The Iran deal

[StLucieBengal]

(05-10-2018, 04:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sanctions might not matter.

This move by Trump just emboldens Israel and they want to destroy Iran.  I'm more afraid of them going to war than us.

Emboldening Israel is what’s needed. The coalition of Israel, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman is what is needed to keep a balance in the region.

[hollodero]

(05-10-2018, 04:41 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Overall I can agree with a lot of what you are saying here, as there seems to be moves being made to set up another war. But I disagree that it would be coming from policies within the Republican Party. But would be more from the 'military industrial complex' that includes the CIA that would be in favor of another war like they generated in Vietnam and Iraq.

I do not think these two points are mutually exclusive. Bluntly. First, I feel pretty safe to say that the republican party is more hawkish, more willing to use force, than the democratic party to begin with. But also, and maybe because of that, the military industrial complex seems to be more influential within the republican party. It just does. The policies are shaped accordingly, aka also the guys that rise within the administration. There never was a "Halliburton of the left" (sure part of the military industrial complex, right?) and no Dick Cheney, or no John Bolton, rising in democrat-led admins, and Obama sure preferred the diplomatic (ok, also drone-supported) approach over sending US troops. I'm not saying democrats are not also influenced by the war lobby, I'm sure they are, but when it comes to preparing the ground for a new conflict, possibly culminating in starting a major war, that's far more likely happening under republican leadership. I don't know how I could see it any other way.

I guess let's hope it doesn't. No one could want a war with Iran, although some part of me is afraid the Trump supporters would even go along with that. In which case, oiweh.

[StLucieBengal]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-examining-plan-spark-regime-change-iran/


Looks like there is something coming.

Quote:White House Examining Plan to Help Iranian People Oppose Regime
60 mins ago
Donald Trump John Bolton
Getty Images
The Trump administration is examining a new plan to help Iranians fighting the hardline regime in Iran following America's exit from the landmark nuclear deal and reimposition of harsh economic sanctions that could topple a regime already beset by protests and a crashing economy, according to a copy of the plan obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials in the White House offers a strategy by which the Trump administration can actively work to assist an already aggravated Iranian public topple the hardline ruling regime through a democratization strategy that focuses on driving a deeper wedge between the Iranian people and the ruling regime.

The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009.

The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.

It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region.

"The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command," SSG writes in the paper. "This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months."

Jim Hanson, SSG's president, told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration has no appetite for U.S. military intervention in Iran, but is very focused on efforts to rid Iran of its hardline ruling regime.

"The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime," Hanson said. "But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran."

An NSC official declined to comment directly on the report, but confirmed the administration is consistently working to "change the Iranian regime's behavior."

"Our stated policy is to change the Iranian regime’s behavior of continuous destabilizing regional acts and support of terrorism," the official said, adding that the White House reviews multiple plans and proposals from organizations. "The National Security Council is in receipt of reams of policy papers and reports, some are read with interest, others are not. Receipt of a policy paper in no way means that we are going to adopt the position of that paper."

One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime's grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change

"The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic," said the source, who would only speak on background about the sensitive issue. "Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. It's now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo's job to put this consensus back in place."

Bolton is said to be acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region, the source said.

"John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you're never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone," the source said, adding that "nothing's off the table right now if Israel is attacked."

A second source close to the White House and familiar with the thinking on this issue told the Free Beacon the administration recognizes the chief impediment to the region is Iran's tyrannical regime.

"The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it's the Iranian regime," said the source, who would only speak on background. "Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way."

Regional sources who have spoken to SSG "tell us that Iranian social media is more outraged about internal oppression, such as the recent restrictions on Telegram, than about supporting or opposing the nuclear program. Iranian regime oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created the conditions for an effective campaign designed to splinter the Iranian state into component parts," the group states.

"More than one third of Iran's population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence," the paper explains. "U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities."

American policy towards Iran has failed to explicitly support Iranian opponents of the regime who are thirsty for a change.

"U.S. policy toward Iran currently does not publicly articulate two components vital to success: That a new birth of liberty based in self-determination for the Iranian people should be official policy; and that military action should be anticipated if other measures fail," the paper states.

In addition to preventing Iran from ever building a nuclear weapon, the Trump administration must articulate a credible military threat should Iran choose to launch full-scale attacks on Israel and U.S. forces.

"A credible hard power option exists," according to the plan. "That option does not consist of large invasion forces or long, costly occupations."

Without a regime change, the United States will continue face threats from Iranian forces stationed throughout the region, including in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.

"The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low," the plan states. "Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible."

U.S. officials must make efforts to publicly differentiate between Iran's ruling regime and its people, a point that was also emphasized by Trump in his statement about exiting the deal earlier this week.

"Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace," according to the plan. "We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve."

Update 4:11 p.m.: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the nature of the plan.

Update 4:30 p.m.: This post has been updated with comment from the NSC.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2018, 05:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-examining-plan-spark-regime-change-iran/


Looks like there is something coming.

Ah...regime change.

That always works out for us.  

Was that part of his "mandate" too?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-10-2018, 05:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ah...regime change.

That always works out for us.  

Was that part of his "mandate" too?

Hey if he changes Iran to more moderate regime after bringing peace to Korea. This dude will have serious foreign policy wins and will easily be the most effective since Reagan. Especially if he does it using the Israel, SA, etc coalition. Gives the Middle East a chance moving forward from being the usual mess.

[NATI BENGALS]

Im excited about the higher gas prices. Iran now being closer to a nuclear weapon. And the almost instantaneous rise in tensions in the middle east since the orange turd i mean dear leader Trump showed how smart he was.

The hard part is done. Now we just need to get to regime change and forcing democracy onto another country. Piece of cake every time. I like the way this is going.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2018, 06:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey if he changes Iran to more moderate regime after bringing peace to Korea.  This dude will have serious foreign policy wins and will easily be the most effective since Reagan.  

So all we need for peace in the middle east is a civil war that allows freedom and democracy to flourish.

What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

I am surprised no one has tried it before.  

[StLucieBengal]

(05-10-2018, 06:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So all we need for peace in the middle east is a civil war that allows freedom and democracy to flourish.

What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

I am surprised no one has tried it before.  

I want to leave it to the Saudi/Israel coalition group to pound down Iran. I’m the end that group will need to be the ones to make the ME work.

We have bigger fish to fry in Central America. Canada is also having an issue with them as well. Both Of us need Troops down there and locking it down.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2018, 08:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I want to leave it to the Saudi/Israel coalition group to pound down Iran.   I’m the end that group will need to be the ones to make the ME work.  

What happens when Russia defends Iran against Israel/Saudi Arabia?

U.S. just sits and watches?

[GMDino]

(05-11-2018, 09:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What happens when Russia defends Iran against Israel/Saudi Arabia?

U.S. just sits and watches?

Yes because we have to be friendly with Russia.  Mother Russia would never do anything bad!

At least that's what I have read around some parts here....  

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2018, 09:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes because we have to be friendly with Russia.  Mother Russia would never do anything bad!

At least that's what I have read around some parts here....  

And obviously there is no need for the U.S. to have any influence in the Middle East.  Its not like we have any economic interest in the resources of that region.  And we have no commitment to protect Israel if they come under attack.

[GMDino]

(05-11-2018, 09:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And obviously there is no need for the U.S. to have any influence in the Middle East.  Its not like we have any economic interest in the resources of that region.  And we have no commitment to protect Israel if they come under attack.

Our main commitment is making sure oil prices rise to help Mother Russia and our friends who take care of Scott Pruitt for us!

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 08:56 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: We have 3 branches of government for a reason. I see hypocrisy for you and other praising Obama for circumventing 2 branches, then Trump does the same and since you disagree with his decision you bash him.

Hopefully a better deal is negotiated and then goes through Congress to be passed this time, the right way and only way for it to stick. Hopefully President Trump does does not follow the Obama rogue technique moving forward so long term results achieved and locked in versus a rogue President ignoring the will of Congress.

No one is praising Obama for "circumventing 2 branches"; They are praising him for a diplomatic accomplishment. You have not addressed any of my reasons why the Iran Deal was good and necessary. Instead you seem to be arguing that Trump should act against the national interest because of Obama "hypocrisy" or "rogue technique."

But Obama has not "circumvented" 2 branches with some "rogue technique" for the following reasons.

1. Only the Executive and Congress have enumerated foreign policy powers. The judicial only comes into play when there is a conflict between the the other branches. For example, the Supreme Court has frequently ruled that the executive has foreign policy powers BEYOND those enumerated, since there are powers which belong to every sovereign state which are not enumerated in the Constitution.   No way the Supreme Court was "circumvented" here. Congress was only circumvented in the sense that Obama took a legal executive action.

2. Obama was acting in line with precedent as Chief Exec to conduct agreements with foreign nations in the interest of the U.S.  The EC is not a "rogue technique."  Between 1990-99 alone presidents made 2,857 executive agreements and Congress ratified only 249. Congress would be overwhelmed if it had to turn every international agreement into a "treaty." And these agreements may "stick" like any treaty, when Congress puts aside partisanship. E.g., we have had a naval base in Bahrain since 1971 without a "treaty" simply because Nixon agreed to take over a British base there. That agreement has lasted longer than our 1954 Defense Treaty with the Republic of China, which Carter terminated without Congressional consent in 1978. So treaties don't "stick" without bipartisan support either.

There are only two questions which should have decided whether we keep the Iran Deal.

1. Was Iran in compliance?  And the answer is, yes, it was, though we were not.

2. Was it in US--not Israeli or Saudi--national interest?   I haven't seen you or any else in this forum make a decent case that it was not. All objections tendered so far simply repeat Trump/Netanyahu talking points with no reference whatsoever to specifics of the deal or the existing alternatives in 2013, 2015 or 2018.  All you are really saying is that it would have been better to let Iran get the bomb than sign a "bad deal" which kept them from getting them from getting the bomb.

And finally, I am just flabbergasted that you speak now of a "better deal" being negotiated. With whom? By whom? How? This is not The Apprentice. All international partners just learned that the longevity of any deal with the depends upon partisan politics.  One US party WILL break up deals the other made in the name of the U.S.  Our chief exec is "strong"--which means he attempts to get cooperation by threatening all parties, including our allies, with sanctions.  How has that worked with out own Congress?  Countries were persuaded to give upon billions in profits and to accept higher unemployment rates to keep sanctions on Iran--all in hopes of a greater good. The Iran Deal achieved that good and brought business back to those countries.  Why would it now be in their interest to impose sanctions again?

Very doubtful Trump will make any serious attempt at a new deal, and if he does, by throwing out conditions no one will meet, it will fail and he will blame everyone else.  

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 09:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be honest, though, there was no deal Obama could have worked out that would have passed Congress. They would have opposed a treaty that dismantled everything nuclear forever in Iran and had Iran acknowledging Israel's place in the world simply because Obama did it.

None of that matters to the fact that the deal was preventing Iran from continuing their nuclear weapons program until 2031, but pulling out of the deal means there is a risk of them restarting the program now. The way the deal was done doesn't change the fact that by all accounts Iran was complying with all of the requirements of the JCPOA and so pulling out in this way is illogical.

The problem right now for the US and international community is not how the deal was done--Obama was perfectly with his rights and acting responsibly when he created that deal--the problem is how the deal was undone, the damage to US credibility, the non-proliferation system, our relations with our allies, our leverage over "bad actors" and adversaries like Russia.

People who object to the deal are really saying that we would have been better off with a nuclear Iran in 2015 than a "bad deal" which prevents them from getting one for decades. And the sanctions regime was imploding.  No other deal was realistically possible than the one Obama's team crafted. 

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2018, 09:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What happens when Russia defends Iran against Israel/Saudi Arabia?

U.S. just sits and watches?

We could stop it by simply buying oil from them or pulling some sanctions.

Easy price to pay for ME peace. Plus Russia should be a partner in this stuff.

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2018, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Driving up oil prices just in time to save Russia's economy.

^ This.

Must be an early Christmas present for Vladimir Putin.

I'll think of him next time I go to the pump.

[Dill]

Gosh, thanks for posting that disturbing report, Lucy.  This glimpse into Trump/Bolton style foreign policy priorities provides three major insights into the bust up of the Iran Deal and its fallout.

First--

(05-10-2018, 05:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: "The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic," said the source, who would only speak on background about the sensitive issue. "Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. It's now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo's job to put this consensus back in place."

Looks now like busting the deal was more about breaking this consensus than anything. The Iran Deal was "normalizing" Iran.  The Trump goal is to re-demonize it. A Nuke-free Iran was good for the US, but still a danger to Israeli-Saudi hegemony in the region--at least in the view of Israeli/Saudi hawks. (Israeli intel and such notables as Ehud Barack thought it was a good deal.)

And second, there is an incredible element of Deja Vu here, for those of us who remember the Iraq War.

(05-10-2018, 05:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: "U.S. policy toward Iran currently does not publicly articulate two components vital to success: That a new birth of liberty based in self-determination for the Iranian people should be official policy; and that military action should be anticipated if other measures fail,"....

The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.

Once it was clear there were no WMDs in Iraq--despite the insistence of people like Bolton that Saddam just had to have them--the Bush team claimed we had also invaded to help "the Iraqi people" when sanctions and all efforts to generate internal revolution failed. And the people, thirsting for American style "freedom," would welcome us. They would build an American-style democracy which would be a "beacon of freedom" to other nations in the Middle East.  Others noted we had also taken out the number one threat to Israel as a "positive", a neo con priority.

The new plan for Iran appears to be return to sanctions and foment revolution within Israel's now #1 enemy, a "new birth of liberty."

This depends, of course, on courting the moderates and secularists--the people Trump just screwed by trashing their treaty.

Finally, and most disturbingly--

(05-10-2018, 05:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: "John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you're never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone," the source said, adding that "nothing's off the table right now if Israel is attacked."

"Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way."

In addition to preventing Iran from ever building a nuclear weapon, the Trump administration must articulate a credible military threat should Iran choose to launch full-scale attacks on Israel and U.S. forces.

"A credible hard power option exists," according to the plan. "That option does not consist of large invasion forces or long, costly occupations."

"The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low," the plan states. "Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible."

I agree that the probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program is now virtually nil. It WAS stopped. But that horse has left the barn.

I also doubt Trump/Bolton will successfully foment regime change using the people they have screwed. That leaves only the military option.

Lucy, what do you suppose this other "credible hard power option" could be? What is it that Trump and Bolton don't want "off the table"? Something we will likely have to use, given how Trump/Bolton have framed their policy. Something that would obviate the need for "large invasion forces or long costly occupations"?

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 04:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We could stop it by simply buying oil from them or pulling some sanctions.  

Easy price to pay for ME peace.  Plus Russia should be a partner in this stuff.

LOL. Vote in another round of sanctions and hold their implementation. That will show'em!!

NO ONE has been tougher on Russia than out "strong" leader.

Russia WAS a partner in the Iran Deal.

Until we get a pee video of Putin, I doubt we can expect much from that quarter.

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 05:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Emboldening Israel is what’s needed.   The coalition of Israel, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman is what is needed to keep a balance in the region.

  A Sunni balance. Except for Qatar. That will fix things.

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 04:41 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Overall I can agree with a lot of what you are saying here, as there seems to be moves being made to set up another war. But I disagree that it would be coming from policies within the Republican Party. But would be more from the 'military industrial complex' that includes the CIA that would be in favor of another war like they generated in Vietnam and Iraq.

Mill, people might argue that the MIC/CIA were AMONG groups who pushed the Vietnam War, though hardly primary movers.

One could hardly argue that they pushed the Iraq War though, since that was plainly driven by a cabal within the Bush administration--which was a Republican administration.  

Trump's current NSA is John Bolton, one of the neo cons who helped engineer the Iraq war. And he is a Republican.  Trump is also a Republican. He has the overwhelming support of his party.  Doubtful that many in the MIC or the CIA cheered busting the Iran Deal.  The majority of the intel community certainly understand what just happened to US credibility and to the balance of forces in the Gulf, even if the public does not. They know it wasn't them.