Votel, Mattis and Dunford must be on the same page.

 

"The top U.S. general in the Middle East testified before Congress this week and dropped several bombshells: from signaled support for the Iran nuclear deal, admitting the U.S. does not know what Saudi Arabia does with its bombs in Yemen and that Assad has won the Syrian Civil War.

U.S. Army General Joseph Votel said the Iran agreement, which President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw from, has played an important role in addressing Iran's nuclear program.

"The JCPOA addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran, so if the JCPOA goes away, then we will have to have another way to deal with their nuclear weapons program," said U.S. Army General Joseph Votel.

JCPOA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is the formal name of the accord reached with Iran in July 2015 in Vienna.

Trump has threatened to withdraw the United States from the accord between Tehran and six world powers unless Congress and European allies help "fix" it with a follow-up pact. Trump does not like the deal's limited duration, among other things.

Votel is head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East and Central Asia, including Iran. He was speaking to a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the same day that Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after a series of public rifts over policy, including Iran.

Tillerson had joined Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in pressing a skeptical Trump to stick with the agreement with Iran.

"There would be some concern (in the region), I think, about how we intended to address that particular threat if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA. ... Right now, I think it is in our interest" to stay in the deal, Votel said.

When a lawmaker asked whether he agreed with Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford's position on the deal,Votel said: "Yes, I share their position."

Mattis said late last year that the United States should consider staying in the Iran nuclear deal unless it was proven Tehran was not complying or that the agreement was not in the U.S. national interest.

A collapse of the Iran nuclear deal would be a “great loss,” the United Nations atomic watchdog's chief warned Trump recently, giving a wide-ranging defense of the accord.

Iran has stayed within the deal’s restrictions since Trump took office but has fired diplomatic warning shots at Washington in recent weeks. It said on Monday that it could rapidly enrich uranium to a higher degree of purity if the deal collapsed.

Syria

Votel also discussed the situation in Syria at the hearing.

During the Syrian army's offensive in eastern Ghouta, more than 1,100 civilians have died. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, backed by Russia and Iran, say they are targeting "terrorist" groups shelling the capital.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned on Monday that Washington "remains prepared to act if we must," if the U.N. Security Council failed to act on Syria.

Votel said the best way to deter Russia, which backs Assad, was through political and diplomatic channels.

"Certainly if there are other things that are considered, you know, we will do what we are told. ... (But) I don't recommend that at this particular point," Votel said, in an apparent to reference to military options.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked whether it was too strong to say that with Russia and Iran's help, Assad had "won" the civil war in Syria.

"I do not think that is too strong of a statement," Votel said.

Graham also asked if the United States' policy on Syria was still to seek the removal of Assad from power.

"I don't know that that's our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus remains on the defeat of ISIS," Votel said, using an acronym for Islamic State. "  Zerohedge

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-18/us-centcom-chief-comes-clean-generals-three-stunning-admissions-mid-east

-----------------

Votel would never say anything like this if he were not in agreement with Mattis and Dunford.  This is illustrative of a weakening of Israeli/AIPAC/Saudi  influence in US Middle East policy.  It will be interesting to see if Votel is rebuked for these statements.  pl

 

Comments

[ex-PFC Chuck]

@45
re "I agree with your statement, for many years has been this in way, an oligarchy of political class under control of rich and associated corporate feudalism."
Yes, and it's not an accident. See this: Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America. It began in the 1950s and is still underway.
http://amzn.to/2pvC2zx

[turcopolier]

Peter AU

US officers who are students at a senior service school like the Army War College write papers on a variety of subjects as part of their school work. Some of these are published by the school's press or journal. these papers are not policy papers of the service. It is a common mistake to think that they are. An official paper that contained opinion like that which you cite would not be available to the public. pl

[Peter AU]

Thanks. I have read a few of these and was unsure if they were opinions of individual officers or studies commissioned to help decide a policy.

[Peter in T.O]

How brain-dead must the constituents of Graham be to continue to elect a man who has made no attempt to govern on their behalf, but rather openly carry the Israeli agenda in Senate?

[turcopolier]

Peter AU

When Elihu Root started the Army War College and for many years thereafter the institution was part of the Army General Staff and the students did planning work and theoretical studies for the War Department during their time in the course, but that time is long gone. these are now altogether educational institutions. pl

[lally]

Israeli journo Barak Ravid revealed that a "secret meeting" held at the WH on Dec 12th between "senior Israeli and US delegations" led by McMaster and Meir Ben-Shabbat after reaching "a joint strategic work plan to counter Iranian activity in the Middle East." The article cites a "joint document" resulting from two days of talks between the principals.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-us-and-israel-reach-joint-plan-to-counter-iran-1515110887-51be0529-3ff5-4d8f-89f1-6c89423d4dff.html

[Thomas]

"To post same again, I think the IDF will be able to hold a line against Hez/SAA/Hajd Al Shaabi somewhere in the Golan but positional warfare is death for the IDF: Body bags, lots. Meanwhile Hezbollah missiles will wreck Tel Aviv. I believe those two things will put Israel into an existential crisis. Many Jews will decide that New York is the promised land. Others will scream blue murder & try to get the US, the UN or any guilty libs to help: Will you?"

Ironic isn't it? Others are suppose to come and save them when half their population won't try (and considering how the Chasidim engage in conflict with their police they would make the perfect secret weapon by having the enemy stop fighting and start laughing).

Looking at the reactions in all spheres it indicates the game is up and the instigators don't know what to do, so throwing everything and anything hoping something sticks is the rearguard act while bravely boasting "We are in control here".

[Richardstevenhack]

I doubt Hizballah has any interest in initiating a war with Israel just to get the Golan Heights back.

Any inspection of the land taking place is likely because Israel's opponents know that Israel will attack Lebanon and possibly Syria again, and they want to be ready to extend the fighting to the Golan area where allegedly Hizballah has established a presence.

Israeli war planners are undoubtedly aware of all this and when Israel attacks Hizballah again Israel is likely to initiate an attack into Syria to forestall any Hizballah response from the Golan region. Whether this will be effective and how many Israeli forces will have to be diverted from southern Lebanon to achieve it is unknown. I do expect Israel to commit much greater land forces to the next war than they did in the 2006 war.

[Richardstevenhack]

Nope. No clue. I would assume the "usual suspects", i.e., those Senators who work mostly for Israel rather than the US, supported by the usual "think tanks" being run by neocons.

I've no idea how the Pentagon feels about it - they have so many bases worldwide that one more probably didn't matter to them regardless of the geopolitical implications.