The Iran deal

[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"?