocean area, China, the Philippines, etc. My father was 14 years in PI, two uncles were for decades Asiatic Fleet sailors. I could go on. In spite of all the fashionable BS these days my belief is that our 'empire" did far more good than bad. The shame is that after WW2 the US bought into the ideological basis for one worldism with the corollary that we should run the one word. Pride before the fall. pl

[Valissa]

PL, thanks for your thoughts. I have often thought that much like the ancient Romans fought for the glory of their empire with much pride, that US soldiers would feel something similar, the caveat possibly being as long as they felt the empire they served was something worth serving. Later phases of empires tend to be less inspiring.

Although I was not so interested in history when I was young as I am now, what I was interested in was the ancient empires as forces of civilization. I found them fascinating. I admit that I once participated in a "past life regression" and much to my surprise "discovered" (via my unconscious imagination?) that I had been a Roman soldier, some sort of mid-level officer or commander and that I had enjoyed that. This was shocking to me as at the time I was a hardcore liberal peacenik... LOL... but yet it somehow felt right to me as well. This younger self would never have guessed that later in life I'd enjoy hanging out with retired soldiers and spooks, so maybe there was something to that ;)

Reflecting on your comment on "one worldism" ties in to a personal observation that the US has been acting more like a "world monarch" rather than merely being an empire. I think the US gov't foreign policy could be much improved by acknowledging the label of empire and figuring out what kind of empire it wants to be, how best to use and focus it's power, and what it's responsibilities should be in this rapidly changing geopolitical world.

[Babak Makkinejad]

There are people and countries that wish to be part of the US Empire - such as Costa Rica, UK, India, and Germany.

And there are others that do not; Cuba, North Korea, Iran.

Israelites, Parthian-Sassanidd Confederacy, and the barbaric Germanic tribes did not wish to be part of Roman Empire and resisted - some with more success than the others.

One has to know when to hold them and when to fold them; in my opinion.

[Babak Makkinejad]

BP indicated in the previous thread that economic warfare against ISIS is not waged; ostensibly for humanitarian reasons which I do not credit as EU had no qualms about pushing 20 million into poverty in Iran.

Am I missing something here?

[Jose]

CP - Are you saying the United States is the defender of Zionism and Wahhabism at the same time? LOL

[Valissa]

Just came across this "game changer" (/snark) in the Ukraine. Saakashvili to the rescue? LOL.. Talk about 'News of the Weird'

Ex-Georgia President to Lead Ukraine’s Odessa Region http://www.newsweek.com/ex-georgia-president-lead-ukraines-odessa-region-337523
Mikhail Saakashvili, a former president of Georgia who has been working with Ukraine’s president as a nonstaff adviser since February, will be appointed as leader of the country’s Odessa region, multiple sources confirm. … He's not the only former Georgian official employed by the Ukrainian government: Alexander Kvitashvili, who was the Georgian minister of health care during Saakashvili's second term, is Ukraine’s health minister, and Gia Getsadze, who also worked in the Saakashvili administration, is now a deputy minister of justice in Ukraine.

An article from a couple of weeks ago... please note that McCain declined the position.

McCain Appointed to Ukraine “Reform Advisory Team” Headed by Fugitive Georgian Leader Saakashvili http://www.globalresearch.ca/mccain-appointed-to-ukraine-reform-advisory-team-headed-by-fugitive-georgian-leader-saakashvili/5449619
The list of members included in the advisory group mostly includes current and former European politicians. Among them are the German member of the European Parliament and the current Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs Elmar Brok, Sweden’s former Prime and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Slovakia Mikulas Dzurinda, and Lithuania’s former Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius.

To quote Yale scholar David Bromwich "It almost looks as if a cell of the State Department assumed the management of Ukraine policy and the president was helpless to alter their design." http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/american-scholar-scolds-obama-letting-neo-cons-run-wild-ukraine/ri7283

[confusedponderer]

Jose,
pretty much, except it isn't so much Wahhabis but Salafists and Tafkiris. Slightly different flavour.

That is what the US military is speaking about when they say 'Air cover for Al Qaeda in Syria' when the starry eyed R2Pers and neo-libs speak of 'no fly zones'.

That is also why the Whitehouse insists with a straight face to only arm the moderate opposition. They do that in order to placate the many in DC who haven't gotten the joke yet and apparently still believe that the majority Syrian opposition is secretly secular and only flies those black flags for show, because back in they day their photogenic NGO empowerd anglophiles twittered so nicely from their sponsored smartphones.

There is an inherent and pronounced absurdity in this.

With Israel treating Al Qaeda guys, they aren't any better. They gloss over their idiocy by swaggering solemnly on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. That obviously worked splendidly for them when they aided Hamas to weaken Fatah. But Israelis, US congressmen, supporters and donors love that kind of wanking.

The Jihadis are Israel's mortal enemy. They just didn't get it yet, or if they did, they believe they can handle them behind, shall we say, an Iron Wall, while the headchoppers beyond decimate Israel's old enemies - the Syrians, Lebanese etc pp.

While they do that the headchoppers will be consolidating power, and there is little reason to assume that they, given their obcessing about apostates and dhimmis, bear fond feelings for Jews as equals, never mind sacred real estate.

That is to say that there is a day after tomorrow. Ah, but that is distant future! Israel sure will make up something. Surely, the next mortal enemy will perpetuate US and European support! They have made 'damsel in distress' a business model.

This utter mess is the result of the US being nominally allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia, sharing the interests of neither country while having limited leverage over both whiley they have chosen to go on rampages that do not respect the interests of their patron.

[confusedponderer]

Valissa,
IMO that's just the usual neo-con nepotism- and group-think-machine at work. They are gathering the likeminded to get the policy recommendation they want, with the label 'non-partisan' and 'international'.

[David Habakkuk]

CP

'They have made ''damsel in distress'' a business model.'

Ah yes, but there comes a time when 'damsel in distress' begins to look more like 'get my kids out of the orphanage' – to use a pithy phrase of East End origin.

[confusedponderer]

Further down the road an external enemy like ISIS controlling Syria, Lebanon and Jordan could for someone as demonstrably nutty and tribal as the Netanyahoo be seen as an opportunity:

The Palestinians - why not let ISIS deal with them?

A threat from ISIS or something like it at the border could be the pretext for expulsion Israel is searching for - with the enemy inside and outside, Israel has to defend too long a front, the expulsion of Palestinians would be a 'Frontbegradigung', usually a euphemism for withdrawal, here for expansion.

With all of Palestine under Israeli control, and without Palestinians, Israel would only need to defend a much shorter border, without having to fend off the enemy from within, too - a strategic necessity given poor little Israel's limited means!

All that, of course, presumes that Israel feels able to handle ISIS or any of their neighbours, and I think they do see it that way.

Their behaviour is not that of someone pushed against a wall, fending for his life, but of someone who knows he can choose when and whom to engage from a position of comfort provided by superior military force, facing much weaker enemies.

One only speaks of 'mowing the grass' when one sees the enemy as something to cut down to size - i.e. decimate - as seen fit.

How many aircraft has Israel lost bombing Syria or Lebanon over the last decade? What again was the rough 'exchange ratio' between Israel and her enemies? 1:10?

150:1700 Lebanon 2006
13:1417 in Cast Lead 2008/2009
6:120 in Pillar of Defence 2012
73:2100 Protective Edge 2014

If not for that embarassing episode in 2006, and the unexpected strong resistance in Gaza, Israel has operated with near impunity.

In their pursuit of regional hegemony at the expense of their neighbours, they don't get that with ISIS and their ilk in their immediate neighbourhood it will become plenty less luxurious.

But hey, at least Assad won't be able to demand the Golan back. Well, perhaps Al Baghdadi will?

[William R. Cumming]

Agree with your fine comment!