While the Trumper gave a good teleprompter speech today on the topic of Iran and nukes, he demonstrated great ignorance on the reality that is Iran. He clearly is reflecting the Israeli right wing view on the matter, one that is enthusiastically embraced in the United States by the folks we now refer to as Neo Conservatives. (These are the same people that Phil Giraldi wrote about, America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars).
Trump's speech was laughable. The following passages illustrate how delusional the Trump is when it comes to Iran:
Iran is under the control of a fanatical regime that seized power in 1979 and forced a proud people to submit to its extremist rule. This radical regime has raided the wealth of one of the world's oldest and most vibrant nations, and spread death destruction and chaos all around the globe. . . .
The regime harbored high level terrorists in the wake of the 9/11 attacks including Osama bin Laden's son. In Iraq and Afghanistan groups supported by Iran have killed hundreds of American military personnel. The Iranian dictatorship's aggression continues to this day. The regime remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist networks. it develops, deploys and proliferates missiles that threaten American troops and our allies. It harasses American ships and threatens freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and in the Red Sea. It imprisons Americans on false charges, and it launches cyber-attacks against our critical infrastructure, financial system and military.
The U.S is far from the only target of the Iranian dictatorship's long campaign of bloodshed. The regime violently suppresses its own citizens it shot unarmed student protestors in the street during the green revolution. This regime has fueled sectarian violence in Iraq and vicious civil wars in Yemen and Syria. In Syria, the Iranian regime has supported the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad's regime. And condone Assad's use of chemical weapons against helpless civilians including many, many children.
Where does one begin to counter such lies and misrepresentations? Who has been the most destabilizing force in the Middle East over the last 27 years? I would suggest that the United States multiple invasions of Iraq, military action in Libya and our decision to help arm and train Islamic rebels keen on overthrowing Syria's President Assad qualifies us as the biggest meddlers and chaos makers.
One of the recurring big lies being pushed in the media--by Republicans and Democrat as well as some of our allies--is that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the World.
The chutzpah award on this point goes to Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, who declared in October 2015:
. . .that Iran “is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it is working on destabilizing the region. If it wants to build good relations with its neighbors, it ought to deal with them based on the good neighborliness principle and not to interfere in their affairs. We [would] welcome such a step.”
The Saudi Foreign Minister conveniently ignored the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes and attacked America on 11 September 2001 were Saudis not Iranians.
Iran is no innocent on the issue of terrorism. The Revolutionary Guard and their agents, following the ordres of the Mullahs, were responsbile for the deaths of thousands from hundreds of terrorist attacks since the early 1980s.
When Iran fell under the rule of the Ayatollah, it routinely relied on terrorism—bombings, hijackings and kidnapping—to pursue its goals. They were directly involved in the taking of U.S. hostages in Lebanon and the bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks. But Iran’s actions were not just blind hatred. There was a strategic context to Tehran’s use of terrorism. Iran was at war with Iraq, which had the full support of the United States and other western countries. For Iran terrorism was a way to punch back against a more powerful military foe. The pragmatism on the part of Iran was further evidenced by the fact that it had a secret arrangement with Israel in acquiring weapons to use against Iraq.
But it is wrong to insist that Iran continues to be the major force driving the terrorist violence seen in the Middle East, Europe, Africa and America. In contrast to the period 1982 thru 1989, which was the high water mark of Iran reliance on terrorism as a key component of its foreign policy, Iran has shifted towards more conventional political and military methods for achieving its national goals.
The terrorism that marked Iran twenty years ago is no longer its calling card. The role of chief terrorist has been taken over by a legion of radical Sunni groups. Starting with the Al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, DC in September of 2001, the identity of the terrorist attacks has shifted dramatically, with the vast majority of the violence attributable to radical Sunni Islamists. According to the latest edition of the Global Terrorism Index (http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2016.2.pdf) , a publication of the Institute for Economics and Peace, four groups accounted for 74% of all fatalities from terrorism in 2015—Boko Haram, Al-Qaida, the Taliban and ISIS.
Consider the list of Muslim Groups presently actively hostile to the US:
- The Islamic State (Sunni)
- The Al-Nusra Front (Sunni)
- Al-Qa'ida Central (Sunni)
- Al-Qa'ida in Magheb (Sunni)
- Al-Qa'ida in Arabian Peninsula (Sunni)
- Boku Haram (Sunni)
- Al-Shabbab (Sunni)
- Khorassan Group (Sunni)
- Society of the Muslim Brothers (Sunni)
- Sayyaf Group in the Philippines (Sunni)
- Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Sunni)
- Lashgar i Taiba (Sunni)
- Jemaa Islamiya (Sunni)
- Houthis (Shia)
Of the 14 groups, only the Houthis are tied to Iran.
The last significant terrorist attack that is believed to have been carried out with Iran’s support was the July 2012 bombing of the bus hauling Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. But that was not just gratuitous violence to kill Jews for the sake of killing Jews. It was classic retaliation for what Iran perceived as Israel’s backing of a terrorist campaign in Iran.
The attack on the bus followed an 18-month series of attacks in Iran resulting in the murder of engineers and scientists believed to be involved with Iran’s Nuclear program. Iran blamed Israel (and to a lesser degree the United States) for the following murders:
January 12, 2010 Masoud Alimohammadi Iranian Physicist
KILLED IN A CAR BOMB. MAJID JAMALI FASHI REPORTEDLY CONFESSED TO AN IRANIAN COURT HE HAD BEEN RECRUITED BY MOSSAD TO CARRY OUT THE EXECUTION
November 29, 2010 Majid Shahriari Iranian nuclear scientist
KILLED IN A CAR BOMB. ACCORDING TO THE GERMAN NEWSPAPER DER SPIEGEL ISRAEL WAS BEHIND THE KILLING.[223]
November 29, 2010 Attempted killing of Fereydoon Abbasi. Iranian nuclear scientist
WOUNDED IN A CAR BOMB.[224][225]
July 23, 2011 Darioush Rezaeinejad Iranian electrical engineer
KILLED BY UNKNOWN GUNMEN ON MOTORCYCLE. REZAEINEJAD WAS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH-VOLTAGE SWITCHES, WHICH ARE USED IN A KEY COMPONENT OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS. SUCH SWITCHES MAY ALSO HAVE CIVILIAN SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS.[230] THE GERMAN NEWSPAPER DER SPIEGEL CLAIMED MOSSAD WAS BEHIND THE OPERATION. HE IS THE THIRD IRANIAN NUCLEAR SCIENTIST KILLED SINCE 2010.[231]
November 12, 2011 Major General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam
THE MAIN ARCHITECT OF THE IRANIAN MISSILE SYSTEM AND THE FOUNDER/FATHER OF IRAN’S DETERRENT POWER BALLISTIC MISSILE FORCES. HE WAS ALSO THE CHIEF OF THE “SELF-SUFFICIENCY” UNIT OF THE ARMY OF THE GUARDIANS OF THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION KILLED ALONG WITH 17 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS KNOWN AS BID KANEH EXPLOSION. THOSE WHO DIED ARE KNOWN AS THE “SHAHIDAN GHADIR”.
IRANIAN OFFI CIALS SAID THAT THE BLAST AT THE MISSILE BASE WAS AN ACCIDENT, AND RULED OUT ANY SABOTAGE ORGANIZED BY ISRAEL. AGIR SAID THAT THE EXPLOSION “HAD TAKEN PLACE IN AN ARMS DEPOT WHEN A NEW KIND OF MUNITIONS WERE BEING TESTED AND MOVED”. HOWEVER, TIME MAGAZINE CITED A “UNNAMED WESTERN INTELLIGENCE SOURCE” AS SAYING THAT MOSSAD WAS BEHIND THE BLAST. ISRAEL NEITHER CONFIRMED NOR DENIED ITS INVOLVEMENT.[233] [234] [235]
January 11, 2012 Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan Iranian nuclear scientist
THE BOMB THAT KILLED AHMADI-ROSHAN AT THE NATANZ URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY, AND ANOTHER UNIDENTIFIED PERSON WAS A MAGNETIC ONE AND THE SAME AS THE ONES PREVIOUSLY USED FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF THE SCIENTISTS, AND THE “…WORK OF THE ZIONISTS [ISRAELIS],” DEPUTY TEHRAN GOVERNOR SAFARALI BARATLOO SAID.[236] [237][238]
One can easily imagine the outrage and demands for revenge that would sweep America if we believed that Iran was sending operatives into the United States to murder engineers and scientists working on projects, such as drones.
But these facts do not matter. The popular and persistent meme in the US media is that Iran is an unrepentant terrorist state. Iran, if you listen to the pundits, is using its special operations military forces to train and equip terrorists. But in an ironic twist, it is the United States that is implicated in attacks against Iran.
Author Sean Naylor, Relentless Strike, which details the history of operations and missions carried out by U.S. Joint Special Operations Command aka JSOC over the last 30 years, sheds light on an uncomfortable truth regarding our support to terrorists. To quote an old cartoon, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
“JSOC personnel also worked with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a militant Iranian exile group that had based itself in Iraq after falling afoul of the ayatollahs’ regime in Tehran. The State Department had placed the MEK on its list of designated terrorist organizations, but that didn’t stop JSOC from taking an attitude of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” toward the group. “They were a group of folks that could transit the border, and they were willing to help us out on what we wanted to do with Iran,” said a special operations officer.”
The MEK were classified as a terrorist group until the United States decided that as long as the MEK would help kill Iranians rather than Americans that they were no longer terrorists. The MEK’s history of terrorism is quite clear:
- During the 1970s, the MEK killed U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
- In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar.
- Near the end of the 1980-1988 war with Iran, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces.
- In 1991, the MEK reportedly assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north.
- In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.
- In April 1999, the MEK targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff.
- In April 2000, the MEK attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters, Tehran’s interagency board responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq.
- The normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. One of those attacks included a mortar attack against the leadership complex in Tehran that housed the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President.
- In 2000 and 2001, the MEK was involved regularly in mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military and law enforcement units and government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border, although MEK terrorism in Iran declined toward the end of 2001.
Prominent U.S. political and military leaders from both parties have been quite willing to excuse the terrorism of the MEK
In 2011, several former senior U.S. officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, three former chairmen of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, two former directors of the CIA, former commander of NATO Wesley Clark, two former U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, the former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a former White House Chief of Staff, a former commander of the United States Marine Corps, former U.S. National Security Advisor Frances Townsend, and U.S. President Barack Obama‘s retired National Security Adviser General James L. Jones called for the MEK to be removed from its official State Department foreign terrorist listing on the grounds that they constituted a viable opposition to the Iranian government.
As long as a group of terrorists will back the U.S. cause then we have seen the willingness of politicians to ignore their terrorist past. With respect to the MEK it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that ultimately gave the group with a record of killing Americans a pass.
The U.S. Iranian relationship is best described as that of couple trying to find common ground after a bitter divorce. The fall of the Shah in 1979 caused a rancorous, deadly split between Washington and Tehran, with each partner believing they had been betrayed and humilitated by the other.
Within Iran and the United States there are prominent people and groups who readily recite the litany of wrongs they have endured from the other to justify feelings of hatred and disgust. Yet, the focus should be on who is doing what now. It is on that point with respect to the issue of terrorism that Americans must acknowledge that the Iran of 2017 is not the Iran 0f 1986. The vast majority of terrorism that is shaking the world today is conceived and nutured by radical Sunnis bent on destroying Iran. That is a fact that is largely ignored in the United States.
It should be added that one can also draw a direct line from Kermit Roosevelt and British instigating in Mossadegh's overthrow in '53 and the excessive lavishing of military aid and support of the Shah to what happened in '79 and Iranian actions post '79. Particularly during the backdrop of decolonization throughout the 3rd world. There are many in this country who won't forgive Iran for what they did in '79 and there are likewise many Iranians who won't forgive us for what we did in '53; they blame us and we blame them for the acrimonious relationship. Israel and the Gulf states are aware of this dynamic and continue to leverage it for fear of preventing at least some form of regional cooperation or detente between the US and Iran.
Posted by: The Porkchop Express | 13 October 2017 at 05:07 PM
Congress will now try to outdo Trumps hyperbole.
Posted by: Walrus | 13 October 2017 at 05:34 PM
The interesting thing here is that first sentence of your final paragraph, "prominent people and groups". As things exist today in the world, everybody has a government and most of them are really bad at governing. Most of them live in echo chambers, and most of what is put out in media is false, a limited hangout op or a skewed perspective on reality.
Within all of this, both Iranians and Americans are ill served by these groups and figureheads you speak of. Whatever the reason for the conflicts, the only way to solve the issues is to sit down and talk, and let history be where it belongs, in the past. It doesn't mean you cannot take a lesson from history, but while it may rhyme, it only very rarely repeats.
It is always amazing to me that in business circles if the subject turns to politics, there is near universal agreement that governments are very stupid and all are corrupt. And this I have seen from Indonesia to Ghana to Brazil to China - I have never heard anyone sing praises to their government, not ever.
How is it that the ROW sees that things are different now, yet American leaders seem stuck in either the Cold War era or else the Reagan years? I am thinking that maybe it is because a huge chunk of our politicians are taking Alzheimer meds maybe? And AIPAC is paying each of them, and if not AIPAC, then OpenSecrets can show you who is, and that is usually big finance in one form or another.
I have no idea where Trump got this stinking stew of a speech, but it truly shows how ignorant he is of both history and foreign policy. Yet what was one to expect from his background - I doubt he knows who Tamerlane was...
It's tragic that people can get along just fine, but their governments cannot. Yet it is the taxes on the people that government lives on. So the way to strangle your government is patently obvious.
If we were to remove every conflict that the US has been involved in since the Civil War, how many wholly non-US conflicts have there been?? That alone should speak volumes to every American.
Posted by: Oilman2 | 13 October 2017 at 06:09 PM
"They were directly involved in the taking of U.S. hostages in Lebanon and the bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks."
I prefer to regard those attacks as "asymmetric warfare" rather than terrorism. And most of the "terrorism" since then has been unproven, such as the Argentina bombings.
If you look at this Wikipedia list of "Iran terrorism", you find almost nothing which could really be attributed to "terrorism" in the same sense as Al Qaeda or directly connected to Iran. It's a list of charges, not evidence. Dig deeper and the evidence becomes supposition. For example, almost everything related to Lebanon refers to Hizballah, not Iran. Iran is lumped in because of its support for Hizballah. But Hizballah's goals were not "terrorism" in conducting its actions, but war against the US and Israel.
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
But it is true that everything Iran has done recently which has caused it to be charged with "terrorism" is primarily support for Hizballah in Lebanon which is considered a "terrorist organization" by the US, even though it is not. Hizballah is a national resistance organization.
The important thing today is that Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Deal inevitably means war with Iran. All the "measures" that Trump's proposal talks about will have zero effect on Iran, which has withstood and evaded sanctions for the past thirty-five years.
This will leave the US with only one "option" - which is not an "option" at all, but a GOAL. The US elites have intended war with Iran for the last seventeen years and have hated Iran since the Iranian revolution. Israel has intended it for the last who knows how long.
I've been predicting war with Iran since around the time of the Iraq war. It hasn't happened yet in my opinion because of two reasons: 1) the 2007 NIE on Iran which stated that Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program; and 2) Israel doesn't want one until Syria and Hizballah have been neutralized as effective actors in such a war - the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 had that as its primary goal.
The latter continues to be the main stumbling block to a war with Iran. Syria is not going anywhere and will likely emerge stronger than it was from the current crisis. So now the rhetoric turns against Hizballah in recent weeks. The question now is will Israel unilaterally attack Hizballah or will it continue to be in a holding pattern until some other means can be found to get either the US and/or NATO to justify an attack on Lebanon. Or will it find some way to get Trump to unilaterally attack Iran.
Based on Trump's actions, it will not be that hard for Israel to get him to attack - or support an Israeli attack on - Lebanon and then a war with Iran. Can anyone doubt that if Israel unilaterally attacks Lebanon that Trump will support Israel totally? Perhaps even deploy US military assets - already available due to the Syria crisis - directly against Hizballah?
The consequences of an Iran war will be enormous. The cost will be four times the size of the Afghan and Iraq wars, it will go on for a decade or more because Iran will never surrender, and it will cost scores of thousands of US lives rather than a mere 5,000 over six years like Iraq. The oil price increase will beggar the US economy despite shale oil. And if Iran truly does employ terrorism, it will bring that terrorism home to US soil.
In my view, this outcome is almost inevitable.
Posted by: Richardstevenhack | 13 October 2017 at 06:12 PM
PT with all due respect, if I was going to write a speech promoting my decision, to convince my constituencies that I am making a good decision in thier behalf to protect thier influence I wouldn’t have done it much different propaganda misinformation than what was written for him. The problem is IMO this was not in the interest of US, and American people don’t know that.
Posted by: Kooshy | 13 October 2017 at 06:13 PM
IMO, The western world problem with Iran in ME is, that the American ( or any other country/power) plan for a hegemonic control of the wetern Asian region will
not suceed (it never did) without Iran being capitulated or worst if Iran acts and decide independently.
This is the issue and not the nuclear case and point is Syria, Iraq, Bahrain Yemen etc.
Posted by: Kooshy | 13 October 2017 at 06:26 PM
They've already staged a warm-up act
notice the audience
https://www.c-span.org/video/?435561-1/foreign-affairs-panel-reviews-us-policy-toward-iran
Posted by: Croesus | 13 October 2017 at 06:27 PM
https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/intense-fighting-breaks-pro-govt-pro-kurdish-forces-northern-iraq/
Right on cue.
Posted by: sid_finster | 13 October 2017 at 07:17 PM
Not necessarily, see http://www.smh.com.au/comment/peter-hartcher-blame-shame-and-party-lines-20171013-gz0gza.html
This article is interesting- it cites Pew research to describe how people in USA are willing to consciously vote for Trump against their own interests. Once there is this degree of irrationality in voter behavior, we're in very dangerous territory.
Posted by: Henshaw | 13 October 2017 at 07:18 PM
Thank you for a lucid summary of US-Iranian relations which so clearly illuminates the rank stupidity of American diplomacy.
Posted by: Michael Smith | 13 October 2017 at 07:27 PM
Unfortunately, Western hegemonic control of the region is pretty much out of the question at this point. Iran will not capitulate AND it will act independently--or in conjunction with regional neighbors.
ME regional hegemony, at least since WW2, has mostly been a duel between Iran, Iraq, and Israel. Iraq is out of the game. It's mostly down to Iran and Israel--Turkey and Saudi to a lesser degree. Iran was already once a US proxy, particularly while we were busy with the VN war. The Iranian ethos post '79, however, was "neither East nor West." Our attitude/policies towards Iran since 79, however, have resulted in Iran developing itself as its own country, free of a guiding hand. Iran learned the hard way that to be independent it had to make decisions that were independent of a powerful benefactor (US or Soviets at that point). I can't see Iran giving up, for any reason, any independence or regional influence it feels it has rightly earned especially since Iranians consider it a point of national pride.
Whatever Trump is doing, or thinks he is doing, is beyond ridiculous besides suiting the interests of the Israelites, the Khaleejis, and, to a lesser extent, the evangelicals--if not himself personally setting up a political win in the future whereby Congress either: acquiesces to his "strategic genius" (a la the NFL) or they behave responsibly and salvage the JCPOA which he can then hammer them with for being "soft" or "appeasing the enemy" in 2018/2020. All provided this doesn't kick off a major shitstorm beforehand.
Posted by: The Porkchop Express | 13 October 2017 at 07:27 PM
I so am stealing this m
Posted by: sid_finster | 13 October 2017 at 08:13 PM
Walrus
Yes, I think so, too. But Congress will also have to assess what action it would take. Whatever Congress decides on sanctions regarding US companies is not effective. Congress efforts to forbid Boeing to deliver aircraft to Iran, would just have the effect that Iran would fly Airbus. The loser with that would just be Boeing and noone else.
The only interesting thing are secondary sanctions in the style: either you do business with us or Iran. It means EU companies had to decide: either do business with the US or with Iran. The main problem here may become the US-EU relationship. The current mood in the EU seems to be more and more to retaliate US punishment on EU companies for doing business with Iran quid pro quo. It means if the US Congress would punish Airbus, VW or Total for doing business with Iran the EU would retaliate in kind against the US. So, in effect, instead of punishing Iran the US Congress would just start a trade war with the EU. Trump's speech today may have increased the chances that this scenario happens even in the case US Congress doesn't relate new anti Iran sanctions to the nuclear file, because in the EU may grow suspicions that new sanctions are borne out of anger about the nuclear deal.
I think the US Congress is in a difficult situation here if it wants to impose effective sanctions on Iran. The only realistic way to do it is convincing one from the western signatories France, Britain, EU or Germany, that Iran violated the UN security resolution, which made the deal part of international law.
But I doubt that the opponents of the deal will manage to do this.
Posted by: Bandolero | 13 October 2017 at 08:14 PM
Publius Tacitus -
We finally agree on something.
The question now is how to stop the drift towards the bombing of another country? Iran needs some of those Russian influence bots (SNARK alert, I realize that would make it even worse once known or suspicioned). Perhaps the neo-conservatives are already starting a campaign to label you as an Iran bot.
Posted by: mike | 13 October 2017 at 08:58 PM
Kooshy - "...was not in the interest of US, and American people don’t know that. "
I know it. The majority of Americans know it, they voted against Trump (53.9% of the electorate). And it seems from the comments here that some Trump voters know it now also.
Posted by: mike | 13 October 2017 at 09:08 PM
I think I said the same thing. I don’t know what and where DT’ plans with regard to Iran are and come from. But there is one thing due strictly to geography, demography and history that I have read I am sure of that you s nothing in Western Asia can suceed if Iran as A nation doesn’t wish so as I wrote case and point is various US plans as the region’ hegemon in the ME ever since the Iranian revolution.( Iranian independence from western security system), Case and point are plenty, starting with Lebanon in 80’ to Yemen in 2017, one just should count the US success in policy implementations in ME ever since the revolution, that number amounts to zero including Israel wars and KSA’.
Posted by: Kooshy | 13 October 2017 at 09:09 PM
Congress can stop Airbus dead in its tracks. Airbus aircraft contain mountains of American owned technology in the avionics and engines. All the supply contracts, at least for sensitive technology (ie cutting edge stuff like turbine blades, ring laser gyros, accelerometers, etc.) contain clauses forbidding sale or disposal to third parties without U.S. permission.
If Congress stops Boeing, it will also stop Airbus.
Posted by: Walrus | 13 October 2017 at 09:14 PM
Mike with due respect I don’t see a war nor I see US getting in any direct war with any country capable of hurting US interests or allies.
Proxy stuff sure both sides will do plenty but direct war in someone else’s turf where you US and her allies are more vanurable I don’t see coming actually I never did even when Chaney had his arms at his waste facing Iran on a deck of US ship. I believe you know geography and history and culture of Iran, IMO a war with Iran is not as easy as is being told to Americans.
Posted by: Kooshy | 13 October 2017 at 09:17 PM
Walrus
"If Congress stops Boeing, it will also stop Airbus."
The problem for Congress here is that the EU just retaliates in kind and instead of punishing Iran the result of Congress' action may just be a lose-lose EU-US trade war.
All
I made in my previous commantry a serious and substantial mistake: of course, JCPOA can only be reversed it ALL of the US-EU partners do that together. One EU partner is not enough for the US, it needs to be ALL.
Posted by: Bandolero | 13 October 2017 at 09:34 PM
Trump has soothed Arabs, Israelis, Shoah Cultists, discomfited Republicans, and shown EU who calls the shots.
He has not done anything against JCPOA and Iran - yet. Nor has he presented any Sttategy for dealing with Iran, Arabs, and others.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 October 2017 at 10:14 PM
Agree, Kooshy.
Iran: is were he can most easily deliver on his campaign promises. He clearly showed his intentions. Obviously most prominently in his speech at AIPAC, but also in his foreign policy speech.
No camouflage, concealment or deception in this case, not that I would put that past him generally. This is straightforward, Trumpism. OK, maybe by passing it on to congress. He is the boss, they will do it for him. His crowds must love that.
Yes, his claqueurs are in awe. Let's see Google: site:** Trump + Iran. Let me pick the conservative tree house, since I am sure sundance delivers dutifully:
https://tinyurl.com/ConTree-Trump-Iran
first comment post speech report:
Orygun says:
October 13, 2017 at 1:46 am
We are so fortunate to have President Trump to represent us. The seemingly invisible Americans that are just trying to raise a family and survive.
People in the Breitbart comment section must be heavily pleased too, let's check. Speech:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/10/13/trump-decertifies-iran-nuclear-deal-threatens-terminate/
first comment:
Da Trumpstah • 9 hours ago
Cue the soros bots disguised as disgruntled trump supporters to be outraged in 3....2....
first of 118 responses:
Obamas Iran deal was a betrayal and infused over 100 billion dollars into the terrorist regime. Nothing can be done to get that money back, they already have it. Trump is giving Congress the chance to salvage, remedy and rectify what we still can. Just one example of for instance, the terrible nuke "deal" in place allows Iran to inspect the Parchin military site themselves -
unacceptable. Bottom line, the deal in place does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Remember BJ Clintons "deal" with N Korea that would prevent them from getting nukes? Lies Lies Lies. If Congress can't get the measures that needs to be in place, Trump will withdraw completely. Might as well. Iran is gonna try to go nuclear with or without the current deal in place. We need to box them in where we have full transparency and more controls. I believe Trump put us on a path to do just that. Only time will tell of course
I suppose, everyone remembers how Trump used this meme.
Posted by: LeaNder | 13 October 2017 at 10:57 PM
The irony may well be, that in this case he very, very much relies on the Iran threat tradition established by his hated "fake news". They surely established the topic on the average American's mind.
Posted by: LeaNder | 13 October 2017 at 11:02 PM
According to Politico, Trump has been listening to Nikki Haley talk about Iran for some time:
"Two weeks after her return from [a July IAEA visit in] Vienna, in remarks at AEI, Haley floated what one NSC official described as the “initial trial balloon” for the path the administration laid out on Friday. “The purpose of the AEI speech was to figure out, ‘Is this gonna work? Does this thread that needle?’” the official said, describing a strategy by which the president would decertify the deal but remain a party to it."
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/13/nikki-haley-trump-iran-whisperer-243772
And that IAEA speech that's mentioned, well, yup, Trumps speech reads like muddled shortened version of it:
http://www.aei.org/publication/nikki-haley-address-on-iran-and-the-jcpoa/
Posted by: SC | 14 October 2017 at 01:11 AM
trump is ignorant because he is reflectthe right wing israelis....who have no clue about iranians.except the pistachios
Posted by: dog ear | 14 October 2017 at 07:45 AM
Are we to now conclude that Trump is another Nixon part deaux?
It appears that in the backdrop, Kissinger has been advising Trump regarding U.S. furn policy. Kissinger is a big time NWO (some also spell him deep state as well) advocate.
There are a lot of old heads who intensely, intensely dislike and distrust Kissinger for various reasons, and for Trump to have Kissinger whispering into his right ear, find this very unnerving and disturbing.
Posted by: J | 14 October 2017 at 09:03 AM