Israel and its American supporters continue to press President Trump to repudiate the nuclear agreement with Iran, often using disingenuous arguments that ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar dissects.
By Paul R. Pillar
Opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), always has been filled with disingenuous arguments. This reflects the fundamental illogic of the opponents’ position: if the agreement were to be junked, this would mean removing a panoply of restrictions on Iran and re-opening now-closed avenues to a nuclear weapon for the very country that the opponents constantly contend is a serious threat.
The principal sources of opposition have had little to do with terms of the agreement itself or with nuclear matters, even though the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon was the focus of rhetoric from those same opponents before the JCPOA was negotiated. The sources instead involve governments in the Middle East that have other reasons to try to keep Iran a pariah forever, and elements in the United States that want to fulfill campaign rhetoric and to trash any accomplishments of the previous administration.
Nonetheless, enough people of goodwill are vulnerable to being swayed by some of those arguments that the arguments need to be addressed. One of the most frequently mentioned concerns the so-called sunset provisions, under which time limits (of varying lengths, such as 10 or 15 years) apply to some of the restrictions in the JCPOA.
The first thing to point out is that this argument is just as disingenuous as others in that if the JCPOA were killed, or if it had never been negotiated in the first place, the resulting alternative would be worse than the JCPOA according to the very criteria on which the opponents’ argument is based. If there were no JCPOA, then instead of Iran being free of some restrictions on its nuclear activity 10 or 15 years from now, it would be free from those same restrictions right now.
The next thing to note is that even though time limits were applied to some of the restrictions, other restrictions, which are highly germane to preventing development of nuclear weapons, have longer time limits or do not expire at all. This is true of the permanent bans on any Iranian work on nuclear explosive devices and on any reprocessing of spent reactor fuel, which would be needed to separate plutonium. It is especially true of important aspects of the enhanced inspection arrangements, such as the ability, now also permanent, of the International Atomic Energy Agency to request access to undeclared sites.
Typical of International Agreements
International treaties and agreements typically are not irrevocable and binding forever. No government wants to commit itself and its successors in perpetuity in the face of possible changes in the international environment and in the behavior and objectives of other states. Most international treaties and agreements have explicit time limits and/or exit clauses that permit withdrawal from the agreement after giving some advance notice, usually only a few months. The JCPOA is no more ephemeral in design, and in many respects is built more for permanence, than the average international agreement.Whether the restrictions and commitments in the JCPOA endure beyond some date a decade or so from now will depend ultimately not on the wording of a sunset clause but rather on whether the parties to the agreement continue to see the bargain embodied in the agreement to be in their national interests. Iranian decision-makers reached the conclusion that avoiding some of the economic and political costs of pariahdom was more in Iranian national interests than an attempt to develop a nuclear weapon would be. Iran and the P5+1 then struck a bargain in which Iran agreed to observe limits on, and closer scrutiny of, its nuclear activity in return for some relief from economic sanctions.
The parties to the agreement will continually face the same calculations in the years ahead that they faced when they were negotiating this bargain. As long as they continue to regard the bargain as being on balance beneficial, the provisions of the JCPOA will endure, perhaps through a relatively simple extension agreement. If their calculations change significantly for whatever reason, those provisions may die. Either way, it won’t be the fine print in a sunset clause that determines the outcome.
Opponents of the JCPOA display some of their many inconsistencies on this topic. Donald Trump — the opponent who counts the most — already talks, only a couple of years after the agreement entered into force, of declaring the JCPOA not to be in U.S. national interests and pulling out of the accord, notwithstanding the commitments that are part of the text and that the United States signed on to. And yet opponents of the JCPOA, who typically depict Iran as being far less trustworthy than the United States, futz over the sunset clauses in that text as if they represent a major problem that will make the difference between Iran having and not having a nuclear weapon a decade from now.
Their handling of this issue is one more indication of their argumentative dishonesty, with the sunset clauses being just one more aspect of the JCPOA that they can attack as a “flaw”. The standard of comparison they are implicitly using is an impossible-to-achieve formula in which the United States gets everything it would like on every issue. Meanwhile they hope that their listeners will not think about the real alternative to the JCPOA, which is the absence of an agreement and the absence of any special limitations on Iran.
Poor Basis for More Talks
There has been some talk about negotiation to extend the time limits in the JCPOA. Great — sit down at a table and have at it. The same goes for those other issues involving Iran that opponents of the JCPOA keep talking about even though the JCPOA was never intended to deal with them. At least re-opening a channel of communications could help in managing other problems. This was a side-benefit of the negotiations on the JCPOA, which established a useful channel at the foreign minister level that now, because of U.S. lack of interest, is closed.
But any new negotiations must build on diligent observance by all parties of the commitments in the JCPOA. Reneging on any of those commitments would create the worst possible environment for trying to reach new deals on time limits, ballistic missiles, or anything else.
It may be too early, however, to complete an extension agreement for the JCPOA. Would the United States be willing to make commitments now about what its policy toward Iran will look like more than ten years from now? Iran will have similar hesitancy about making commitments that far in the future, and it is not just going to knuckle under to new and farther-reaching demands. As with any international bargain, one has to give something to get something.
Related to the arguments about the sunset clauses, opponents of the JCPOA like to spin a story of Iranian leaders having a deceitful and very long-term strategy whereby they sucked the P5+1 into acceding to an agreement with time limits, after the expiration of which Iran will quickly build a bomb. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever of any such Iranian thinking; the story is not even plausible.
If leaders in Tehran really did see a nuclear weapon as being more in their national interest than not being an economic and political pariah, then accepting an accord in which they dismantle and disable large parts of their nuclear program, significantly lengthening the “breakout time” for making a nuke, and subject themselves to the most intrusive international nuclear monitoring arrangement ever, would be a very, very weird way to implement such a strategy.
If a nuclear weapon is somewhere in Iran’s future, it won’t be because of such supposed and ridiculously unrealistic Iranian thinking but rather because the bargain that prevents an Iranian nuke will have been overturned by a U.S. administration reneging on U.S. commitments and destroying the JCPOA.
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is author most recently of Why America Misunderstands the World. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)
@ Rob Roy: “I think he makes an assumption that others make…that if not for the agreement Iran would move forward on a nuclear weapon. That is not true.”
I collected links regarding the various intelligence agency reports attesting that Iran has no nuclear weapon ambitions in an article at https://relativelyfreepress.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-question-about-ron-wydens-intelligence.html
It’s clear that Iran has given up on acquiring a nuclear arsenal in the standard way. But I believe that if they want nuclear weapons they’ll eventually have them anyway. There is just too much of the bomb materials floating around. There is a lot of evidence Israel got a jump start by skimming off materials “lost” in bookkeeping at US plants. That’s one path. Another is to simply buy the materials needed on the “free” market for weapons. Pakistan is dirt poor, and truckloads of money would be mighty tempting. North Korea is another obvious source. Japan has been collecting nuclear materials, and is said to have enough for thousands of bombs. I’ve heard that the Japanese have as many corruptible people as any other nation. One claim the Israelis have made which I find believable is that Iran bought half a dozen working nuke weapons when the USSR collapsed. IMO Israel ought to think long and hard before doing anything “rash” with its own nuclear weapons, for that “Iron Dome” is almost certainly a joke against a competent opponent.
Finally, for most purposes nuclear weapons are over-rated. Precision weapons are – for most purposes – far more useful. Iran was confident enough about its progress in this area to launch a salvo of medium range missiles into Syria. A shot across the bow, and in more ways than one.
I always read Paul Pillar when he writes for this site. He is an excellent observer and reporter. However, I think he makes an assumption that others make…that if not for the agreement Iran would move forward on a nuclear weapon. That is not true. Iranians decided in 2003 to never make a nuclear weapon (though if anyone should have one, it’s they; Israel has many and they are a threat to Iran); in fact, the Ayatollah sent a Swiss diplomat to G.E. Bush with the message that Iran would never seek a nuclear bomb is the US would stop sanctions, quit calling Iran part of an Axis of Evil and do something about the occupation of the Palestinians. Mr. Bush sent the diplomat packing, chastising him badly. The Iranians want nuclear power for energy and medical isotopes. Period. What would they do with a nuke? Use it and get wiped off the earth? Iran has never attacked anyone. Israel has attacked Iraq, Syria and others, and Mossad murdered five Iranian scientists. Israel never has to pay for its crimes. It is trying to goad the US into bombing Iran, a perfectly INNOCENT country who is lied about in the news daily. When the time runs out on the JCPOA, Iran will not even then seek a nuclear weapon. Iran can be trusted. The US and Israel can never be trusted. Just look at the history of these three countries. That should settle who is trustworthy and who is not.
Talk of scrapping the nuclear deal is probably just a means of putting pressure on Iran to distance itself from Putin and, of course, Assad, who is now Putin’s de facto protegé.
No doubt that could be part of the thinking behind the strategy to make life impossible for Putin, but in my reading of the news is that the reverse is the trend. I think Iran is being focused on mostly because Israel and Saudi Arabia feel highly intimated by their Persian neighbor to the north. For Israel, it is all about building the ‘Greater israel’, and for the Saudi’s and the other Gulf States Coalition (whoever that is this week) it’s about Shia vs Sunni, and of course oil in petrodollars. But Michael you do make a point, any wedge to be driven between all three of those countries you mentioned, Iran, Syria, and Russia, oh and don’t forget Hezbollah, are wedges to be made by the U.S. and it’s Middle East protectorates.
No-it’s the cry of bloodthirsty ghouls for MORE BLOOD!
Since 1913 economic and political zionism (EPZ) has delivered the federal reserve, the unconstitutional income tax law, the university, government and military supported propaganda technologies [used to control the information environments of the America population], all of which over saw, funded, directed and orchestrated the entry of Americans into WWI. America’s entry into WWI provided the Belfast Agreement bound Israelis the muscle they needed to take over Palestine in 1948 ), things in America have been going down hill. After Kennedy was murdered, Americans have been governed by a set of puppet leaders: el Presidente, Senate manufactured by the British banking cartel and the Israeli Mafia and a House of political want-a-bees, who respond only to corporate demands for more monopoly power [patent and copy-write laws designed to give pharmaceutical industry monopoly power over all competition, required or essential to a fair price for medical services is medical insurance, insurance makes all Americans pay monthly for medically dispensed pharmaceuticals and a right to privacy prevents independent scientists from getting the infomration they need to compete with the pharmaceutical industries. Every corporation wants a place on the American Tit to get the funds its wants to increase its monopoly powers and unconscionable profits.,The funding for this been accomplished by extortion ( giving trillions of tax dollars to corporations and foreign governments and sending American industrial efficiency and production technology over seas).
Before 1913, the American economy was a vibrant hands on economy, it distinguished nearly every American in the eyes of the world, except the then stronger German economy, which Zionist propaganda would enlist America to help destroy. What made America so great for nearly every American was competition, not capitalism. What makes America Great for Wall Street is monopoly powered. military backed capitalism.
Everywhere throughout America you see ghost threat security, underground caves, chemically treated water supplies replacing pure under ground water aquifers (chemical factories), GMO foods, prison-like office complexes and structures built off -but near-Interstate Highway, Rail Road and Waterway transport complexes [control and staging points?] .. Interstate walls designed to hide from the locals massive rapid movements of military commerce, and probably occupying troops when the time comes, going up and down the Interstate. Is the US military planning to move on the American population or will it settle to control Americans through the existing political structure (after all the most experienced politicians in the world are the military regime changers?
BRICS provides a way for oil to be bought and sold without the dollar (no longer does SWIFT have a monopoly on Banking), The Chinese have delivered a bond that is backed by gold ( buy the bond and exchange it for gold), Venezuela, largest oil and gas nation in the world, now refuses to take federal reserve printed USA dollars and cybercurrencies are eliminating the need for any nation any where in the world to be involved in currencies. How will the military politicians respond to these changing events?
As much as I agree with your historical remembrance of early Zionist advances fudmier, and as much as I’m certain you mistakenly wrote ‘Belfast Agreement’ where I believe you meant to write ‘Balfour Declaration’ I humbly point this out. Typing on comment boards comes with its own obstacles, and this type of mistake is to be understood under the time constraints one has to develop a readable comment. I hate pointing out mistakes to other people, but I thought this correction would be suitable considering we want to leave the Irish out of this controversial discussion.
I’m with you fudmier I too believe that the Federal Reserve is an unsavory institution. In fact in these days in time, what institution doesn’t seem nefarious in someway? I often wonder to if there had never been a Zionist project in the Middle East to if we Americans would even give a flying you know what to what goes on in that neck of the woods? I really do believe that the U.S. adventures in the Middle East are a direct link to our American involvement being a protectorate of Israel.
One of my grandfathers who was alive when the Federal Reserve was established had believed that by America’s acceptance of the Federal Reserve that each and every American had handed over their wallet to this private agency. My grandfather instead started spending his money on buying bricks, and mortar, and with that investment piling up in his backyard he then started building a two unit apartment building. Upon the completion of his two unit home, which was built right next to his own home, grandpap had a rental retirement income.
The most fascinating articles to read, are the old newspaper and magazine articles of that time when the Federal Reserve first came about. Say what you will about a complacent society, but just like now there were plenty of skeptics, and alternative thought provoking guardians of the truth out there at the time, that this new agency set up in the dead of night (literally) came with its own critics and warnings of financial buggery, but still it thrived throughout the last century.
Good comment fudmier. Joe
fudmier, Thank you for the informative link. I want to acknowledge what I think is the accuracy of your comment and tell you that I look forward to further discussing the issues you put forward here. Thank you…
Netanyahu Is Meeting Trump To Push For War With Iran
Let’s be clear
by Trita Parsi Posted on September 19, 2017
Like Hitler meeting Mussolini (Trump) to prepare to destroy Europe. Open planning for genocide. The threat of utter genocide of the DPRK is really deranged and Evil to the point of bewilderment.
“After meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu today in New York, Donald Trump told the press, ‘You’ll see very soon’ what he will do with the Iran deal. Meantime, neoconservatives are lobbying the president to decertify Iran’s compliance with the deal, and launch a new era of sanctions against Iran.
“A leader of this effort is a young operative from the heart of the Israel lobby, Richard Goldberg, who has worked with Stand With Us and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and is now pushing ‘regime instability’ in an influential confidential document.
“A report at Foreign Policy by Jana Winter and Dan De Luce, which of course says little to nothing about the Israel lobby, says that opponents of the Iran nuclear deal in Congress and the Trump administration are relying on a Goldberg memo that calls on the president ‘to threaten an unprecedented economic embargo designed to rattle the regime.’
“The memo demands access to Iranian ‘military sites’ – something that has nothing to do with nukes, and something Iran would never agree to. […]
“Goldberg was a fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and has worked closely with that organization to come up with a ‘lethal weapon’ to fight Iran […]
“Goldberg comes out of the pro-Israel community. He worked with the Israel lobby group Stand With Us to oppose BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions. This profile at the Jewish Federations site in Chicago says Goldberg is about 33 now and that Israel has been at the center of his political activity, from working for Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner to serving Sen. Mark Kirk, famously called the Senator from AIPAC, to getting Israel new weapons systems. […]
“Today’s Times has a story about yet another aspect of the neoconservative push: the effort to use the Holocaust Memorial Museum as a means of citing Syria, Iran’s close ally in the region, for ‘genocide.’ The influential actors here are Elliott Abrams and Leon Wieseltier [two Zionist signatories of the Project for a New American Century who lobbied vigorously for the war in Iraq].”
‘Regime instability’ in Iran is aim of young Israel advocate’s memo to White House
By Philip Weiss
Hasbara pro-Israel propaganda trolls are epic failures at refuting valid criticism of Israel Lobby and Netanyahu government misdeeds, they have switched methods.
A now common Hasbara deception tactic is to post comments littered with abusive epithets like “Zionazi”.
Hasbara troll “Mulga Mumblebrain” frequently mumbles the term “Zionazi” on sites that are critical of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby.
For example, progressive website Common Dreams tracked down and confronted a Hasbara troll, a Jewish American who created multiple online personas to deceive, divert, distract and disrupt online discourse critical of Israel
Please explain in what way Mulga Mumblebrain is a hasbara troll when he/she dares to utter some of the harshest criticism of Israel, leaving aside the Zionazi term you disapprove of. In other words, what aspect of MM’s discourse constitutes pro-Israel propaganda?
I explained this false flag “anti-Zionist” Hasbara so-called “discourse” two weeks ago, back when it was “Paranam Kid” and his pal “mark” were ranting about ‘the Jews”
Predictably, here’s “Paranam Kid” cheerleading his pal “Mulga Mumblebrain”.
These valiant “anti-Zionist” trolls pattern their “criticism” on the same Hasbara propaganda playbook.
‘By way of deception…’ is your by-word, is it not ‘Abe’.
“As President Hasan Rouhani prepares to address the UN General Assembly in New York and the Trump administration and allies relentlessly lobby for the Iran nuclear deal to be decertified, Tehran is busy clinching deal after deal with Asians and Europeans. […]
“Now compare all this trade/investment/connectivity drive with the CIA once again obsessed with – what else – regime change in Tehran.
“Or a document currently circulating on Capitol Hill and in the White House stating President Trump should declare to Congress next month not only that the Iran nuclear deal is no longer in the national security interest of the United States, but also hit Tehran with a ‘de-facto global economic embargo’.
“Following a meeting with President Putin in Sochi this past Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif went straight to the point; the (multilateral) nuclear deal is non-negotiable.
“There’s no way the ‘RC’ in BRICS – the Russian-China strategic partnership – as well as the Europeans involved in the Vienna negotiations (UK, France and Germany) will throw away the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
“Any possible, further, unilateral US sanctions simply would not be followed by all the other members of the P5+1 negotiating team. Europeans and Asians will continue to invest in Iran. China, India, Japan and South Korea will continue to buy Iranian oil and gas – paying for it in their own currencies or making swap deals.
“But then we have Return of the Living Dead neocons casually floating the notion that the US ‘may need to go it alone in a conventional conflict.’ Good luck with that, and with the ‘global economic embargo’.”
Iran turns The Art of the Deal upside down
By Pepe Escobar
The problem is that the Two Great Weasels, Russia and China, are always ready to stab other countries in the back and enable US aggression and economic strangulation against prey nations of the US. Like Yugoslavia. Like Libya. Like Iran. Like North Korea. One day soon the US will cut the throats of Russia and China. It’s all they deserve after years of playing the Judas.
“Netanyahu says he offered Trump a way to fix Iran nuclear deal”
I’m going to make a wild guess about what the illustrious leader of the outhouse nation-state offered as a plan.
“Decertify” the Iran agreement, which will throw it back to Congress. The Israeli thug can handle it from there, for he owns Congress – both houses – lock, stock, and barrel. I’d give about any odds you want that Indiana Senator posing as a democrat would jump at the chance to kiss Netanyahu’s bare bottom. Wouldn’t surprise me if the Republican Senator from my state was in the same line forming up behind the corrupt Israeli guy.
“Europe’s Likely Response to Trump’s Move Against Iran Nuclear Deal"
“An elegant but unconvincing attack on the Iran nuclear deal”
After reading Mr. Pillar’s essay as well as the two linked stories, I must ask if there is any reason to cancel the deal except for the fact Holy Israel wants it done?
“According to four-star General Wesley Clark, shortly after the attacks of 9/11, the Pentagon adopted a plan to topple the governments of seven countries; Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.” Darius Shahtahmasebi, January 27, 2017.
I believe war with Iran appears to be the objective of the war criminals. Therefore I ask:
“Is it now Iran’s turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack on Iran?…”
[read more at link below]
Sure will; watch for action among the Kurds and US/AlQaeda proxies in Iran.
Iran knows about Israeli/Saudi/US influence among the Kurds and Sunnis there.
So any US/Israel/KSA action should eventually bring destruction upon the troublemakers.
The sooner the better.
“The U.S. already has military bases on the doorstep of Iran – in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and elsewhere. There are at least 125,000 U.S. troops on the edge of Iran and thousands of warships and aircraft at the ready.
“Iran has long seen its ballistic missile programme as being a deterrent, however feeble, against this massive military encirclement. That the U.S. has decided to place new sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile tests has sent a clear message to Iran: the U.S. will put as much pressure on Iran as possible to prevent it from developing anything like a deterrent capability. […]
“Israel has already been collaborating with various Syrian rebel groups, including Al Qaeda-backed groups, in the region near the occupied Golan Heights. Israeli aircraft have regularly been striking Syrian military targets to prevent any advance by the Syrian Army towards the de facto border with Israel. Israel would also like to expand its Golan Heights holdings and create a large buffer zone with Syria. These manoeuvres have been fully backed by the Trump White House.
“Dangerous signals come from the new sanctions and from the hot wars between U.S. proxies, including Israel, and the Iranian-backed forces. When Trump was in Saudi Arabia in May, he suggested that the conflict between the U.S. and Iran was a ‘battle between good and evil’. Religious language such as this evokes the words of former President George W. Bush before he launched the illegal war on Iraq in 2003. It is Iran, Trump suggested, that ‘spreads destruction and chaos’ in the region. This came the day after Iran re-elected its moderate President, and along the same time as the U.S. pledged to sell Saudi Arabia, a country spreading destruction and chaos in Yemen, arms worth $110 billion.
“There is an appetite for war in the Trump White House and amongst its Israeli and Saudi partners. The war this time will be against Iran. If West Asia is in chaos now, there is no adequate word to describe its fate if that full-scale war actually begins.”
Appetite for War: the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia v. Iran
By Vijay Prashad
“When politicians are feeling the heat, they start a war and their popularity goes up even if the war is unnecessary or completely ridiculous. Donald Trump, the presidential candidate who promised that he would not take the nation into another Middle Eastern war, did so when he launched a fifty-nine cruise missile barrage against a Syrian Air Base even before he knew for sure what had happened on the ground. It was totally stupid but proved to be popular, even among talking heads and Congressmen, some of whom described his action as ‘presidential’ in the best sense of the word.
“It’s the same in Israel. For those who have not been following developments there, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been under pressure due to an ongoing investigation for corruption. One of the truly great things about Israel is that while they have a lot of corrupt politicians, just like everywhere else, they actually investigate, indict, prosecute, convict and send them to jail. The betting is that Netanyahu will soon be in prison, so he has been responding in the time-honored fashion by threatening his neighbors and hinting at the possibility of increased military action and even war. If there is a war going on, he believes, probably correctly, that no one will want to remove him. […]
“Israel has been pushing hard on Washington, recently having sent a high-level combined intelligence and military delegation to confer with National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster and Special Mideast Envoy Jason Greenblatt to explain the alleged Iranian threat. And the neocon chorus is also signaling that it expects the Trump Administration to do something. Frederick Hof of the hardline Atlantic Council recently wrote that the fundamental mistake made by Washington consisted of not invading Syria and installing an acceptable government years ago, which would have kept Iran out.
“Saudi Arabia, which is demonstrating some signs of political instability, would also welcome conflict with Iran, which means that there is an existing coming-together of parties who for various reasons would welcome the escape from other problems that war offers. Donald Trump himself was angry at the State Department in July because it had certified that Tehran was in compliance with the nuclear pact signed last year and Congress also vented its anger by initiating new sanctions against Iran. The next certification is due in October and the president would clearly like to have a good reason, contrived or actual, to break the agreement.
“Speculation in Israel is that some kind of preemptive strike is being planned, possibly directed against an Iranian target inside Syria. The danger is that such a move could quickly escalate, with the U.S. Congress and White House quickly aligning themselves with Netanyahu.”
Iran, Again: Will Israel start a new war?
By Philip Giraldi
“It isn’t Iran’s violations of the deal per se; for, the agreement does not make it binding on Iran to end its ballistic missile programme, nor is any other country accusing Iran of hard violations; rather it is Iran’s role in Syria that has discomforted the US, as also its allies in the Middle East, to a great extent. As a matter of fact, Iran’s role in Syria against the US sponsored ‘jihad’ is something that defies all expectations the US had on its ability to restrict Iran through financial sanctions. Iran has invested a lot of money and men in Syria not simply because they are allies, but also because Iran knows that Syria might turn out to be the gateway to Iran’s ultimate destruction at the hands of the US and Saudia supported ‘jihadi rebels.’ Hence, Iran’s billion dollar war of resistance.
“In this regard, Nikki Haley, who is a member of Trump’s cabinet, is going only to review the deal in a way that reinforces what Trump himself has been saying all along and continues to reiterate in unequivocal terms. On August 11, Trump said again that Iran was not complying with the terms of the deal and could face consequences for violations. ‘They are not in compliance with the agreement and they certainly are not in the spirit of the agreement in compliance, and I think you’ll see some very strong things taking place if they don’t get themselves in compliance,’ he went on to say. Needless to say, Trump is preparing to build the momentum to declare Iran non-compliant even before the review has taken place. Could the said review then expected to be impartial? […]
“While the US allies in Europe have not expressed an explicit agreement with the Trump administration’s possible exit from the deal, Britain, France and Germany did join the US in condemning Iran’s latest test and called it ‘inconsistent’ with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.” The resolution had been adopted in 2015 to endorse a nuclear agreement between Iran and six other countries, including the three European states. But the resolution does not prohibit missile or rocket launches by Iran. The resolution merely ‘called upon’ Iran to refrain from activities related to ballistic missiles ‘designed to be capable of’ carrying nuclear warheads.
“The Trump administration is, however, not willing to accept the limits imposed by the deal. To cut Iran short in the region, the US and its (Arab) need to clip Iran’s military strength, of which Iran’s missile program is an essential aspect. As such, the emphasis the US is putting isn’t simply on Iran’s non-compliance but also on the mythical existence of places all over Iran where it is “suspected” of developing nuclear weapons. The excuse sounds familiar and resonates well with the claims the US made when it was moving towards attacking and destroying Iraq back in 2003. The rhetoric thus coming out of the Oval office seems to be a cut-and-paste from the road to the Iraq War.”
How the US is Bellyflopping on Iran Nuke-deal
By Salman Rafi Sheikh
This is why trying to negotiate any agreement with the US is completely pointless.
The US has broken every treaty and agreement it has ever made – as 300+ tribes of Red Indians could confirm (those ones who have not been exterminated.)
If NK gave up its nuclear programme tomorrow, the US would just continue with its economic strangulation under some other pretext – they didn’t like Kim Jong Un’s haircut or something.
Like there will always be an excuse for attacking Iran – like they don’t like Persian cats or Persian carpets, or pistachio nuts give them wind.
Perhaps the best act to come from the Obama reign is the JPCOA and the Zionist backed neocons want Trump to trash this needed act. I seem to recall seeing a spot on TV that their supreme leader having issues of future presidents going against signed deals. Ask the Native Americans about the US government going back on peace treaties and the precedent was set long ago. We all need some sort of stability to signed ‘deals’ to not be broken but seeing how the current fool in chief cheated and reneged on his personal deals I’m not surprised at the ease he could support such harsh disregard of a signed ‘deal’.
Hasbara pro-Israel propaganda trolls leap to the fore whenever an article appears discussing Israel or the actions of the Israel Lobby.
Since the Hasbara trolls are epic failures at refuting valid criticism of Israel Lobby and Netanyahu government misdeeds, they have switched methods.
A common Hasbara deception tactic is to post factually accurate information littered with abusive remarks about Jewish people in general, and epithets like “Zionazi”.
“Mulga Mumblebrain” qualifies as a serial offender.
The Comment Policy at Consortium News states “comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), and allegations that are unsupported by facts.”
While there are indeed many grey areas where reasonable people can disagree over whether a term is “abusive”, general use of the term “Zionazi’” (evoking a simplistic comparison between the actions of Jewish Zionists and the anti-Jewish genocidal racism of Nazi Germany) clearly qualifies as an allegation unsupported by facts.
Extreme racist or militarist nationalism can be observed in certain sectors of Zionist Judaism in Israel and Jews abroad. But this also is true of other nations, peoples and religions.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified online due to growing awareness of Israel’s collusion with the United States in “regime change” projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, as well as the Israeli’s government outright racism and escalating acts of military aggression.
Readers of Consortium News are alert to these deceptive Hasbara troll smear tactics.
There have been a number of efforts by international and governmental bodies to define “anti-Semitism” formally.
The U.S. Department of State states that “while there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.” For the purposes of its 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism, the term was considered to mean “hatred toward Jews – individually and as a group – that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity.”
In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now Fundamental Rights Agency), then an agency of the European Union, developed a more detailed working definition, which states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The European agency adds that “such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” but that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies – even harsh and strident criticism or advocacy – in and of itself does not constitute “anti-Semitism”.
Israel’s propagandist Hasbara narrative directly applies to the US/Israel-backed terrorist war against the people of Syria, and Israeli Lobby efforts against Iran.
The basics of Hasbara propaganda are easy to identify: simplistic phrases, repeated over and over, designed to engage emotions rather than produce rational arguments, all shaped to fit into a narrative of good (Western-oriented Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy) versus evil (Arab/Muslim terrorists who seek not only to destroy the Jewish state but kill all Jews).
To persuade Americans to accept this impoverished account of the conflict, Hasbara propaganda rewrites history, rejects international law and ignores the struggle over land and resources that is at the heart of the conflict.
Hasbara Propaganda Manual – “Global Language Dictionary”
Written by Republican pollster and political strategist Frank Luntz, the Hasbara handbook was commissioned by a group called The Israel Project in 2009.
Labeled “Not for distribution or publication”, the Hasbara manual is a treasure trove of scripted propaganda canards. For example, page 96 of the manual recommends: “‘Defensive’ and ‘preventative’ are the words that best describe Israeli military action.”
In 2009, Israel’s foreign ministry organized volunteers to add pro-Israeli commentary on news websites. In July 2009, it was announced that the Israeli Foreign Ministry would conduct “internet warfare” to spread a pro-Israel message on various websites.
The program has expanded to a real Hasbara troll army that promotes pro-Israel policies in the press and online media.
US/Israel-backed al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria advance the geopolitical goals of Israel, which include permanent annexation of Syria’s resource-rich Golan Heights area that Israel has occupied since 1967.
The illusion of a “threat” to Israel guarantees an ever greater cascade of military and economic aid supplied by slavishly pro-Israel politicians in the United States.
Hasbara propaganda additionally aims at promoting fake news and conspiracy theories to divert attention from an actual and very public conspiracy: the efforts of the Israel lobby to manipulate politics in the United States.
Abe, you are 100% wrong that Mulga Mumblebrain is a hasbara troll. Mulga comments at Robertscribbler on climate issues, not a trace of hasbara. Mulga comments at Unz Review, not a trace of hasbara. Mulga comments at The Saker, not a trace of hasbara. Mulga is obviously a real person and displays a variety of interests and opinions.
“Not a trace of hasbara…” in the 11 mumbles of “Zionazi”
“Mulga Mumblebrain” mumbles the term “Zionazi” with astonishing frequency, specifically targeting sites critical of the Israeli government and the Israel Lobby.
Hasbara troll for sure.
Whether or not there’s a “real person” posting non-Hasbara comments somewhere under the same name is irrelevant.
The pluperfect, now often called the past perfect, is a type of verb form used to refer to an action at a time earlier than a time in the past already referred to. In English grammar, the pluperfect is formed by combining the auxiliary verb had with the past participle of the main verb, as in had jumped or had written. It is commonly called the past perfect, being a combination of perfect aspect (marked by the use of the have auxiliary with the past participle) and past tense (marked by the use of the past tense of that auxiliary, had).
Example: “Mulga Mumblebrain” had mumbled “Zionazi” at Dissident Voice.
You hit the nail on the head, Abe has difficulty accepting the assignation of the right label to Israel, as I pointed out to him in my comment above.
Sorry Mulga Mumblebrain, I meant I pointed it out below.
Hasbara pro-Israel propaganda most definitely includes fabricated “anti-Semitic” comments, racist epithets and other other provocations from comment trolls.
A “Paranam Kid” has been appearing on sites like Mondoweiss, Foreign Policy Journal and +972 making loud declarations about Hasbara and rants about the nefarious “Jews”.
“Paranam Kid” and his pal “mark” were called out for their Hasbara activities here back in September. See comments at https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/06/nikki-haley-falsely-accuses-iran/
And now we have “Paranam Kid” again shooting his mouth off and defending the likes of “ Mulga Mumblebrain”.
The entire point of the inflammatory Hasbara rhetoric is to deceive, divert, distract, and distort substantive discussion of the Israel-related geopolitical issues with loud rants about “Zionazis” and “Jews”.
Predictably, when called out for their Hasbara activities, these trolls cry that they are somehow being misjudged.
Abe, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia “working definition” was never adopted by that agency and was withdrawn. See e.g., https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-drops-its-working-definition-of-anti-semitism/
It has been roundly criticized for its provision that you quote that lumps in criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, albeit ambiguously qualified. I think it says something about our State Department that it adopted that definition in its annual report of anti-semitic incidents. No wonder the rate of such incidents is rising, with that broad and ambiguous definition of anti-semitism suddenly applied
Thanks for your comment, Paul.
More accurately, the “working definition” was adopted by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2005, and was dropped two years later by the organization’s successor, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).
FRA, an independent EU agency set up in March 2007 and based in Vienna, Austria, discarded the non-official working definition. Blanca Tapia of the FRA stated: “The agency does not need to develop its own definition of anti-Semitism in order to research these issues.” The agency did not say there were no issues.
In Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (2005), Professor Norman Finkelstein argues that organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have brought forward charges of a “new anti-Semitism” at various intervals since the 1970s, “not to fight antisemitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism”.
Finkelstein writes that most evidence purporting to show a “new anti-Semitism” has been taken from organizations that are linked in some way to Israel, or that have “a material stake in inflating the findings of anti-Semitism,” and that some antisemitic incidents reported in recent years either did not occur or were misidentified.
In Beyond Chtuzpah, Finkelstein writes that what is called the “new anti-Semitism” consists of three components: (i) “exaggeration and fabrication”; (ii) “mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy”; and (iii) “the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally.”
Finkelstein argues that Israel’s apologists have denied a causal relationship between Israeli policies and hostility toward Jews, since “if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing so because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong”.
Tariq Ali, a British-Pakistani historian and political activist, argues in “Notes on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and Palestine” (2004) that the concept of “new anti-Semitism” amounts to an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against “the supposed new ‘anti-semitism'” in modern Europe is a “cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians…. Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism.” He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the Six-Day War were careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
In the face of a sustained intellectual critique of conventional Hasbara propagandist claims of a “new anti-Semitism”, an inverted Hasbara propaganda activity was developed.
Inverted Hasbara operates based on false arguments advanced by individuals who masquerade as critics of Zionism and Israel while spouting “anti-Semitic” epithets and ranting about “the Jews”.
The internet is a playground for both conventional Hasbara and inverted Hasbara trolls.
More extremist forms of inverted Hasbara includes “false flag” acts of violence and destruction, ranging from swastikas painted on synagogues to terrorist bombings, in order to enforce false perceptions of a “new anti-Semitism”, “threats” to Jews, and “danger” for Israel.
Such false perceptions can be leveraged to enact legislation favorable to Israel and Zionist interests, or used to justify war in the name of “defending” Israel.
In the post-Cold-War era, America and its allies… have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces…will be far more complex and con-strained when the American homeland…is subject to attack by other-wise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a minuscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective…system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence.
— Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, Page 14, A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000.
In other words, the real purpose is to prevent other nations from deterring America from attacking them.
There is no missile defence system.. Never was and won´t be for a very long long time. The technology simply is not there. Don´t take my word for it, read this article. why do you think that the US, Japan and or South Korea never even tried to shoot down North Korea´s missiles. it was quite simply to avoid showing the world that it is an impossibility and to keep the billions flowing into this usless program. If you can´t make it fake it..
Well Dan thanks to your provided link there goes another myth down the drain. I take stock in the article you posted Dan, because the author Joe Cirincione is a straight shooter. Cirincione when interviewed on TV always uses normal people talk to explain our country’s nuclear capabilities, and quite honestly Cirincione seems believable in an unfiltered way.
I also have been curious to the subject, to if the U.S. can shoot down an incoming missile, and now I know. So Dan your article most definitely is something ‘new’ I have learned today….thanks Joe
Dan, that reminds of a U.S. Navy test about three years ago — give or take — in which it was firmly established that minesweepers ability to detect mines was about 1 out of 20. Not good news for claims of being able to reopen the Straits of Hormuz if Iran were to close that waterway with mines. Iran is admirably capable of doing that via a very large fleet of mini-submarines and fast PT-like-boat-minelayers. And about 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply moves through those straits. Who needs nukes with that capability?
Yes, but we can hope that much lesser technology than missiles will do the job. When small demonized states pre-install nuclear weapons in the US we will see our heroic bully-boys suddenly deciding to pretend to be reasonable, as the racists did after the civil rights riots of the 1960s. It may be the best thing since refrigeration.
But the only language of the tyrant is force, and when US tyrants cannot bully other nations they will bully the unfortunate of the US all the more, creating monsters to demand power as false protectors. Then the persecuted factions will be forced to resort to force, to control the heroic bully-boy tyrants.
Short of pre-installing explosive charges on the heroic bully-boys themselves, to temper their lust for power, the US will have to restructure democracy to eliminate gangster tyrants. It is not so difficult as its sounds, but the tyrants will not surrender peacefully. Those who wish otherwise are not speaking the language of the tyrant.
They zionist opponents of the JCPOA are talking out of their place where the sun don’t shine. A mechanism for withdrawal would have to be in the text of the agreement, since the opponents haven’t mentioned this mechanism, it doesn’t exist. Germany, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and European Union are all signatories. If the United States unilaterally withdraws, it would have to sanction all six signatories, a huge mess would result, so it ain’t gonna happen. This is merely a PR stunt orchestrated by the zionist entity and fluffed by jewish American traitors in the media and elsewhere.
David. I think it is important to distinguish Jewish people in general and Zionist leaders of Israel and their fanatical followers. I for one would not like to be targeted for the crimes of the present American government, MIC, MSM, CIA etc. Just because I happen to have been born here does not mean I am somehow just a stereotype of the ugly American. Let’s let Jews be Jews, and save our indignation for those that deserve it. I have some wonderful friends who happen to be Jewish. Keep in mind that anti-semitic prejudice is alive and well in many – let’s not give them any support.
I too have friends there Jewish and good people. However, it seems that there is an underlying support for Israel despite reservations because the tribe has to stick together among a lot of Jews?
I find that although there are many very nice Jewish people, they do tyrannize each other and offer each other irresistible rewards and punishments to stick to the party line, which is essentially fascist promotion of “us” versus “them.” Only a few will state to anyone that they do not care about Israel, and even they will in fact do as their fuhrer directs. Probably there were equally agreeable German Nazis in the 1930s, and certainly most Germans disagreed with the Nazis until Hitler came to power and made that dangerous.
But it is important to call these new nazis zionists, because most of them are not Jewish, but greedy opportunists looking for an excuse to become insiders for profit or promotion, and to avoid the fake “anti-semitism” denunciations of the zionist nazis. Those are irresistible incentives for most, even for people of good will, just as in German Naziism. No one in the US has job security or any group benefit without claiming to be a zionist nazi.
The tragedy is that the fascist Jews learned well from the fascist Germans, gained control of other Jews by the same fascist techniques, and recruited a majority of greedy opportunists in the US, to destroy democracy for personal gain. Both Germany and the US were essentially unprotected against economic gangsterism in elections and business and mass media, and fascism is the natural result. All hail the Jewish fuhrer!
I am of Jewish heritage and adhere to no religion. I am compelled to respond to this. I oppose the Zionist regime, the neocons, and the neolibs. There are other Jews of like mind. See: Xttp://normanfinkelstein.com/ and Xhttp://mondoweiss.net/. There are more besides.
We are not all the same and do not all think alike. Among ourselves we joke about this. Many of us are prone to arguing with our fellow Jews and others. We are not all led around by our noses by anyone.
It does appear that the more visible and voluble Jews are Zionists. I have no excuse or justification for this. I don’t have an explanation for it either. Certainly Jews are just as fallible as anyone else. You can find plenty of fallible people in every group.
Yes, Jerry, the faults and the fascists are in every group, and they dominate under some conditions whether or not a majority, as presently among Jews. Fascism predominates where it is an effective means to power, where the media are controlled by money, where democracy is a sham controlled by money. It requires a perceived emergency, and creates one where there were none.
Joe, the article is somewhat applicable but mistaken (it is from Israel). Among the ten richest Americans it lists only Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, and Brin as “Jewish” but ignores Bezos and both Koch brothers and leaves Soros off the list, so in fact it is a large majority. But a proportion of the top ten does not make the point. Jews control all US mass media directly or indirectly via management, ownership, or control of advertising revenue. They comprise all of the top ten 2016 donors to the DNC. They control finance, the MIC, and all related government agencies. Those figures show extreme fascism beyond any doubt.
All hail the Jewish fuhrer!
Thanks anon, your knowledge of the subject in the article is important and relevant. I always try to distinguish between Jewish and Zionist. I also don’t much like being blamed for war crimes committed by our American leaders. My alibi is scattered all over these comment boards on this website, in case one day I need to plead a cop out. Thanks anon. Joe
Thank you, Joe for that link to the saker. I having been reading your comments for years and greatly appreciate them.
To anon, add a few more Jews to the ranks of billionaires; it does not change the principles at issue. As for the Koch bros., wikipedia gives me the impression that they are not Jewish, but it doesn’t really matter.
To put my point in plainer language, don’t tar everyone with the same brush. Tar those individuals who deserve it; don’t tar those indiviuals who don’t deserve it. Be careful about invoking all-encompassing group conspiracies, alliances, etc.
There are always dissenters. See for example . These Jews believe that the State of Israel should not exist as a Jewish state in a de jure or de facto sense, if I understand them correctly.
I am responsible for what I do. Hold me accountable for it. I am not responsible for what others do. Therefore you cannot hold me accountable for their conduct. I fear that the excesses of these prominent Jews will come back to haunt all Jews. Pride goeth before a fall.
Let me make one last and more tendentious point. Just as there are some Jews who don’t go along with these Jews whose conduct I deplore, the other 98% of Americans need not stand for it either. That ball is in someone else’s court.
My apologies for the missing link in my last comment. I try again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta.
Yes, that’s the problem, Druid: an active minority of criminal Zionists act and speak on behalf of Israel. Other Jews, then, perhaps a majority of them or at least a big chunk of them, not being criminally-minded or Jewish supremacist themselves, tend to give this criminal minority a blank check out of solidarity with their tribe or Zionist ideology. I know this first hand because I used to be for many years an ultra-Zionist (originally Christian Zionist) and would dismiss and ignore any evidence pointing to the criminality and racism of the state of Israel, no matter how much evidence was presented to me. I was brainwashed. My Weltanschauung radically changed in 2006 when I came to the realization, to my dismay, my own mental Pearl Harbor, that Israel played a major role in 911.
I find your response kind of really bad. Number one, he qualified which ones he is referring to “traitors in the media and elsewhere”….He did not refer to all of them!!! Number 2, Stop using the terms “Antisemitic” when you refer to “Jews only”. I am an Arab and that makes me “Semite”….Can you say “Anti-Jewish” instead?! Ir is that too hard for you?! Stop offending the so many Semites who are not Jews!!! It is actually a form of insulting ……………
David you make a good point. These sanctions are making life difficult for a lot of nations. This recent Russia-Iran-N Korea Sanction Bill is really hard on Germany, and France for meeting their energy needs, so the sanctions bill has been looked upon by Europeans as a sanction on them. Merkel actually made a statement, that maybe someone ought to put sanctions on the U.S.. I’m not sure what escape clause may hide inside of the JCPOA, but you may have a point of concern David, but then again what do I know? When your talking about the 21st Century U.S. Government, anything goes, when you make your own reality.
So I will try a third time to post my comment. First time it stayed in moderation for 12 hours, then deleted. Second time deleted after an hour in moderation. The JCPOA Joint Commission met in Vienna to review the agreement, chaired by the EU, and in July 21, 2017 issued a statement affirming Iran’s compliance and calling for further relaxation of sanctions. This statement was signed by the EU, France, Germany, United Kingdom, China, Russia, and surprise, surprise, The United States.
@ David: “A mechanism for withdrawal would have to be in the text of the agreement, since the opponents haven’t mentioned this mechanism, it doesn’t exist.”
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Under U.S. law, the JCPOA is an Executive Agreement, not a treaty; that is, it is a relatively informal agreement among the executives of various nations rather than a treaty subject to ratification by the U.S. Senate. That was necessary for several reasons, chiefly: [i] in the political climate of the time when the JCPOA was agreed, the U.S. Senate would not have ratified the agreement; and [ii] part of the deal requires withdrawal of very stiff economic sanctions on Iran that had been imposed by several prior U.N. Security Council resolutions. So the JCPOA gets its teeth as Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), which conditionally withdraws the previous sanctions. See http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/
That resolution and the JCPOA are very lengthy documents. I’ll quote from the just-linked summary page:
“Resolution 2231 (2015) stipulates that the Security Council, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA, shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations of the provisions of previous Security Council resolutions.
“Resolution 2231 (2015) further stipulates that if the Security Council does not adopt a resolution to continue in effect the termination of previous resolutions, then effective midnight GMT after the thirtieth day after the notification to the Security Council, all of the provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) shall apply in the same manner as they applied before the adoption of resolution 2231 (2015).”
So as I understand it (and I caveat that I have not taken the deep dive necessary to express a firm opinion in this regard), if the U.S. charges Iran with a “significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA” (no matter how far-fetched) then vetos a new resolution to continue the lifting of the sanctions, the prior sanctions on Iran are automatically reimposed.
Whether the other P5+1 states would then obey the prior sanctions resolutions is another matter. Many pundits are of the opinion that they would not.
Thank you Dr. Merrell for your superb comment. I downloaded 2231(2015). Do you believe the following would restrain the course of action you describe. Paragraph 5 has the IAEA report to the Security Council regarding Iran’s fullfillment of its commitments. Paragraph 13 requires an attempt to resolve a claim by a JPCOA Participant that a Participant is not fulfilling its commitments, I assume this means a good faith attempt. The United States at the July 21 Vienna meeting signed a statement that Iran is fulfilling its commitments. Finally, if all or part of the sanctions are imposed by the method you describe, Iran considers itself free of tbe obligation not to pursue a nuclear device. It seems The United States would have to take a position of extreme noncooperation and all it would accomplish is to leave Iran free to develop a nuclear device
September 18, 2017
The Biggest Warmonger on the Planet
The biggest warmonger on the planet is seeking more wars
This warmonger and its helpers are responsible for lots of blood and gore
They have slaughtered millions and destroyed a number of countries
Now they are seeking more targets, is their no end to their effronteries?
Their propaganda pushers are promoting more military confrontations
Could North Korea, China, Iran and Russia be their next target nations?
Will the ‘Great Satan’ and his Nato-rious gang bring about the end game?
Will we all be nuclear incinerated by politicians and generals, who are insane?
The latest “war leader” talks about fighting terrorists along with his war criminal crew
At the same time he is part of a coalition, that arms and trains terrorists too
Hypocrisy is the forte of this evil satanic war mongering dirty coalition
Unfortunately they are in the halls of power and will lead us all to perdition
Has the rule of law become the rule of outlaws and war criminals?
Are we in the hands of depraved and deranged bloody imbeciles?
Has the world stage become a platform for killing and those that plan it?
Are we all prisoners of the biggest warmonger and its helpers on the planet?…
[read more at link below]
It’s a shame we are still trashing around this Iranian nuclear disarmament agreement, and not breathing down Israel’s back to do the same as Iran did. Instead, I’m waiting for the day that Saudi Arabia becomes another nuke armed Middle East nation. Stupid me, there was a time a couple years ago when I thought the P5+1 project would be a shinning example of how to avoid a country from going nuclear, but that model of potential success seemed to melt into a puddle on the very hot grill (Israel) it was placed upon before we all had time to admire it.
WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS ANTISEMITIC FOR THE GANDER”
As Joe Tedesky so accurately points out, the is absolutely no reason
why the terms of JCPOA “the Iran “Nuke Deal”) must be applied to
Israel. With US complicity, Israel is certainly the greatest threat to Mideast
and world peace at this time. While the details might be slightly different,
the foundation and goals and objectives should be the same. This
should include random inspection, demilitarization of all nuclear sites
as well as other sites for the manufacture of WMD’s and it should
include action (sanctionsw etc.) for noncompliance by Israel.
I have urged this many times in this space previously.
Others have also put forward versions (eg Noam Chomsky, the
United Nations General Assembly etc.)
We all know quite well that no such agreement is possible. If
this was not known previously, the speeches of President Trump
make such a program even clearer. (It was unlikely
under previous US Administrations both Democratic and
Efforts should be pursued with regards to other nations
but space is limited.
Do not forget that nuclear weapons were developed
by the United States. Was it not inevitable that such
weapons would find their way to other nations?
(As horrible as the nuclear bombing of Japan may have
been, many agree that US carpet bombing of Japan was
even more fatal especially as regards civilians.)
—-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
“…there is absolutely no reason SHOULD not be applied…”
Yes, those neocons really know how to keep mic bonfires burning with American tax dollars!
I guess only bully USA and other countries hand-picked are allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s getting kind of tiring.