The Iran deal

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2018, 05:10 PM)Dill Wrote: 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--


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.

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--


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"?

You do not normalize a state sponsor of terrorism. That’s was a problem with the Iran deal. They will never be able to be trusted.