seemslikeadream wrote:McMaster is OUT
John Bolton (currently a Fox News Contributor) is IN
biggest NEO CON in the world
Where's Nordic now? We tried to tell him. Ha! — even Hillary wouldn't appoint a John Bolton (I don't think).
seemslikeadream wrote:McMaster is OUT
John Bolton (currently a Fox News Contributor) is IN
biggest NEO CON in the world
tron » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:11 am wrote:has iran nukes yet? they friendly with pakistan? i would bet they have something up the sleeve. america declares war on iran, iran call in air support from space.
Lost in the debate on Iran: Israel’s Nukes and the Vanunu Case
Recently there was an extraordinary moment on corporate TV. Late last month CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “Does Israel have nuclear capabilities and nuclear weapons, yes or no?” Netanyahu responded evasively, claiming: “we’ve always been the first to say we wouldn’t introduce it so we haven’t introduced it.” After Cuomo continued to press for a “yes or no answer,” Netanyahu said, “That’s as good an answer as you’re going to get.”
As The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald noted in response to the exchange between Cuomo and Netanyahu, “Kudos to @ChrisCuomo for pressing Netanyahu on that little uncomfortable fact that is typically ignored: the only country in the Middle East with a proven, clandestine nuclear weapons stockpile is . . . Israel. And the rogue state refuses to join the NPT.”
While the Trump Administration professes possible progress toward “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula” and worries about purported Iranian violation of its anti nuclear deal, virtually no one in government or the media is paying attention to the multiple megaton elephant in the room. That is the Israeli nuclear weapons program, estimated as the 6th largest in the world, after the US, Russia, China, England, and France. As with the US, the development of an aggressive, expanding nuclear program is an expression of and contributes to a repressive and ever more militarized society.
Why do the media ignore this question? For one thing they ignore questions about the safety and purpose of the US nuclear weapons arsenal. And nuclear secrecy itself is a good way to keep questions about the safety or use of these weapons out of politics. Secondly Israel generally is a force for US corporate interests in the region.
Thirdly, Israel is a major purchaser of US arms. Fourth, asking embarrassing questions is a good way to lose access to the influential newsmakers, as Michelle Wolf has learned. There is a range of acceptable debate inside the beltway, such as whether Iran is clandestinely building nuclear missiles. But dare not ask if a close ally has been doing the same for a generation. Here American exceptionalism comes into play.
Nuclear weapons are a force for good only in morally pure hands, with ours being the most pure. Israel, a nation whose Old Testament theology helped inform and inspire our Judaic-Christian civilization, is a fully trusted junior partner. (Both nations, just like Iran, have hard right factions eager to annihilate opponents and even deploy nuclear weapons.)
Questioning Israel’s nuclear arsenal or even discussing it is all too rare in Israel and can be harmful to one’s health. If Chris Cuomo wanted to do some ground- breaking journalism he would bring Americans the story of Israeli nuclear defector Mordecai Vanunu, a man whom Daniel Ellsberg called “the preeminent hero of the nuclear era.” Vanunu’s work and sacrifice have given those who care a definitive answer to the question of whether Israel has nuclear weapons.
Vanunu is a former nuclear technician who worked at the Negev Nuclear Research south of Damona. (Wikipedia has a well sourced summary of his life and career.) In 1986, concerned that the facility was developing weapons of mass destruction, Vanunu secretly smuggled in a camera and covertly took 57 photographs. He later passed this material on to British journalists. Vanunu was subsequently lured to Italy, drugged and then abducted to Israel, where he was tried and convicted of treason.
On 15 April 2015, The National Security Archive of George Washington University published documents corroborating Vanunu’s statements regarding the Dimona Negev Nuclear Research Center. As Wikipedia summarizes their findings: “The archived documents detail the discovery of Israel’s nuclear deceptions, debates over Israel’s lack of candor and efforts to pressure the Israelis to answer key questions about the Dimona facility.”
Vanunu’s trial in Israel was reminiscent of star chambers in Stuart era Britain. Forced to wear a helmet so that no one could recognize him, the trial was closed to the public, and transcripts were not available for many years and were only released after legal challenges and heavy redacting. The few reporters allowed in court were warned that any substantive reporting would result in charges against them.
Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 in solitary confinement. Released from prison in 2004, he is still subject to a broad array of draconian restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been arrested several times for violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel.
Based on a considerable body of evidence in addition to Vanunu’s,’Most worldwide intelligence agencies estimate that Israel developed nuclear weapons as early as the 1960s, but the country has intentionally maintained a “nuclear ambiguity”, neither acknowledging nor denying that it possesses nuclear weapons.” Netanyahu only follows that script in his replies to Cuomo. That nuclear ambiguity serves Israel well. By not acknowledging weapons it avoids charges of hypocrisy, and by not denying the possession of such weapons it fosters insecurity and fear in opponents.
Israel follows the conventional nuclear script in one other important way. The charge is that any disclosures about its programs or technologies will aid its enemies in developing their own nuclear weapons. The best way to retain nuclear superiority is through the strictest secrecy possible.
I have had occasion to see deployment of this argument up close and personal. I worked as an associate editor of The Progressive and in 1979 had a cameo role in a widely publicized nuclear secrecy case. Howard Morland, a talented investigative journalist armed only with two physics and two chemistry courses as background showed that using only publicly available sources one could design an H=Bomb. The Carter Administration, largely under the influence of James Schlesinger, tried—eventually unsuccessfully—to block publication of the article on the grounds, as one district court judge put it, that it would give Idi Amin (remember him?) the bomb. The Carter Administration worked on the unspoken assumption that the best way to maintain peace is through nuclear superiority and that superiority can be preserved by nuclear secrecy.
In the course of preparation for the litigation our lawyers learned just how widespread within the world physics community knowledge of nuclear weapons technology is. Physicists even in so- called third world nations were discussing the most sophisticated fusion technologies.
Similarly, Israel claims that Vanunu’s disclosures endangered Israel’s security, but as Ray Kidder, then a senior American nuclear scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has said:
“On the basis of this research and my own professional experience, I am ready to challenge any official assertion that Mr. Vanunu possesses any technical nuclear information not already made public.”
As Nukewatch, an organization founded in 1979 out of The Progresive H Bomb case, puts it:
“Government secrecy and misinformation keep the nuclear industry alive… In the mid 1980s Nukewatch organized hundreds of volunteers across the country to find and document the location of all 1,000 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Prior to our mapping project, U.S. Citizens were never informed of the missiles’ locations, although the information was available to foreign governments through satellite surveillance and treaty agreements.”
Those sites are strategically obsolete but a source of great danger to surrounding communities. In both the United States and Israel the quest to assure nuclear secrecy serves only to remove from politics an issue that should be at its center.
John Buell has a PhD in political science, taught for 10 years at College of the Atlantic, and was an Associate Editor of The Progressive for ten years.
https://www.juancole.com/2018/05/debate ... anunu.html
Trump and Netanyahu May Not Want War With Iran, But They May Fall Into One Anyway
Photo source StateofIsrael | CC BY 2.0 by Addy Cameron-Huff | CC BY 2.0
Iran has an exaggerated reputation in the Middle East for Machiavellian cunning and an ability to outmanoeuvre its enemies. Britain used to be regarded in the same light in the region: its most ill-considered actions were admired as devilishly clever plots when all it was doing was taking advantage of the blunders of its opponents.
The Islamic Republic is similarly seen as the sinister hidden hand behind many developments with which it has little to do. It is accused of creating a corridor of pro-Iranian states from Tehran to the Mediterranean, posing an existential threat to Israel and the Gulf monarchies. The Iran nuclear deal of 2015 is to be dropped by Donald Trump because it has supposedly done nothing to avert these dangers, possibly leaving military action as the only option.
Iranian influence has certainly expanded but only thanks to a series of disastrous US-led military interventions since the start of the millennium. In early 2001 Iran was isolated with Afghanistan to the east under the rule of the Taliban, whose Sunni sectarianism inspired them with hatred of Shia Iran whose diplomats they casually murdered. Iran’s neighbour to the west was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, with whom it had fought a ferocious eight-year war.
All this was to change in two years: in 2001 the US overthrew the Taliban, though it was never able to defeat them permanently or stabilise the rule of its local Afghan allies. In 2003, a US-led coalition invaded Iraq, bringing to power the first Shia government in the Arab world since the days of Saladin and one which inevitably looked to their fellow Shia in Iran.
Western debacles in the Middle East since 9/11 have not produced a learning curve; or there is such a curve, it points down rather than up. In the wake of the popular uprising in Syria in 2011, the US and its regional allies – Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar – backed the armed opposition to president Bashar al-Assad. Whatever they supposed they were doing, they ensured that for Assad to survive he needed maximum engagement of Russia and Iran in Syria.
Are we about to see Iranian influence expand once again as the US and Israel gear up for a confrontation – and quite possibly a war – with Iran? Trump is likely to reimpose sanctions on Iran on 12 May, thereby sinking the nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama. It is a self-harming decision, pillorying Iran for being a great and threatening power while oddly weak enough to be brought to heel by economic sanctions and possible airstrikes.
Sanctions will not work any better against Iran than they did against Iraq in the 1990s or against Syria today. If they do not, then the only alternative is military action by the US or by the US “green-lighting” an Israeli attack. But what happens then? This is the question that was never properly answered when the US intervened directly or indirectly in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Supporters of these ventures had no clear vision of what a US victory would look like and, in so far as they did have a strategy, it rested on wishful thinking.
In reporting these three wars I was always struck by the degree to which the US and its allies were hobbled by an unhealthy belief in their own propaganda. They claimed to be replacing evil rulers who were without popular support, but they were really plugging into complex ethnic and sectarian civil wars in which all sides had supporters who would fight to the death. Instead of facing this reality, they would take refuge in fantasies such as David Cameron’s 70,000 moderate rebel fighters in Syria whom nobody else could find.
It is not yet clear if Trump and the Israeli prime minister do want a war with Iran, but they may blunder into one all the same. Alternatively, they may imagine they will get their way by means of a short successful war and find, as so many leaders have done down the centuries, that they are mired in a long and unsuccessful conflict. Israel had plenty of experience of this in Lebanon, which it invaded in 1982 in a war from which it spent years trying to extricate itself.
But political leaders are never quite as foolish as they might appear when exaggerating foreign threats. Governments everywhere want to present themselves as the sole defenders of their citizens against some hideous menace from abroad. Iran fulfils this role for the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Sunni rulers of the Gulf and acts as a useful glue for national solidarity and a diversion from domestic grievances. Belief in an all-embracing Iranian conspiracy fuels paranoia: in Bahrain in 2011, the authorities tortured Shia hospital doctors who were accused of using a piece of medical equipment to receive orders from their masters in Tehran.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always played up the Iranian threat. Since the early 1990s, he has warned that Iran is about to acquire a nuclear arsenal unless it is stopped forthwith. As prime minister, he has long been speaking of launching an Israeli strike against Iran, but he has been very cautious about actually doing do. Diplomats wonder if this is still the case.
More is at work here than the normal threat inflation to be expected from politicians wishing to stand tall in defence of the homeland or portray their opponents as unpatriotic weaklings. This is a common feature in the politics of every country, but Israel has always been particularly keen to have an enemy in common with the US. It was, in fact, surprisingly relaxed about the Iranian threat when Iran was at its most revolutionary in the years after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.
It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that this changed, when Iran found itself promoted to the first rank of demons. Scott Peterson explains this in his perceptive history of Iran, Let the Swords Encircle Me, saying: “Anxious that its own strategic utility as a ‘bulwark’ against Soviet-allied Arab states was losing its shine after the Cold War, Israel launched a campaign in 1992 to convince the US that a new and more dangerous threat had emerged from Iran and the Islamic extremism that the revolution inspired.”
Such threat manipulation is still effective. But, ironically, it is the US and its allies that have opened the door to Iran by destroying or weakening the state structure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. In any confrontation with the US and Israel, Iran will have every incentive to reinforce its position in the region. If the US really wants to reduce Iranian influence and that of its allies in the region, there is a much better and more effective way doing so: this is to end the wars which have enabled Iran and many other players to spread their influence.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/07 ... ne-anyway/
May 8, 2014
Syria blames Israel for air strike near Damascus
Syrian state media says Israel has launched an air strike against an army position south of the capital Damascus.
The Sana news agency said Syrian air defences had shot down two Israeli missiles in the Kiswah area on Tuesday.
It reported no casualties, but a monitoring group says at least nine pro-government forces had been killed, including Iranian-backed fighters.
Earlier on Tuesday, there were reports of loud explosions at a military base in the area.
[Why is there a war in Syria?]
A commander supporting President Bashar al-Assad told Reuters news agency that the strike had targeted a Syrian army position.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, said the target was an arms depot.
The dead included members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and other Shia militiamen, it added.
Israel has not commented on the reports, but it has said it will stop what it considers Iran's military "entrenchment" in Syria.
Iran has supported the Syrian government during the country's seven-year civil war, deploying hundreds of military advisers and thousands of militiamen to the country.
It has reportedly built a military base in the area where Tuesday's strike is said to have happened.
Last year, a Western intelligence source told the BBC that the Iranian military had established a compound at a site used by the Syrian army near Kiswah.
Iran has also vowed to avenge recent air strikes on its military facilities in Syria that were attributed to Israel.
Tensions between the two countries escalated on Tuesday when Israel said it had detected "irregular Iranian activity" in the occupied Golan Heights region of Syria.
It put the area, which is Syrian territory under Israeli control, under high alert and instructed bomb shelters to be unlocked.
[Golan Heights profile]
Jonathan Conricus, a spokesman for the Israeli military, said "any aggressions against Israel will be met with a severe response".
Jonathan Conricus @LTCJonathan
The IDF has detected irregular Iranian activity in Syria and is preparing the civilian population on the Golan Heights accordingly, as well as defensive systems. Any aggression against Israel will be met with a severe response.
11:12 AM - May 8, 2018
1,126 people are talking about this
Israeli media said it was the first time there had been an order to prepare shelters in the occupied area since the Syrian civil war began.
It came as President Donald Trump said the US would quit the Iran nuclear deal.
Going against advice from European allies, he said he would reimpose economic sanctions that were waived when the deal was signed in 2015.
The deal saw Iran agree to limit the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium - which is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons - in exchange for a lifting of sanctions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he "fully supports" Mr Trump's withdrawal, saying the deal had "increased Iranian aggression".
The only way that the deal may survive is if the Europeans can somehow ensure that Iran continues to see sufficient economic benefits from the JCPOA to enable Rouhani to justify remaining in the deal. That, however, would require a robust EU response to Trump, including the passage of legislation shielding European firms from US secondary sanctions and the threat of retaliatory action against US economic interests. It is hard, however, to see the EU risking a trade war with the USA over Iran, and even if they do act, it may still not be enough to prevent European firms from deciding that continuing to do business in Iran is too risky.
While the eventual collapse of the nuclear deal is thus highly likely, what happens after that is harder to predict. To some extent it will depend on Iranian politics. Rouhani does not want a conflict with the US and will actively seek ways of avoiding one, but Trump's declaration discredits him and strengthens the position of those in Tehran most hostile to the US. The arguments of Iranian hardliners – that the “Great Satan” can never be trusted and that it is bent on the destruction of the Islamic regime – are seemingly confirmed by Trump's actions. A shift in the balance of political power back toward Iranian conservatives is thus a probable outcome in the medium term.
With hardliners back in power, Iran could be expected to restore its nuclear programme to a similar scale to that which existed before 2015 (even if it does not renew weapons-related aspects of that programme) and to pursue its efforts to expand its regional influence with ever greater vigour. The Saudis and the Israelis, buoyed by Trump's implicit (or explicit) support will push back hard, leading to an escalation of proxy conflicts in Yemen and Syria and an increasing risk of direct conflict between the main protagonists themselves.
In Trump's mind, of course, this is not how events will play out. His claim is that the Iranian regime was on the point of total capitulation in 2015 only for Obama to “throw it a lifeline” in the form of the nuclear deal. According to this logic, the restoration of sanctions will bring Tehran to its knees and force it to comply with all of Trump's demands.
There is little reason, however, to take this scenario seriously. In the first place, sanctions had not brought Iran “to its knees” by 2015. Its negotiators remained as insistent on retaining the right to enrich uranium as they had for the previous decade. Had Obama not conceded that right there would have been no deal. Moreover, there is no chance that the sanctions regime that Trump is attempting to restore will be as effective as that in place under Obama. The Europeans will likely cooperate in a half-hearted fashion but China and Russia will not and nor will many other consumers of Iran's oil.
Trump is thus seeking to get a tougher deal than Obama managed with less leverage, with predictable results. If and when the nuclear deal collapses Iran will restore its nuclear programme and renewed US sanctions will fail to deter it from doing so. Regional tensions with rise. Iran will increase its stockpile of enriched uranium, and this will put pressure on the US government, from both Israel and its own supporters, to “do something” to stop it.
Trump's decision, in short, will do nothing to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue while making war in the Middle East considerably more likely.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ir ... 42651.html
With a very belligerent speech Trump nixed the nuclear deal with Iran. He also lied a lot in it. Neither is a surprise. The United States only keeps agreements as long as they are to its short term advantage - just ask native Americans. One can never count on the U.S. to keep its word.
Trump will reimpose U.S. sanctions on Iran because:
The nuclear deal was negotiated by the Obama administration and thus must be bad;
Israel wants to keep Iran as the boogeyman;
the Zionists and right wing nuts in the U.S. want the U.S. to attack Iran;
MAGA - Trump needs Iran as enemy of the Gulf states to sell more U.S. weapons.
Three European countries, Britain, France and Germany, were naive enough to think they could prevent this. The EU3 offered the U.S. to put additional sanctions on Iran for other pretended reason - ballistic missiles and the Iranian engagement in Syria. I was disgusted when I first read of the plan. It was obvious from the beginning that it would only discredit these countries AND fail.
Luckily Italy and some eastern European countries shot the effort down at the EU level. They were not willing to sacrifice their credibility over the issue. The nuclear agreement was signed and should be followed by all sides. They pointed out that there was no guarantee from Trump that any additional European effort would change his view.
Over the last weeks some last EU3 attempts to influence Trump were made. They were in vain:
On Friday, Pompeo organized a conference call with his three European counterparts. Sources who were briefed on the call told me Pompeo thanked the E3 for the efforts they had made since January to come up with a formula that will convince Trump not to pull out of the nuclear deal — but made it clear the President wants to take a different direction.
After Trump's statement, the European powers want to issue a joint statement which will make it clear they are staying in the Iran deal in an attempt to prevent its collapse.
The sanctions Trump will reintroduce are not just limiting U.S. dealings with Iran, but will also penalize other countries. That will lead to a flurry of protective measures as at least some of those other countries will limit their exposure to U.S. rules and may even introduce counter sanctions:
“We are working on plans to protect the interests of European companies” Maja Kocijancic, EU spokeswoman for foreign affairs, told reporters in Brussel.
Iran will largely stick to the nuclear deal if the EU effectively defends it and does not hinder Iranian deals with European companies. If the EU fails to do so the nuclear agreement will be null and void. Iran will leave the deal. The neoliberal Rouhani government that agreed to the deal will fall and the conservatives will be back. They will defend Iran's sovereignty at all costs.
The U.S. seems to believe it can go back to the same position Obama had build up in the years before the nuclear deal. Iran was under UN sanctions and all countries, including China and Russia, held them up. The Iranian economy was in serious trouble. It needed to negotiate a way out. That situation will not come back.
U.S. credibility has been seriously damaged. Its soft power is gone. Its hard power has shown to be inadequate in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
China and Russia are both making huge deals with Iran and are now effectively its protectors. While they have no common ideology all three oppose a globalized world under exclusive "western" rules. They have the economic power, the population and resources to do so. Neither the U.S. nor Europe has come to terms with that.
Iran has not only new allies but gained in the Middle East because of U.S., Israeli and Saudi stupidity. The wars on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen have all strengthened Iran's position while it largely kept largely out of them. The recent election in Lebanon went well for the 'resistance' camp. Within Lebanon Hizbullah can no longer be challenged. The upcoming elections in Iraq will result in another Iran-friendly government. The Syrian army is winning the war waged against the country. The U.S. position in Afghanistan is hopeless. Saudi Arabia is now in a fight with the UAE over the war on Yemen. The GCC spat with Qatar is still unsolved.
While Israel wants to keep Iran as a boogeyman to divert attention from its genocidal campaign against Palestinians, it does not want a large war. Hizbullah in Lebanon has enough missiles to make modern life in Israel untenable. A war on Iran could easily end up with Tel Aviv in flames.
There are some people in the Trump administration who will want to wage war on Iran. The Bush administration also had such plans. But any war gaming of a campaign against Iran ended badly for the U.S. and its allied states. The Gulf countries are extremely vulnerable. Their oil output could be shut down within days. That situation has not changed. The U.S. is now in a worse strategic position than it was after the invasion of Iraq. As long as somewhat sane people lead the Pentagon they will urge the White House not to launch such an endeavor.
The U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal is a huge mistake. Defense Secretary Mattis spoke against it. Will Trump make an even bigger mistake despite the opinion of his military advisors? Will he wage war on Iran?
THREAD: So my thoughts on the #IranDeal pullout by Trump. I tweet this as someone who wrote the first history and analysis of Iran's nuclear programme in English from the 1950s to the present day.
Top Line = It was a cretinous decision.
2/ The first questions with any decision like are 1. What does it achieve? 2. Why was it taken? 3. What does it mean? The answer to the first question is depressingly simple: nothing positive. In fact, pretty much everything is negative. Why? Several reasons.
3/ 1. US credibility is weakened: look at Trump’s language he criticises the #IranDeal in itself. He makes no mention of what would be a real cause to withdraw: Iran violating it. He cannot say that because it hasn’t. Despite the Israeli documents of last week.
4/ US now looks like it doesn’t keep its word. This is music to the ears of US enemies across the world– from Putin to North Korea to the hardliners in Iran. Kim Jon-Un can now cynically ask “how can we trust the US on a nuclear deal?” A question much harder to answer.
5/ Iran now has an excuse to pull out & dash for a bomb. It won’t – it will seek to keep the deal alive. Remember the deal is NOT between the U + Iran. But Iran and the P5+1. Nonetheless. The possibility for this is greater than it was; and critically, it has *grounds* to do so.
6/ So what does it in fact achieve? Many complained at the time that the deal unfroze billions of dollars of Iranian assets that could be used for terror. A fair point: but that is done now. The money is gone. This does nothing to get it back. That ship has sailed.
7/ Meanwhile, the Europeans have pledged to try to keep the deal alive. So a wedge has now appeared between the US and its European allies. Again, music to the ears of the West’s enemies. Especially the Mullahs and Putin. They will seek to exploit this in every way they can.
8/ So what about the security argument? Well, first off it does NOT mean “World War III.” Iran is overextended across ME & it would never dare go to war with the US. Those talking of this are hyperbolic. But greater proxy war, more attacks on western targets? Entirely possible.
9/ The deal makes us far LESS secure. This much is clear. In these situation ALWAYS look at the security officials. Israel, which is most hawkish on Iran, has a security establishment firmly behind the deal.
10/ This includes the late Mossad director Meir Dagan – the man who LITERALLY ordered the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists. Hardly a leftie peacenik, as well as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak (the most highly decorated soldier in the history of the IDF.
11/ The power has shifted from those most reasonable and pragmatic to those most volatile and eager for confrontation – Iran’s hardliners and actors like John Bolton. This is no good for *anyone*
12/ Which brings us to why was the decision taken? This is the most mystifying thing of all. Iran is a bad actor in Syria, Yemen, Iraq. If this decision was taken to underpin a change of Middle East strategy and address those issues, you might understand it.
13/ But there is nothing about. Instead Trump just trashes the deal and mutters some vague words about finding a better one. No substantive policy shift across the ME, no thought about what comes next. Nothing.
14/ So the decision = worse security, disunity among allies, empowering enemies. The only logical conclusion for the decision is that Trump wants to trash Obama’s work and look tough.
15/ This is not how you conduct smart foreign policy – or indeed any policy. The #IranDealWithdrawl is a sad, sad day in Middle Eastern diplomacy. ENDS
seemslikeadream » Wed May 09, 2018 7:41 am wrote:8/ So what about the security argument? Well, first off it does NOT mean “World War III.” Iran is overextended across ME & it would never dare go to war with the US. Those talking of this are hyperbolic. But greater proxy war, more attacks on western targets? Entirely possible.
EPISODE 82 – Dirt for Sanctions – with special guest Marcy Wheeler
http://www.eclectablog.com/2018/05/epis ... eeler.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests