webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Iran nuclear deal

===

see treaty peace

see uini pow

SOMEONE SAID IRAN WAR DRIVEN BY LOOMER, TOM COTTON AND MIRIAM ADELSON?! 3 26 TRUMP REF HORRIBLE DEAL BY B HUSSEIN OBAMA

GRENELL

===

aha odd how gop just lost their shit on this?  just islamophobe?

trump tried to get DOJ to go after  Kerry (logan act?) bc he crit pullout?

===

belated nuclear weapons bak?

===

NATIONAL SECURITY

Court ruling on NSA spying can’t wait, activist says

BY JULIAN HATTEM

05/27/15

conservative legal activist Larry Klaymanis suing President Obama and members of Congress over a deal on Iran’s nuclear program that he claims flies in the face of the Constitution.

The lawsuit, Klayman says, aims to block both the treaty and the “unconstitutional” law that Congress passed to guarantee a review of the multinational nuclear accord.

{mosads}The White House and Congress “gave away, abrogated and undermined [Klayman’s] constitutional rights, putting him in danger, including the protections inherent in the Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty,” he said in the lawsuit.

Under the Constitution, two-thirds of the Senate needs to approve any international treaty signed by the president.

But there will be no such vote on the Iran deal, which sets restrictions on the country’s nuclear activity over the next decade in exchange for the rolling back of sanctions on its oil and financial sectors.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), which lawmakers passed earlier this year to give them oversight of the deal, violates the Constitution “by changing the method and radically altering the requirements by which treaties are ratified, who ratifies treaties, and the voting requirements to do so,” Klayman alleges in his lawsuit.

“As a result, INARA is unconstitutional, invalid, and void,” he added.

The constitutional argument has become popular among some conservatives, who feel that Congress sold them out by passing the Iran review bill, which allows lawmakers to pass a resolution for or against the deal, or to do nothing.

However, the definition of a treaty is tricky, and presidents have tended to have the power to declare whether an agreement is a formal treaty or not. Lawmakers have insisted that the passage of the Iran review bill actually gave them leverage in the White House’s negotiations.

In addition to Obama, Klayman — a Florida resident — also names Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.) in the lawsuit.

Rubio, a 2016 contender and critic of the Iran deal, said Thursday that Obama’s successor could unilaterally kill the agreement.

Klayman has a long history of aggressively filing lawsuits, which have occasionally become a thorn in the side of political officials.

For instance, a lawsuit of his against the National Security Agency succeeded in having a top federal court declare a controversial spying program illegal earlier this year.

TAGS IRANLARRY KLAYMAN

==

https://time.com/4025406/lindsey-graham-iran-deal-obama/

no lnx vid

graham Nuclear Deal...

Know Right Now: Democrats Secure 41 Votes for Iran Deal

Senate Democrats rallied 41 votes in support of the Iran Nuclear Deal

BY PHILIP ELLIOTT SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

Sen. Lindsey Graham blamed President Obama’s pursuit of an Iranian nuclear deal for everything from Russian’s invasion of Ukraine to Chinese cyber-attacks and the collapse of Yemen’s government.

In a scathing speech Tuesday, the Republican presidential contender argued that Obama was willing to overlook festering international problems in order to get cooperation on the Iranian agreement.

“He has neither the will nor the understanding of the Middle East,” Graham said at an appearance at the National Press Club. “Evil is doing well on his watch and he has been a poor champion of freedom.”

The South Carolina Republican, a longtime foreign policy hawk, faces an uphill climb to his party’s presidential nomination. But he is in broad agreement with many in his party on the deal with Iran, which now has enough support in the Senate to overcome Republican opposition.

“The only way to reset the table is to get a new President,” Graham said.

In a rare scripted speech, Graham said rival nations took advantage of the United States during the negotiations. He said Russia went into Ukraine, largely unchecked, because it saw Washington as unwilling to intervene. China, too, has been aggressive in its cyber warfare because the United States needed Beijing’s cooperation for an Iran deal, he argued. “They’re getting away with almost everything,” Graham said.

Meanwhile, Iranian-backed Houthi militants toppled the pro-American government of Yemen, and Tehran has also expanded its influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Graham chided. He called Syrian President Bashir al-Assad a “puppet” of Iran.

China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States negotiated the nuclear deal, under which Iran will get relief from sanctions and regain access to international oil markets. That is expected to bring it a windfall of about $100 billion to Iran.In exchange, Iran must dispose of most of its low-enriched uranium, stop efforts to produce or acquire more nuclear fuel and consent to inspections.

Republicans in Congress are trying to block the deal, although they lack the votes to derail it. “We don’t have the votes to do that,” Graham acknowledged Tuesday. But, he added, even the deal’s supporters should allow at least an open debate on the floor of the Senate when it convenes on Wednesday. “What the hell are we here for, if not to talk about this?” Graham asked.

===

thehill solomon ukraine

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/461038-how-irans-nuclear-breakout-easily-could-become-a-sneakout

...character in Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises” describes how he went bankrupt: gradually, and then suddenly. After the latest news out of Tehran, the same can be said for Iran’s continued progress toward a nuclear weapon.

:{

}:

Last weekend Iranian officials announced the third in an unfolding series of ultimatums, whereby Tehran progressively ratchets up its violations of the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) unless Europe offsets the pain of U.S. sanctions.

In May, Iran served notice it would grow its stockpiles of low enriched uranium (LEU) and heavy water beyond the limits of the nuclear deal. In July, it began enriching LEU marginally above the JCPOA’s cap. These moves, although worrisome, do not immediately bring Tehran dangerously closer to a bomb. Its LEU stock is too little for a nuclear weapon, and its heavy water is useless until completion of a corresponding reactor — likely years away.

Instead, Iran’s initial steps began shrinking the “breakout time” it needs to produce enough fissile material for a bomb steadily, rather than immediately. Breakout estimates can be as much an art as a science, but whereas its current timeframe is roughly 10-11 months, a year from now it could shrink to approximately 7-8 months. This would still leave opportunities for inspectors to detect and report a breakout attempt.

These estimates are part of a July study by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), which also looked ahead to next steps Iran could take, including those it just announced.

Specifically, Tehran declared it no longer would adhere to the nuclear deal’s research and development (R&D) restrictions.Unlike its previous moves, which eat into breakout time slowly, this latest step threatens to do so precipitously by paving the way for a major expansion of Iran’s enrichment capacity.

The JCPOA limits this capacity to 5,060 antiquated and inefficient IR-1 centrifuges, while also permitting testing on small numbers of more advanced centrifuges. Crucially, Iran cannot use these tests to accumulate LEU and thereby cut breakout time.

But now Tehran is breaking these exact ceilings. It is installing advanced centrifuges well beyond the numbers allowed in the nuclear deal. More importantly, it will begin adding the enriched uranium from these tests to its stockpile.[not no #/ src]

These moves will not put Iran perilously closer to a bomb tomorrow. But nor should they be confused with Tehran’s much more gradual nuclear escalations from previous months — for two reasons.

First, these advanced centrifuges will accelerate the ongoing expansion of Iran’s LEU stockpile. Though these machines are being installed by the dozens and hundreds, as compared to the thousands of IR-1s currently running, they can produce enriched uranium much more quickly than anything Iran has used to date. Thus, small expansions in overall centrifuge numbers could translate to disproportionate reductions in breakout time.

Second, unlike previous escalations, this gambit could push Iran’s nuclear program into dangerous uncharted territory. Increasing its stockpiles and enrichment level, as it has done since May, still leaves Iran appreciably further from a bomb than it was before the nuclear deal.[huh?]

But fast-tracking its R&D program could give Iran something it has never had, and much sooner than expected. It could learn how to operate an industrial-scale enrichment program capable of producing multiple nuclear bombs’ worth of fissile material before any inspectors could detect it. [are there any now? 24 days?] Tellingly, the JCPOA sought to delay such breakthroughs for more than a decade by increasing these activities very gradually, past the point when most other meaningful restrictions already would have terminated.

Even though Iran announced last year a new manufacturing facility for advanced centrifuges, it still would need time to build and install vast quantities of these newer machines.

But upon completion, its breakout time would shrink significantly — and at once. From that point, a breakout easily could become an undetectable “sneakout.”

This presents American policymakers with a closing window that could slam shut quickly.They must prepare options beyond sanctions, which only generate Iranian counter-pressure — whether in the nuclear arena or in the Strait of Hormuz — without providing any options to deter or address that counter-pressure. MILITARY?

Indeed, the current U.S. approach is driving events toward one of three unpalatable outcomes: further Iranian progress toward a bomb; a European-Iranian deal on sanctions relief that effectively restores the status quo-ante of the JCPOA and flouts the entire U.S. sanctions regime; or renewed negotiations under the shadow of Iran’s nuclear escalations and serious rifts between the United States and its diplomatic partners.

American policymakers must implement more robust measures to develop some much-needed leverage. Credible military threats most reliably compel Tehran to roll back its progress toward a bomb. The Trump administration must prepare these measures, not more sanctions, to help ensure it can prevent a nuclear Iran as time begins running out.

Jonathan Ruhe is director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy

==

==

pow

Bolton was widely seen as the driving force behind Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.This treaty—signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union Premier Mikhail Gorbachev—eliminated US and Russian land-based short- and medium-range missiles, both nuclear and conventional. It was a key staple of the non-proliferation regime.[[34]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn34)

Commenting on the decision to pull out of the INF and Bolton’s role in it,Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, wrote, “Just in time for Halloween, John Bolton emerges from the basement of the White House to continue his serial killing spree of arms control agreements. … Bolton is about to dismember [the INF]—for no good reason. He apparently has convinced an uninformed and uninterested president that a likely Russian violation of the INF Treaty is reason to destroy the agreement.”

Cirincione noted that there was a legitimate basis for accusing Russia of violating the INF, but that this was not nearly enough reason to withdraw from a treaty that was, on the whole, still achieving its purpose. Instead, Cirincione contended, the decision to withdraw was based on a desire for new missiles called for in Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review, issued early in 2018.

Cirincione argued, “In order to field these new weapons, Bolton needs Trump to quit Reagan’s treaty. But there is no need for these new instruments of mass destruction. Even if the Russians have violated the agreement, the United States already has thousands of long-range nuclear weapons trained on Russia. Additional weapons would be redundant, providing no new capability.”

On Bolton’s role, Cirincione stated, “Bolton does not try to mask his identity or his right-wing ideologue. He does not issue his threats in raspy phone calls, but boldly proclaims that U.S. military power should not be constrained by any treaties, under any circumstances. Like a recycled horror movie, he presents nuclear war-fighting ideas from the 1950s as if they were bold new concepts.”[[35]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn35)

Europeans expressed concerns that Washington might deploy new missiles on the continent without the INF. But, Reuters noted, “Bolton said Washington was ‘a long way’ from making any such deployments in Europe and said grim warnings about the dangerous consequences of Washington quitting the treaty were wide of the mark and reminded him of similarly hollow warnings when the United States left the Cold War-era Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002.”[[36]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn36)

Bolton’s appointment ensured that Trump would stay the course in abandoning the Iran nuclear deal, and he did. His support for military action against Iran is well known, and he has held that position for many years. In 2015, he penned an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” In it, he made clear that he envisioned not only a military attack, preferably by Israel, on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also a U.S.-engineered regime change in Iran.

“The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required,” opined Bolton. “Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed. … An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”[[37]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn37)

...

Bolton’s penchant for intemperate statements often compromised his work as a diplomat. In July 2003, during the run-up to the six-party talks with North Korea, Bolton characterized North Korean President Kim Jong Il as the “tyrannical dictator” of a country where “life is a hellish nightmare.” North Korea responded in kind, saying that “such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks. … We have decided not to consider him as an official of the U.S. administration any longer nor to deal with him.” The State Department had to send a replacement for Bolton to the talks.[[101]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn101)

===

https://lobelog.com/document-reveals-billionaire-backers-behind-united-against-nuclear-iran/

Eli Clifton

Among the many groups engaged in advocacy over a potential deal between Iran and world powers, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) stands apart as by far the most mysterious. Late last month, UANI announced it would launch a “multi-million dollar” ad campaign, noting “a growing concern that U.S. negotiators could be pressured into making dangerous concessions in order to cement a deal,” according to the group’s CEO, Mark Wallace.

As the ad buy suggests, UANI draws on a deep well of resources to fund fretful warnings about the dangers of compromising with Iran’s nuclear negotiators. But, despite piecemeal information unearthed in my previous reporting, a more comprehensive look at UANI’s funding has until now remained obscured by a US government-backed veil of secrecy: the group’s donor rolls were among the documents a plaintiff was seeking in a defamation case against UANI until the Justice Department quashed the suit with an invocation of state secrets.

Now, however, I’ve obtained and reviewed a comprehensive list of UANI’s major donors in UANI’s 2013 tax year, providing some answers about who is backing the group’s efforts.

According to the “Schedule B” filing that tax-exempt nonprofits must submit to the IRS, the top donors to UANI are a pair of trusts associated with the billionaire Thomas Kaplan and a family foundation operated by Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam.Together, the funding associated with Kaplan and Adelson accounted for more than three-quarters of the group’s total revenue of $1.7 million for the 2013 tax year.

As I previously reported for The Nation, Adelson’s family foundation contributed half a million dollars to UANI that year.

Kaplan’s contributions to the anti-Iran group were larger overall—totaling $843,000, around half the UANI’s annual revenue for that tax year—but through two separate trusts managed by his company, named in the schedule B document as The Tigris Group. (Known Kaplan companies include The Tigris Financial Group, The Tigris Group of Companies, and The Electrum Group.) The first, Butterfield Trust, is described in a 2011 Sunshine Silver Mines prospectus as “trustee of a trust primarily for the benefit of members of the family of Dr. Thomas Kaplan.” Butterfield Trust contributed $281,000 to UANI in 2013. The other Kaplan trust, New Generations, gave UANI $562,000, according to the Schedule B.

Lawsuit Against UANI

UANI, an outfit dedicated to promoting and strengthening sanctions and taking a hard line in the current Iran nuclear negotiations, made headlines earlier this year thanks to a bizarre lawsuit. Victor Restis sued UANI for defamation in July 2013 after the group accused him of doing illegal business with Iran, characterizing the Greek shipping magnate and an associate of being “front-men” for the Iranian government.

This past March, the Justice Department succeeded in getting the case dismissed. As part of discovery, the legal term for exchanging documents and information before trial. Restis’s lawyers had asked UANI to produce documents backing up its allegations in court, as well as some general information about the group, including its donor rolls. But the Justice Department shielded UANI from complying with the requests by invoking state secrets. An amicus brief filed by civil liberties groups said the intervention was unprecedented: “Never before has the government sought dismissal of a suit between private parties on state secrets grounds without providing the parties and the public any information about the government’s interest in the case.”

In the fall of 2014, as the case was heating up, UANI released a statement responding to queries raised by Restis’s legal team. The statement claimed that “UANI has never sought or received funds from any foreign individual” and that “UANI has never sought or received funds from any business about which UANI has expressed concerns regarding business with Iran.” The statement added that the group was “unaware of any donor to UANI who even knows Mr. Restis, much less that competes in any way with Mr. Restis’ businesses.” The denials, however, became nearly impossible to confirm when the Justice Department asked a judge to block the case, which could have led to the release of donor information.

“These kinds of financial ties were among what we specifically requested in discovery,” Restis’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, told LobeLog.

“The [new] information only confirms that there is a need to unravel the web of financial and political involvement between this organization and its supporters both in the United States and abroad,” said Lowell. “That is what we are seeking to do in this litigation to create transparency of the many interests involved.”

Pattern of Giving

Both Thomas Kaplan and Sheldon Adelson have family ties to Israel. Adelson gives in concert with his Israeli-born wife, Miriam. “I am not Israeli,” Sheldon Adelson said at a 2010 event, speaking about the founding of Israel Hayom, a right-wing newspaper he owns in Israel. Standing beside Miriam, however, Adelson went on: “All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart.”

The Kaplan trust New Generations is associated with Kaplan and his wife, Dafna Recanati Kaplan, the daughter of influential Israeli investor Leon Recanati (Leon’s late uncle Raphael, an Israeli-American businessman, was himself a shipping magnate).

Both sets of major donors raise questions about UANI’s professed non-partisanship.

The Adelsons give almost exclusively to the Republican Party, Republican candidates, and right-wing dark money groups; Kaplan gives to both parties, but the sums to Republican affiliates and candidates, between the 2012 election cycle and the present, were higher, at a ratio of roughly 10 to 1. Before the 2012 election, Kaplan contributed $6,200 respectively to the Idaho, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Oklahoma Republican parties as well as $30,800 to the Republican National Committee. He also contributed $58,100 to the Romney Victory committee and $100,000 to the Romney-supporting Restore Our Future super PAC. The Adelsons, for their part, were reported to have spent $150 million to support Republican candidates in the 2012 election and contributed up to $100 million to support Republicans in the 2014 Senate midterms—not to mention a host of right-wing pressure groups that enjoy the Adelsons’ largesse.

Stance on Iran

Both Thomas Kaplan and Sheldon Adelson have made hawkish statements about Iran.

Adelson famously proposed launching a first-strike nuclear attack against Iran to send a message to Tehran’s nuclear negotiators. And Kaplanpublicly compared UANI’s effectiveness to advanced weaponry, presumably targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, during a March 2014 event held in his honor. “United Against Nuclear Iran may not have had Tomahawk missiles and aircraft carriers at its disposal, [but] we’ve done more to bring Iran to heel than any other private sector initiative and most public ones,” Kaplan said.

Kaplan’s business interests also present an interesting angle on his funding anti-Iran advocacy like UANI’s. As I noted in a previous report for*Salon*, one of Kaplan’s mining concerns, the now-bankrupt Apex Silver Mines, Ltd., advertised itself in an annual report as a sound investment because of the potential for a “nuclear confrontation” with Iran. Likewise with another silver venture called Sunshine Silver Mines: a 2011 investment prospectustalked up silver investments in light of “political unrest in the Middle East.” Amb. Mark Wallace, who had by then already taken the helm at UANI, was overseeing Sunshine under the aegis of the Tigris Financial Group, where Wallace serves as CEO.

At the time the prospectus talked up “political unrest,” three of Kaplan’s companies controlled Sunshine through a 70 percent stake; half of that stake was held by the Butterfield Trust—the same Kaplan trust that gave UANI almost $300,000 in 2013.

Adelson’s family foundation declined to comment on their contribution to UANI. Neither UANI nor Kaplan’s office responded to requests for comment.

UANI’s 2013 “Schedule B” can be viewed here.

==

ref? nyt

Trump Abandons Iran Nuclear Deal He Long Scorned

Video

TRANSCRIPT

0:00/0:51

Trump Pulls Out of Iran Deal

President Trump said pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal sends a message that “the United States no longer makes empty threats.”

In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons. Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. In a few moments, I will sign a presidential memorandum to begin reinstating U.S. nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime. We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction. Today’s action sends a critical message. The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them.

President Trump said pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal sends a message that “the United States no longer makes empty threats.”CreditCredit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Mark Landler

May 8, 2018

WASHINGTON — President Trump declared on Tuesday that he was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor Barack Obama, isolating the United States from its Western allies and sowing uncertainty before a risky nuclear negotiation with North Korea.

The decision, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, leaves the 2015 agreement reached by seven countries after more than two years of grueling negotiations in tatters. The United States will now reimpose the stringent sanctions it imposed on Iran before the deal and is considering new penalties.

Iran said it will remain in the deal, which tightly restricted its nuclear ambitions for a decade or more in return for ending the sanctions that had crippled its economy.

So did France, Germany and Britain, raising the prospect of a trans-Atlantic clash as European companies face the return of American sanctions for doing business with Iran. China and Russia, also signatories to the deal, are likely to join Iran in accusing the United States of violating the accord.

Mr. Trump’s move could embolden hard-line forces in Iran, raising the threat of Iranian retaliation against Israel or the United States, fueling an arms race in the Middle East and fanning sectarian conflicts from Syria to Yemen.

The president, however, framed his decision as the fulfillment of a bedrock campaign promise and as the act of a dealmaker dissolving a fatally flawed agreement. He predicted his tough line with Iran would strengthen his hand as he prepared to meet North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, to begin negotiating the surrender of his nuclear arsenal.

“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” a grim-faced Mr. Trump said in an 11-minute address from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. “It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”

[Read the full transcript of President Trump’s remarks.]

Mr. Trump’s announcement drew a chorus of opposition from European leaders, several of whom lobbied him feverishly not to pull out of the agreement and searched for fixes to it that would satisfy him.

It also drew a rare public rebuke by Mr. Obama, who said Mr. Trump’s withdrawal would leave the world less safe, confronting it with “a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East.”

The response from Iran itself, however, was muted. President Hassan Rouhani declared that the Iranians intended to abide by the terms of the deal, and he criticized Mr. Trump for his history of not honoring international treaties. Mr. Trump won strong backing from Saudi Arabia and Israel, whose leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hailed him for a “historic move” and “courageous leadership.”

What Changes and What Remains in the Iran Nuclear Deal

The restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program under the deal could survive.

Three times previously, the president’s aides had persuaded him not to dismantle the Iran deal. But Mr. Trump made clear that his patience had worn thin, and with a new, more hawkish cohort of advisers — led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the national security adviser, John R. Bolton — the president faced less internal resistance than earlier in his administration.

While Mr. Trump had long scorned the Iran deal, threatening repeatedly to rip it up during the 2016 presidential race, his impulse to act now was reinforced by what he views as the success of his policy toward North Korea. He has told aides and foreign leaders that his policy of maximum pressure had forced Mr. Kim to the bargaining table, and that a similar policy of overwhelming pressure would enable the United States to extract a better deal from Iran.

As Mr. Trump abandoned one diplomatic project, he accelerated another — announcing that Mr. Pompeo was flying to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, to continue discussions with Mr. Kim about the upcoming summit meeting. He expressed hope that three Americans who are detained in the North would be released soon.

“The message to North Korea,” Mr. Bolton told reporters, “is the president wants a real deal.”

He rejected the suggestion that the United States could not be trusted to keep its agreements when political winds change. “Any nation reserves the right to correct a past mistake,” Mr. Bolton said, citing President George W. Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2001.

The Trump administration, he said, would continue to work with Europeans to pressure the Iranians. He dismissed those who said the United States was on a path to war with Iran, though he did not present any new diplomatic initiatives. Another senior administration official acknowledged that there was no Plan B.

Months of intense negotiations with the Europeans to keep the accord in place collapsed over Mr. Trump’s insistence that the limits placed by the agreement on Iran’s nuclear fuel production were inadequate. Under the provisions of the deal, those limits, or “sunset clauses,” were to expire in 2030 — 15 years after the deal was signed.

As a result, the United States will reinstate all the sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord, and it will impose additional economic penalties that are now being drawn up by the Treasury Department.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin declined on Tuesday to specify what additional sanctions the United States might impose, but he expressed confidence that they would still be powerful even if other American allies did not follow suit.

“We do not want to let Iran use the U.S. financial markets and financial system and transact in dollars until they agree that not only will they not have a nuclear weapon now, but we’ve put in provisions that they will never have one,” Mr. Mnuchin said.

In his announcement, Mr. Trump recited familiar arguments against the deal: that it does not address the threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles or its malign behavior in the region, and that the expiration dates for the sunset clauses open the door to an Iranian nuclear bomb down the road.

Even if Iran was in compliance, he said, it could “still be on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time.” In fact, under the deal, the limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment and stockpiles of nuclear fuel mean that Iran would not be on the verge of a nuclear breakout until 2030.

Still, Mr. Trump said, the United States and its allies could not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon “under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.”

“The Iran deal is defective at its core,” he concluded.

Mr. Trump’s announcement capped a frantic four-day period in which American and European diplomats made a last-ditch effort to bridge their differences and preserve the agreement.

That effort began Friday, when Mr. Pompeo called his counterparts in Europeto tell them that Mr. Trump was planning to withdraw from the deal, but that he was trying to win a two-week reprieve for the United States and Europe to continue negotiating. Mr. Pompeo, people familiar with the talks said, suggested that he favored a so-called soft withdrawal, in which Mr. Trump would pull out of the deal but hold off on reimposing some of the sanctions.

The next day, the State Department’s chief negotiator, Brian H. Hook, consulted with European diplomats to try to break a deadlock over the sunset provision, under which the restrictions on Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel for civilian use expire after 15 years.

The Europeans had already agreed to a significant compromise: to reimpose sanctions if there were a determination that the Iranians were within 12 months of producing a nuclear weapon. But officials said that still did not satisfy Mr. Trump, and the Europeans were not willing to go any further.

By Monday, the White House began informing allies that Mr. Trump was going to withdraw from the deal and reimpose sanctions on oil and impose new sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran.

Under the financial sanctions, European companies will have 90 to 180 days to wind down their operations in Iran, or they will run afoul of the American banking system. The sanctions on oil will require European and Asian countries to reduce their imports from Iran.

Mr. Mnuchin insisted that the restrictions would not drive up oil prices because other suppliers would pick up the slack. “My expectation is not that oil prices go higher,” he said. “To a certain extent, some of this was already in the market on oil prices.”

Mr. Trump’s decision will test his already frayed relationship with European leaders. President Emmanuel Macron of France,whom the president welcomed with a state dinner two weeks ago, learned of his decision in a phone call with Mr. Trump on Tuesday morning. Later, he said in a post on Twitter that the European allies “regret” his decision.

“The international regime against nuclear proliferation is at stake,” he added.

In a joint statement, Mr. Macron, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain noted pointedly that the United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing the nuclear deal remained the “binding international legal framework for the resolution of the dispute.” That raises the possibility that the United States will be found to be in violation in the Security Council.

Few people were more stung by Mr. Trump’s decision than those who worked for Mr. Obama. Though he has moved methodically to dismantle his predecessor’s legacy, his reversal of the Iran deal was particularly painful, given the five years of effort that went into imposing sanctions, and the more than two-year-long negotiation led by Secretary of State John Kerry that yielded the accord.

“No rhetoric is required,” Mr. Kerry said in a statement. “The facts speak for themselves. Instead of building on unprecedented nonproliferation verification measures, this decision risks throwing them away and dragging the world back to the brink we faced a few years ago.”

==

===

https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/trump-murdered-the-iran-deal-and-europe-isnt-too-happy-about-it-2/

===

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎, romanized: barnāmeye jāme'e eqdāme moshtarak (برجام, BARJAM)),[5][6] known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on July 14, 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany)[a] together with the European Union.

Formal negotiations toward JCPOA began with the adoption of the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in November 2013. Iran and the P5+1 countries engaged in negotiations for the next 20 months and in April 2015 agreed on a framework for the final agreement. In July 2015 Iran and the P5+1 confirmed agreement on the plan along with the "Roadmap Agreement" between Iran and the IAEA.[9]

Timeline:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

Under JCPOA, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. For the next 15 years Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67%. Iran also agreed not to build any new heavy-water facilities for the same period of time. Uranium-enrichment activities will be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges for 10 years. Other facilities will be converted to avoid proliferation risks. To monitor and verify Iran's compliance with the agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have regular access to all Iranian nuclear facilities. The agreement provides that in return for verifiably abiding by its commitments, Iran will receive relief from U.S., European Union, and United Nations Security Council nuclear-related sanctions.

On 13 October 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would not make the certification provided for under U.S. domestic law, but stopped short of terminating the deal.[10]

IAEA inspectors spend 3,000 calendar days per year in Iran, installing tamper-proof seals and collecting surveillance camera photos, measurement data and documents for further analysis. IAEA Director Yukiya Amano stated (in March 2018) that the organization has verified that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments.[11] On 30 April 2018 the United States and Israel said that Iran had not disclosed a past covert nuclear weapons program to the IAEA, as required by the 2015 deal.[12][13]

Part of a series on the
Nuclear program of Iran
Timeline
Facilities
Organizations
International agreements
Domestic laws
Individuals
Related

On 8 May 2018, Trump announced United States withdrawal from JCPOA.[14][15] Following the U.S.'s withdrawal, the EU enacted an updated blocking statute on 7 August 2018 to nullify US sanctions on countries trading with Iran.[16] In November 2018 U.S. sanctions came back into effect intended to force Iran to dramatically alter its policies, including its support for militant groups in the region and its development of ballistic missiles.[17]

In May 2019, the IAEA certified that Iran was abiding by the main terms of the deal, though questions were raised about how many advanced centrifuges Iran was allowed to have, as that was only loosely defined in the deal.[18]

On 1 July 2019, Iran announced that it had breached the limit set on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium,[19] which the IAEA confirmed.[20]

On 5 January 2020, in the aftermath of the Baghdad Airport Airstrike that targeted and killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, Iran declared that it would no longer abide by the limitations of the deal but would continue to coordinate with the IAEA, leaving open the possibility of resuming compliance.[21]

Background[

See also: Nuclear program of Iran and Nuclear proliferation

Nuclear technology[

A nuclear weapon uses a fissile material to cause a nuclear chain reaction. The most commonly used materials have been uranium 235 (U-235) and plutonium 239 (Pu-239). Both uranium 233 (U-233) and reactor-grade plutonium have also been used.[22][23][24] The amount of uranium or plutonium needed depends on the sophistication of the design, with a simple design requiring approximately 15 kg of uranium or 6 kg of plutonium, and a sophisticated design requiring as little as 9 kg of uranium or 2 kg of plutonium.[25] Plutonium is almost nonexistent in nature, and natural uranium is about 99.3% uranium 238 (U-238) and 0.7% U-235. Therefore, to make a weapon, either uranium must be enriched, or plutonium must be produced. Uranium enrichment is also frequently necessary for nuclear power. For this reason, uranium enrichment is a dual-use technology, a technology which "can be used both for civilian and for military purposes".[26] Key strategies to prevent proliferation of nuclear arms include limiting the number of operating uranium enrichment plants and controlling the export of nuclear technology and fissile material.[24][26]

Iranian nuclear activity, conflict with IAEA and Western countries, 1970–2006[

See also: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons § Iran

Iranian development of nuclear technology began in the 1970s, when the U.S. Atoms for Peace program began providing assistance to Iran, which was then led by the Shah.[27] Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 as a non-nuclear weapons state and ratified the NPT in 1970.[27]

In 1979 the Iranian Revolution took place, and Iran's nuclear program, which had developed some baseline capacity, fell to disarray as "much of Iran's nuclear talent fled the country in the wake of the Revolution."[27] Furthermore, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was initially opposed to nuclear technology, and Iran engaged in a costly war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988.[27]

In the late 1980s Iran reinstated its nuclear program, with assistance from Pakistan (which entered into a bilateral agreement with Iran in 1992), China (which did the same in 1990), and Russia (which did the same in 1992 and 1995), and from the A.Q. Khan network.[27] Iran "began pursuing an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle capability by developing a uranium mining infrastructure and experimenting with uranium conversion and enrichment".[27]

In August 2002 the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, an Iranian dissident group, publicly revealed the existence of two undeclared nuclear facilities, the Arak heavy-water production facility and the Natanz enrichment facility.[27][28] In February 2003 Iranian President Mohammad Khatami acknowledged the existence of the facilities and asserted that Iran had undertaken "small-scale enrichment experiments" to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants.[27] In late February International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors visited Natanz.[28] In May 2003 Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the Kalaye Electric Company but refused to allow them to take samples.[28]

In June 2003, an IAEA report concluded that Iran had failed to meet its obligations under the safeguards agreement,[28] and Iran, faced with the prospect of being referred to the UN Security Council, entered into diplomatic negotiations with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the EU 3).[27][28] The United States refused to be involved in these negotiations.[28] In October 2003 the Tehran Declaration was reached between Iran and the EU 3; under this declaration Iran agreed to cooperate fully with the IAEA, sign the Additional Protocol, and temporarily suspend all uranium enrichment.[27][28] In September and October 2003 the IAEA conducted several facility inspections.[27] This was followed by the Paris Agreement in November 2004, in which Iran agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment and conversion activities, "including the manufacture, installation, testing, and operation of centrifuges, and committed to working with the EU-3 to find a mutually beneficial long-term diplomatic solution".[27]

In August 2005, the newly elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, promptly accused Iranian negotiators who had negotiated the Paris Accords of treason.[28][29] Over the next two months, the EU 3 agreement fell apart as talks over the EU 3's proposed Long Term Agreement broke down; the Iranian government "felt that the proposal was heavy on demands, light on incentives, did not incorporate Iran's proposals, and violated the Paris Agreement".[27][28] Iran notified the IAEA that it would resume uranium conversion at Esfahan.[27][28]

In February 2006 Iran ended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and resumed enrichment at Natanz, prompting the IAEA Board of Governors to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.[27][28] After the vote, Iran announced it would resume enrichment of uranium.[28] In April 2006 Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had nuclear technology but said that it was purely for power generation, not weapons.[28] In June 2006 the EU 3 joined China, Russia, and the United States, to form the P5+1.[28] The following month, July 2006, the UN Security Council passed its first resolution (nr. 1696), demanding Iran stop uranium enrichment and processing, because of "serious concern" about "a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran's nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension".[30][28] Another UN Security Council resolution followed in December 2006 (nr. 1737); others followed later.[31] The legal authority for the IAEA Board of Governors referral and the Security Council resolutions derived from the IAEA Statute and the United Nations Charter.[31] The resolutions demanded that Iran cease enrichment activities, and the second resolution (Dec. 2006) also imposed sanctions on Iran, including bans on the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to the country and freezes on the assets of certain Iranian individuals and entities, in order to pressure the country.[27][28]

In July 2006 Iran opened the Arak heavy water production plant, which led to one of the Security Council resolutions.[27]

Prolonged conflict Iran with U.S. and European countries, 2007–present:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

Four more UN Security Council resolutions concerning Iran's nuclear program followed: 1747 (March 2007), 1803 (March 2008), 1835 (September 2008), and 1929 (June 2010).[31] In Resolution 1803 and elsewhere the Security Council acknowledged Iran's rights under Article IV of the NPT, which provides for "the inalienable right ... to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".[31][b]

In a February 2007 interview with the Financial Times, IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said that military action against Iran "would be catastrophic, counterproductive" and called for negotiations between the international community and Iran over the Iranian nuclear program.[37] ElBaradei specifically proposed a "double, simultaneous suspension, a time out" as "a confidence-building measure", under which the international sanctions would be suspended and Iran would suspend enrichment.[37] ElBaradei also said, "if I look at it from a weapons perspective there are much more important issues to me than the suspension of [enrichment]," naming his top priorities as preventing Iran from "go[ing] to industrial capacity until the issues are settled"; building confidence, with "full inspection" involving Iranian adoption of the Additional Protocol; and "at all costs" preventing Iran from "moving out of the [treaty-based non-proliferation] system".[37]

A November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003; that estimate and subsequent U.S. Intelligence Community statements also assessed that the Iranian government at the time had was "keeping open the 'option' to develop nuclear weapons" in the future.[38]

In September 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama revealed the existence of an underground enrichment facility in Fordow, near Qom, saying, "Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime."[39] Israel threatened to take military action against Iran.[28]

After several rounds of negotiations, on 24 November 2013 the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, was signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in Geneva, Switzerland.It consisted of a short-term freeze of portions of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for decreased economic sanctions on Iran, as the countries work towards a long-term agreement.[47] The IAEA began "more intrusive and frequent inspections" under this interim agreement.[43] The agreement was formally activated on 20 January 2014.[48] On that day, the IAEA issued a report stating that Iran was adhering to the terms of the interim agreement, including stopping enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, beginning the dilution process (to reduce half of the stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to 3.5 percent), and halting work on the Arak heavy-water reactor.[43][48]In March 2013 the United States began a series of secret bilateral talks with Iranian officials in Oman, led by William Joseph Burns and Jake Sullivan on the American side and Ali Asghar Khaji on the Iranian side.[28][40] In June 2013 Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran.[28][41] Rouhani has been described as "more moderate, pragmatic and willing to negotiate than Ahmadinejad". But in a 2006 nuclear negotiation with European powers, Rouhani said that Iran had used the negotiations to dupe the Europeans, saying that during the negotiations, Iran managed to master the conversion of uranium yellowcake at Isfahan. 

The conversion of yellowcake is an important step in the nuclear fuel process.[42] In August 2013, three days after his inauguration, Rouhani called for a resumption of serious negotiations with the P5+1 on the Iranian nuclear program.[43] In September 2013 Obama and Rouhani spoke by telephone, the first high-level contact between U.S. and Iranian leaders since 1979, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, signaling that the two countries were open to cooperation.[28][43] Former officials alleged that, in order to advance the deal, the Obama administration shielded Hezbollah from the Drug Enforcement Administration's Project Cassandra investigation regarding drug smuggling and from the Central Intelligence Agency.[44][45] As a result of the Politico report, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation to determine the veracity of the allegations.[46]

A major focus on the negotiations was limitations on Iran's key nuclear facilities: the Arak IR-40 heavy water reactor and production plant (which was under construction, but never became operational, as Iran agreed as part of the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action (interim agreement) not to commission or fuel the reactor); the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant; the Gachin uranium mine; the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant; the Isfahan uranium-conversion plant; the Natanz uranium enrichment plant; and the Parchin military research and development complex.[49]

A July 2015 Congressional Research Service report said, "statements from the U.S. intelligence community indicate that Iran has the technological and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons at some point, but the U.S. government assesses that Tehran has not mastered all of the necessary technologies for building a nuclear weapon."[38]

Negotiations[

Main article: Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

...

In comments made at the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado in July 2015, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the JCPOA would improve the U.S.'s ability to monitor Iran: "[The agreement] puts us in a far better place in terms of insight and access" than no agreement.[204] Clapper remained "concerned about compliance and deceit" but "pointed out that during the negotiation period [Iran] complied with rules" negotiated under the interim agreement (the Joint Plan of Action).[204]

Public debate:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

An intense public debate in the United States took place during the congressional review period.[205] "Some of the wealthiest and most powerful donors in American politics, those for and against the accord", became involved in the public debate,[206] although "mega-donors" opposing the agreement contributed substantially more money than those supporting it.[207] From 2010 to early August 2015 the foundations of Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and Haim Saban contributed a total of $13 million (at least $7.5 million, at least $2.6 million, and at least $2.9 million, respectively) to advocacy groups opposing an agreement with Iran.[207] On the other side, three groups lobbying in support of the agreement received at least $803,000 from the Ploughshares Fund, at least $425,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and at least $68,500 from George Soros and his foundation.[207] Other philanthropists and donors supporting an agreement include S. Daniel Abraham, Tim Gill, Norman Lear, Margery Tabankin, and Arnold Hiatt.[206]

Many Iranian Americans, even those who fled repression in Iran and oppose its government, welcomed the JCPOA as a step forward.[208] The National Iranian American Council (NIAC), Iranian American Bar Association, and other Iranian American organizations welcomed the JCPOA.[209] The NIAC released a statement saying: "Our negotiators have done their job to win a strong nuclear deal that prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon, all the while avoiding a catastrophic war. Now is the time for Congress to do theirs. Make no mistake: if Congress rejects this good deal with Iran, there will be no better deal forthcoming and Congress will be left owning an unnecessary war."[210] NIAC created a new group, NIAC Action, to run advertisements supporting the agreement.[207] NIAC also organized an open letter from 73 Middle East and foreign affairs scholars stating, "reactivating diplomatic channels between the United States and Iran is a necessary first step" to reduce conflict in the region, and that while "the nuclear deal will not automatically or immediately bring stability to the region ... Ultimately, a Middle East where diplomacy is the norm rather than the exception will enhance U.S. national security and interests,"[211]. See also full text of letter. Signatories to the letter include John Esposito, Ehsan Yarshater, Noam Chomsky, Peter Beinart, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt.[211]

U.S. pro-Israel groups were divided on the JCPOA.[212] The American Israel Public Affairs Committee opposed the agreement and formed a new 501(c)(4) group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, to run a television advertising campaign against it.[197][212][213][214] In August 2015 it was reported that AIPAC and Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran planned to spend between $20 million and $40 million on its campaign.[215] From mid-July to 4 August 2015 AIPAC's Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran spent more than $11 million on network television political advertisements opposing the agreement in 23 states, including more than $1 million in California, Florida, New York, and Texas.[215][216] In the first week of August AIPAC said it had 400 meetings with congressional offices as part of its campaign to defeat the agreement.[215]

In contrast to AIPAC, another pro-Israel organization, J Street, supported the agreement, and planned a $5 million advertising effort to encourage Congress to support it.[215][217] In the first week of August J Street launched a $2 million, three-week ad campaign in support of the agreement, with TV ads in Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.[218][219] From mid-July through early August J Street reported having 125 meetings with congressional offices.[215] J Street also paid to fly prominent Israelis who support the agreement (including Amram Mitzna, a retired Israeli general, member of the Knesset, and mayor of Haifa) to the United States to help persuade members of Congress to support it.[215]

The group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) opposed the agreement and committed to spending more than $20 million on a national "TV, radio, print and digital campaign" against it.[207][220] After UANI announced its opposition, the group's president and co-founder, nonproliferation expert Gary Samore, announced that he had concluded "that the accord was in the United States' interest" and supported the agreement.[207][221] Samore thus stepped down as president and was replaced by ex-Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.[221] By 20 August UANI had released its third national television ad against the agreement.[220]

The New York-based Iran Project, a nonprofit led by former high-level U.S. diplomats and funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, along with the United Nations Association of the United States, supported the agreement.[224] The Rockefeller fund also supported the San Francisco-based Ploughshares Fund, which spent several years marshaling support for an agreement.[224]Various other groups also ran ad campaigns for or against the agreement.

John R. Bolton's Foundation for American Security and Freedom ran ads against it, as did "Veterans Against the Deal", a group that does not disclose its donors.[223] Various pro-agreement ads were run by MoveOn.org (which ran an ad titled "Let Diplomacy Work"), Americans United for Change (which warned "They're back—the Iraq war hawks are fighting the Iran deal, want more war" over photos of Bolton, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld), and Global Zero (which ran a humorous ad featuring actors Jack Black, Morgan Freeman, and Natasha Lyonne).[223]

On 17 July 2015 a bipartisan open letter endorsing the Iran agreement was signed by more than 100 former U.S. ambassadors and high-ranking State Department officials.[225][226] The ex-ambassadors wrote: "If properly implemented, this comprehensive and rigorously negotiated agreement can be an effective instrument in arresting Iran's nuclear program and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the volatile and vitally important region of the Middle East. In our judgment the [plan] deserves Congressional support and the opportunity to show it can work. We firmly believe that the most effective way to protect U.S. national security, and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering other more costly and risky alternatives."[225][226] Among the signatories to the letter were Daniel C. Kurtzer, James R. Jones, Frank E. Loy, Princeton N. Lyman, Jack F. Matlock Jr., Donald F. McHenry, Thomas E. McNamara, and Thomas R. Pickering.[226]

A separate public letter to Congress in support of the agreement from five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel from administrations of both parties and three former Under Secretaries of State was released on 26 July 2015.[227] This letter was signed by R. Nicholas Burns, James B. Cunningham, William C. Harrop, Daniel Kurtzer, Thomas R. Pickering, Edward S. Walker Jr., and Frank G. Wisner.[228] The former officials wrote, "We are persuaded that this agreement will put in place a set of constraints and monitoring measures that will arrest Iran's nuclear program for at least fifteen years and assure that this agreement will leave Iran no legitimate avenue to produce a nuclear weapon during the next ten to fifteen years. This landmark agreement removes the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to the region and to Israel specifically."[228]

Another public letter to Congress urging approval of the agreement was signed by a bipartisan group of more than 60 "national-security leaders", including politicians, retired military officers, and diplomats.[227] This letter, dated 20 July 2015, stated: "We congratulate President Obama and all the negotiators for a landmark agreement unprecedented in its importance for preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. ... We have followed carefully the negotiations as they have progressed and conclude that the JCPOA represents the achievement of greater security for us and our partners in the region."[227][229] Among the Republicans who signed this letter were former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Anderson Hills, and former Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum.[227] Among the Democrats who signed the letter were former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Senate Majority Leaders George J. Mitchell and Tom Daschle, former Senator Carl Levin, and former Defense Secretary William Perry.[227][230] Also signing were former National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft; Under Secretaries of State R. Nicholas Burns and Thomas R. Pickering; U.S. Ambassadors Ryan Crocker and Stuart Eizenstat; Admiral Eric T. Olson; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy; and Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Robert Einhorn.[230]

On 8 August 2015, 29 prominent U.S. scientists, mostly physicists, published an open letter endorsing the agreement.[231][232] The letter, addressed to Obama, said: "We congratulate you and your team on negotiating a technically sound, stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more than Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and provides a basis for further initiatives to raise the barriers to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and around the globe."[232] The letter also stated that the agreement "will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements".[231][232] The 29 signatories included "some of the world's most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control", many of whom have held Q clearances and have been longtime advisers to Congress, the White House, and federal agencies.[231] The five primary authors were Richard L. Garwin (a nuclear physicist who played a key role in the development of the first hydrogen bomb and whom The New York Times described as "among the last living physicists who helped usher in the nuclear age"); Robert J. Goldston (Director of the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security and former director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory); R. Scott Kemp (an MIT professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and a former science advisor for nonproliferation and arms control at the State Department); Rush D. Holt (a physicist and former U.S. Representative who is now president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science); and Frank N. von Hippel (Princeton Professor of Public Policy and former assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy). Six Nobel Prize in Physics laureates co-signed the letter: Philip W. Anderson of Princeton University; Leon N. Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon L. Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford University; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[231] Among the other scientists to sign are Siegfried S. Hecker (a Stanford physicist and the former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory), Freeman Dyson (of Princeton), and Sidney Drell (of Stanford).[231]

An open letter endorsing the agreement signed by 36 retired military generals and admirals and titled "The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security: An Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals" was released on 11 August 2015.[233][234] The letter, signed by retired officers from all five branches of the U.S. armed services, said the agreement was "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" and "If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones."[234] The signers included General James E. "Hoss" Cartwright of the Marine Corps, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Joseph P. Hoar of the Marine Corps, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command; and Generals Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the Air Force.[233][234] Other signers included Lieutenant Generals Robert G. Gard Jr. and Claudia J. Kennedy; Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn; Rear Admirals Garland Wright and Joseph Sestak; and Major General Paul D. Eaton.[234]

The above letter was answered on 25 August 2015 by a letter signed by more than 200 retired generals and admirals opposing the deal.[235][236][237] The letter asserted: "The agreement does not 'cut off every pathway' for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. To the contrary, it provides Iran with a legitimate pathway for doing exactly that simply by abiding by the deal. ... The JCPOA would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States and, therefore, should be disapproved by the Congress."[237][238] This letter was organized by Leon A. "Bud" Edney; other signers included Admiral James A. Lyons; Lieutenant General William G. Boykin, former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, former vice commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe.[236]

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni said he had refused requests from both sides to sign their letters, telling Time magazine, "I'm convinced that 90% of the guys who signed the letter one way or the other don't have any clue about whether it's a good or bad deal. They sign it because somebody's asked them to sign it." Of the JCPOA, Zinni said: "The agreement's fine, if you think it can work. But if this is a Neville Chamberlain then you're in a world of shit."[238]

On 13 August retired Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, and John Warner of Virginia, a Republican, published an op-ed in support of the agreement, "Why hawks should also back the Iran deal", in Politico.[239] Levin and Warner, both past chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued, "If we reject the agreement, we risk isolating ourselves and damaging our ability to assemble the strongest possible coalition to stop Iran" in the event that military action was needed in the future.[239] Levin and Warner wrote, "The deal on the table is a strong agreement on many counts, and it leaves in place the robust deterrence and credibility of a military option. We urge our former colleagues not to take any action which would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that participates in and could support the use of a military option. The failure of the United States to join the agreement would have that effect."[239] On 14 August retired senators Richard Lugar of Indiana, a Republican, and J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, a Democrat, also wrote in support of the agreement.[240] In a column for Reuters Lugar and Johnston argued, "Rejection of the agreement would severely undermine the U.S. role as a leader and reliable partner around the globe. If Washington walks away from this hard-fought multilateral agreement, its dependability would likely be doubted for decades."[240] They also wrote: "Tehran would be the winner of this U.S. rejection because it would achieve its major objective: the lifting of most sanctions without being required to accept constraints on its nuclear program. Iran could also claim to be a victim of American perfidy and try to convince other nations to break with U.S. leadership and with the entire international sanctions regime."[240]

On 17 August 2015 a group of 75 arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts issued a joint statement endorsing the agreement.[241][242] The statement said, "the JCPOA is a strong, long-term, and verifiable agreement that will be a net-plus for international nuclear nonproliferation efforts" and that the JCPOA's "rigorous limits and transparency measures will make it very likely that any future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly, providing the opportunity to intervene decisively to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon".[241][242] The letter was organized through the nonpartisan Arms Control Association.[242] Among the 75 signatories were the Valerie Plame and Joseph C. Wilson; former IAEA director-general Hans Blix; Morton H. Halperin; and experts from the Brookings Institution, Stimson Center, and other think tanks.[241][242] On 3 September an open letter to Obama signed by 56 people was issued criticizing the JCPOA as "unverifiable". The letter said: "Guided by our experience with U.S. and foreign nuclear weapons programs—as well as with the history and practice of arms control, nonproliferation, and intelligence matters, we judge the current JCPOA to be a very bad deal indeed."[243] Signers included Boykin; Bolton; ex-CIA director James Woolsey, former national security advisor Robert McFarlane; Paula A. DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation; various former ACDA officials; and former Sandia National Laboratories president/director C. Paul Robinson.[243]

Foreign diplomats were also involved in the congressional debate. The Israeli ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer appeared on cable television shows to attack the agreement, while ambassadors from European nations, including Sir Peter Westmacott, the British ambassador to the United States, "came on to say the precise opposite".[244] Dermer also lobbied members of Congress on Capitol Hill against the agreement,[245] while diplomats from France, Britain, and Germany made the rounds on Capitol Hill to advocate for the agreement.[246] On 4 August P5+1 diplomats held "a rare meeting of world powers' envoys on Capitol Hill" with about 30 Senate Democrats to urge support for the agreement, saying, "If Congress rejects this good deal, and the U.S. is forced to walk away, Iran will be left with an unconstrained nuclear program with far weaker monitoring arrangements, the current international consensus on sanctions would unravel, and international unity and pressure on Iran would be seriously undermined."[247]

On Meet the Press on 6 September 2015, former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed support for the nuclear agreement with Iran, saying that it was "a pretty good deal".[248] Powell said that various provisions accepted by Iran—such as the reduction in centrifuges and the uranium stockpile and the agreement to shut down its plutonium reactor—were "remarkable changes" that stopped the Iranian pathway to a nuclear weapons program. Powell also defended the verification provisions of the agreement, saying: "I think a very vigorous verification regime has been put into place."[248]

Former Ambassador Dennis Ross, a longtime American negotiator in the Middle East, wrote that he was not yet convinced by either proponents or opponents of the agreement.[249] Ross wrote that the United States should be focused on "deterring the Iranians from cheating" (e.g., by producing highly enriched uranium) after year fifteen of the agreement.[249] Ross wrote, "President Obama emphasizes that the agreement is based on verification not trust. But our catching Iran cheating is less important than the price they know they will pay if we catch them. Deterrence needs to apply not just for the life of the deal."[249] As part of a deterrence strategy, Ross proposed transferring to Israel the U.S. Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) "bunker buster" bomb at some point before year fifteen of the agreement.[249] In a 25 August op-ed in The Washington Post, Ross and David H. Petraeus again argued for transferring the MOP to Israel.[250]

The Jewish American community was divided on the agreement. On 19 August 2015 leaders of the Reform Jewish movement, the largest Jewish denomination in the United States, issued a lengthy public statement expressing a neutral position.[251][252] The statement, signed by the leaders of the Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and Association of Reform Zionists of America, reflected what Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the URJ, called "deep divisions within the movement".[251] On 20 August 2015 a group of 26 prominent current and foreign American Jewish communal leaders published a full-page ad in The New York Times with a statement backing the agreement; signers included three former chairs of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations as well as former AIPAC executive director Tom Dine.[253] Separately, on 17 August 2015 a group of 340 rabbis organized by Ameinu wrote an open letter to Congress in support of the agreement, saying: "We, along with many other Jewish leaders, fully support this historic nuclear accord."[254] The signers were mostly Reform rabbis but included at least 50 rabbis from the Conservative movement and at least one Orthodox rabbi.[255] Prominent rabbis who signed this letter included Sharon Brous, Burton Visotzky, Nina Beth Cardin, Lawrence Kushner, Sharon Kleinbaum, and Amy Eilberg.[254] In a separate letter released on 27 August, 11 Democratic Jewish former members of Congress urged support for the agreement; the letter noted the signatories' pro-Israel credentials and said the agreement "halts the immediate threat of a nuclear-armed Iran" while rejecting it would "put Iran back on the path to develop a nuclear weapon within two to three months".[256] Signatories included former Senator Carl Levin and former Representatives Barney Frank, Mel Levine, Steve Rothman, and Robert Wexler.[256]

Conversely, in late August a group of 900 rabbis signed an open letter by Kalman Topp and Yonah Bookstein calling upon Congress to reject the agreement.[257] The Orthodox Union and American Jewish Committee also announced opposition to the agreement.[258][259]

The Roman Catholic Church expressed support for the agreement. In a 14 July 2015 letter to Congress Bishop Oscar Cantú, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote that the JCPOA was "a momentous agreement" that "signals progress in global nuclear non-proliferation".[260][261] Cantú wrote that Catholic bishops in the United States "will continue to urge Congress to endorse the result of these intense negotiations because the alternative leads toward armed conflict, an outcome of profound concern to the Church".[260][261]

On 25 August 2015 a group of 53 Christian faith leaders from a variety of denominations sent a message to Congress urging them to support the agreement.[262] The Christian leaders wrote: "This is a moment to remember the wisdom of Jesus who proclaimed from the Sermon on the Mount, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God' (Matthew 5:9). ... There is no question we are all better off with this deal than without it."[262] The letter was coordinated by a Quaker group, the Friends Committee on National Legislation.[262] Signatories to the letter included Jim Wallis of Sojourners; John C. Dorhauer, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ; Shane Claiborne; Adam Estle of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding; Archbishop Vicken Aykazian of the Armenian Orthodox Church; A. Roy Medley, the head of American Baptist Churches USA; the Reverend Paula Clayton Dempsey of the Alliance of Baptists, senior pastor Joel C. Hunter of Northland, A Church Distributed; and Sister Simone Campbell, a leader of the Catholic "Nuns on the Bus" campaigns.[262][263]

Congressional committee hearings

...

On 28 July 2015 Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, the longest-serving Jewish member now in Congress, announced in a lengthy statement that he would support the JCPOA, saying, "the agreement is the best way" to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that a rejection of the agreement would lead the international sanctions regime to "quickly fall apart", as "sanctions likely would not be continued even by our closest allies, and the United States would be isolated trying to enforce our unilateral sanctions as to Iran's banking and oil sectors."[273][309][310]

A key figure in the congressional review process is Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, a Democratwho is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[175] Cardin took a phone call from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu opposing the agreement and participated in a private 90-minute session with Energy Secretary Moniz supporting the agreement.[175] On 21 July Cardin said that if the agreement is implemented, the United States should increase military aid to Israel and friendly Gulf states.[175]

On 4 August 2015 three key and closely watched Senate Democrats—Tim Kaine of Virginia (a Foreign Relations Committee member), Barbara Boxer of California (also a Foreign Relations Committee member), and Bill Nelson of Florida—announced their support for the agreement.[311] In a floor speech that day, Kaine said that the agreement is "far preferable to any other alternative, including war" and, "America has honored its best traditions and shown that patient diplomacy can achieve what isolation and hostility cannot."[311] In a similar floor speech the same day, Nelson said, "I am convinced [that the agreement] will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years. No other available alternative accomplishes this vital objective"[312][313] and "If the U.S. walks away from this multinational agreement, I believe we would find ourselves alone in the world with little credibility."[314] Conversely, another closely watched senator, Chuck **Schumer** of New York, who was expected to make a bid to become Senate Democratic leader,[205]announced his opposition to the agreement on 6 August, writing, "there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one"[199][315]

According to an Associated Press report, the classified assessment of the United States Intelligence Community on the agreement concludes that because Iran will be required by the agreement to provide international inspectors with "unprecedented volume of information about nearly every aspect of its existing nuclear program", Iran's ability to conceal a covert weapons program will be diminished.[316][317] In a 13 August letter to colleagues, ten current and former Democratic members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence (including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff) referred to this assessment as a reason to support the agreement, writing, "We are confident that this monitoring and the highly intrusive inspections provided for in the agreement—along with our own intelligence capabilities—make it nearly impossible for Iran to develop a covert enrichment effort without detection."[317][318] The ten members also wrote "You need not take our word for it" and referred members to the classified assessment itself, which is located in an office in the Capitol basement and is available for members of Congress to read.[317][318]

...

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/07/10/multimillion-dollar-ad-campaigns-aim-influence-congressional-votes

7/15

A nuclear deal with Iran could be a game changer for US foreign policy and for the Middle East. The P5+1 (the U.S., China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, plus Germany) and Iran have been developing a comprehensive agreement that would freeze Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon and start the process of sanctions relief.

If it succeeds, this deal would dramatically decrease the probability of another costly war in the Middle East and could usher in an historic rapprochement between the US and Iran after 34 years of hostilities. US-Iranian collaboration against extremist groups from ISIL to Al Qaeda could help damp down the fires raging across the Middle East.

Key US allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, oppose the deal. Both nations harbor long-standing hostilities toward Iran and both want to preserve their preferential relationship with the US.  But the American people, frustrated by over a decade of US involvement in Middle East wars, support the initiative. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that 6 in 10 Americans support a plan to lift international economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.   

Democrats back the agreement by an overwhelming majority of five to one, but even a plurality of Republican voters support the Iran nuclear deal. Why, then, will there be such a tough battle in Congress to approve a deal that the Obama administration has worked so hard to achieve and is supported by most Americans?

Some Republicans have a knee-jerk reaction to anything the Obama administration puts forth. And certain Republican and Democrat Congress members fundamentally distrust Iran, believe it is sponsoring militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and think a deal will strengthen Iran to the detriment of Israel.

But the most compelling reason that so many elected officials will oppose the deal is the power of lobby groups and think tanks, backed by hawkish billionaires who are determined to quash a deal they see as bad for Israel.

Little known to the public, here are some of the groups:

United Against Nuclear Iran:Founded in 2008, UANI boasts a bipartisan powerhouse advisory board of former politicians, intelligence officials and policy experts. Cofounders Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross, and its president Gary Samore, have all worked in Obama’s White House.    In June, UANI announced a multimillion-dollar TV, print, radio, and digital campaign with the message that “America Can’t Trust Iran, Concessions have gone too far.” Mark Wallace, UANI’s chairman and George Bush’s US ambassador to the UN, said, “We have a multi-million-dollar budget and we are in it for the long haul. Money continues to pour in.”

Secure America Now: Founded in 2011 by pollsters John McLaughlin and Pat Cadell, it is linked to right-wing pro-Israel factions in the US and abroad. The Advisory Board includes Col. Richard Kemp, who denounces the “global conspiracy of propaganda aimed at the total de-legitimization of the state of Israel” and former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who insists that “the biggest threat to our national security is sitting in the White House.”

The group labels Iran “the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism” and recently launched its own $1 million ad campaign against the nuclear deal. One ad features an American woman saying her father was killed by an IED in Iraq, followed by a menacing voice claiming “Iran has single-handedly supplied thousands of IEDs that have killed or maimed America’s troops overseas. Today, negotiators are pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran that would give them access to nuclear weapons.” It tells Americans to call their Senators and “speak out against a bad deal.”

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies:Founded just after the 9/11 attacks, this neoconservative think tank pushes for an aggressive military response in the Middle East and also follows a hawkish pro-Israel line. It advocates for crippling sanctions on Iran, including medicines, as a way to cause domestic hardship and internal turmoil and its experts are leading advocates for a US military strike on Iran.

American Security Initiative: This is a new group, also bipartisan, formed in 2015 by three former senators: Norm Coleman, Evan Bayh and Saxby Chambliss. In 2014 Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, became a registered lobbyist for the repressive Saudi regime, providing the Saudis with legal services on issues including “policy developments involving Iran.”

Its first campaign was a successful effort to pass the Corker-Menendez bill, which forces President Obama to submit the agreement to Congress before signing it. In March, the group launched a $1.4 million ad campaign aimed at Senator Schumer and other key senators with the message that the deal (which had not even been released) is “great for Iran, and dangerous for us.” One over-the-top, fear-mongering ad showed a suicide-bombing truck driver in an American city detonating a nuclear bomb, apparently on behalf of Iran. The message, albeit a crazy one, is that if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon, it will attack the US.

AIPAC: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the largest pro-Israel lobby group. AIPAC, too, has been pushing sanctions and opposing the nuclear deal. It claims that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability. AIPAC spends millions of dollars lobbying but its real financial clout lies with the pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) it is tied to.

In addition to lobbying against a deal in Washington, over the past several years AIPAC has also been promoting state-level bills mandating divestment of public funds from foreign companies doing business with Iran.

Dozens of states have passed such bills, and many are likely to stay in place even after a nuclear deal, complicating the federal sanctions relief that is a key element of the negotiations.

What is the source of the millions of dollars now being poured into the effort to squash the nuclear deal? Most comes froma handful of super-wealthy individuals. Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus gave over $10 million to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Other multimillion donors are hedge fund billionaire and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board member Paul Singer, and Charles Bronfman of the Seagram liquor empire and board chair of Koor Industries, one of Israel’s largest investment holding companies.

The largest donor is Sheldon Adelson,a casino and business magnate who contributed almost $100 million to conservative candidates in the 2012 presidential campaign, outspending any other individual or organization. He publicly advocated for the Obama administration to bomb Iran. Peter Beinart, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, said “Every Republican politician knows that Adelson conditions his checks on their Iran vote.”

Congress has 30 days from the day the deal is introduced to vote in support or opposition (or 60 days if the negotiations are delayed). To block the deal, Congress needs a veto-proof majority, which is precisely what these groups and individuals are attempting to buy.

“I’ve been around this town for about 30 years now and I’ve never seen foreign policy debate that is being so profoundly affected by the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars in the American political system,” said former six-term Congressman Jim Slattery.

Congresspeople face a dilemma: they fear a backlash by the billionaires if they vote for the deal, but most of their constituents support the deal. The pathetic irony is that the democratic move of giving Congress a say in the Iran deal (instead of leaving the administration with the authority to seal the agreement), the billionaires have a better shot at drowning out the voices of the American people.

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, is the author of the new book, Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Her previous books include: :{Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection}:; Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control; Don’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart, and (with Jodie Evans) Stop the Next War Now (Inner Ocean Action Guide). Follow her on Twitter: @:{medeabenjamin}:

==

===

no lnx

‘Trump Doctrine’ is sinking fast — here’s why

White House

written by Common Dreams June 30, 2019

Tehran resident Dariush is exactly the kind of person that the Trump Administration claims to be supporting. He is a middle-class businessman who hates the clerical regime. The White House thinks Iranians like Dariush would welcome the overthrow of their government. But when I talked to Dariush by phone, he was more angry at President Donald Trump.

Dariush’s mother requires regular injections of medicine. The cost of the drug has increased threefold in the past year, and he must buy it for her on the black market. He blames inflation on the US sanctions: “They are just hurting normal people.”

I ask his reaction to Trump’s on-again, off-again threats of war against Iran. “If a war happens,” he says, “I will defend my country. I don’t like my government, but I will fight.”

Over the past several weeks, the Trump Administration has managed to infuriate ordinary Iranians, traditional US allies, and US war hawks. The emerging “Trump Doctrine” uses economic sanctions and tariffs to bully other countries, accompanied by fiery threats of military action without actual attacks. Not only is the doctrine foolhardy, it isn’t working.

Of ships and drones

Since May, six oil tankers in the Persian Gulf area have come under attack. The Trump Administration immediately blamed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps for attaching mines to the ships, and provided grainy video as evidence. Iran denies attacking the tankers.

Then, on June 20, Iran shot down a US Global Hawk surveillance drone, which cost an estimated $130 million. The US claimed the drone was flying over international waters. Iranian officials said the drone entered Iranian airspace and displayed drone wreckage at a press conference to bolster their argument.

The next day, in a bizarre sequence of events, Trump ordered the Pentagon to attack an Iranian missile battery, and then called back the planes at the last minute. He claimed this was because he had learned the raid could cause 150 Iranian casualties, but an investigation by The Daily Beast revealed he had known the body count prior to green-lighting the attack.

Rightwing hawks in the US criticized Trump for calling off the attack. Liberal Democrats pointed out that he started the whole mess by withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Trump supporters tried to pass off the flip flop as a brilliant tactical move that threw the Iranians off balance.

In fact, the Iranian government saw Trump’s vacillation as a sign of weakness, according to a Tehran journalist with close government ties, who is not authorized to speak to the media.

“Iran was ready to retaliate on an unbelievable scale,” the journalist tells me in a phone interview. “After the first US missile launch, Trump wouldn’t be able to control the consequences, not only in the Persian Gulf but from Saudi Arabia to Israel.”

So, instead of dropping bombs on Iran, Trump announced new sanctions claiming toseize financial assets of top officials such as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Since the sanctioned leaders don’t have western bank accounts or other such assets, the sanctions mean nothing.

Yet they were an insult not only to Iran but to Shia Muslims, according to William Beeman, an Iran expert at the University of Minnesota.

“Ayatollah Khamenei is Iran’s spiritual leader,” he says. “Trump is attacking Shia Islam itself with this move, and that is how it will be interpreted in Iran.”

The Trump Doctrine

Now the Trump Administration is caught in a bind of its own creation. It would have great difficulty invading and occupying Iran because of the huge financial cost and potential for an astronomical death toll on both sides. So-called limited military strikes can destroy installations, but they also rally people to support their government.

:{

}:

Unilateral sanctions won’t work either because, among other reasons, no European or Asian country supports them. Harsh sanctions can cause a lot of human suffering, but they won’t lead Iranians to rise up and install a pro-US regime.

:{

}:

So Trump is stuck trying to come up with new sanctions and ever more bombastic ways to threaten military assaults without actually doing so. Trump has turned Teddy Roosevelt’s famous slogan on its head: talk loudly but carry a teensy-weensy stick.

Of course it’s possible that Trump’s ultra-right wing advisors will persuade him to launch an attack, according to Professor Foad Izadi, an expert on US-Iran relations at the University of Tehran. If he did, he tells me by phone, “There would be a major military response.” Iran can’t afford to look weak, he says. “The US must understand the cost is high.”

More crises ahead

The European signers of the nuclear accord, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, object to the US pulling out of the 2015 nuclear accord and oppose unilateral US sanctions. But they haven’t done anything in practice to live up to the legally binding agreement.

Iran has given those countries until July 8 to lift their de facto sanctions on Iran, specifically, to facilitate trade in Iranian oil and gas. Russia and China have taken such steps, so could Europe.

If nothing changes by July 8, Izadi says, Iran will take a number of calibrated steps to increase the amount of enriched uranium used for generating electrical power, and increase the level of enrichment to as high as 60 percent. That would bring Iran closer to the 90 percent level needed to produce a nuclear bomb. Even with enough uranium for a bomb, however, experts say Iran has no ability to build one. Iran would increase production as a bargaining chip.

How Trump could end the crisis

In keeping with Trump’s doctrine of avoiding large troop commitments, I offer the followinghandy hints on how to resolve the Iran crisis:

Fire National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other hawks whose bankrupt policies will lead to yet another war in the Middle East.The US now has acting heads of the Defense Department, Homeland Security and dozens of other agencies. Nobody will notice a new acting National Security Advisor or a missing Secretary of State;

Declare that his campaign of “maximum pressure” is a great success and has forced Iran not to build nuclear weapons. Then rejoin the 2015 nuclear accord, which does exactly that;

In further celebration of the US victory and Trump’s brilliant tactics, lift all unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran; and

In a man-to-man summit with President Hassan Rouhani, Trump should sit down for serious negotiations on a grand bargain. The comprehensive agreement could create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, pull all foreign troops out of Syria, normalize US-Iran diplomatic relations and help combat terrorist organizations such as ISIS.

You don’t think such plans would work? Hey, they have no worse chance than Trump’s current policy plans.

* * * *

Remember Trump’s “plan of the century” that would solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict once and for all? Well, the White House finally revealed the plan this week at a meeting in Bahrain. The plan promises Palestinians economic improvements through $50.7 billion in foreign aid and private investments, although the US would provide no funds.

There’s no mention of the key political issues such as creating a Palestinian state, stopping settlements and returning occupied West Bank land, the status of Jerusalem or returning the Golan to Syria. The plan was denounced by all Palestinian political parties and leaders. The plan is an insult to the Palestinians and everyone else in the Middle East.

But when it comes to Trump grand plans, what else is new?

==

==

https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/dont-fall-for-it-arizona-congressman-and-former-marine-who-gets-the-same-intel-as-tom-cotton-warns-some-gopers-are-exaggerating-the-iran-threat/

Before Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona pursued a career in politics, he served in the United States military: Gallego was a Marine infantryman in Iraq in 2005. And the 39-year-old Democratic congressman is warning that the push for a military confrontation with Iran in 2019 is full of misleading assertions.

Gallego, now a member of the House Armed Services Committee, received a classified briefing on May 17—and the following day, he told the Washington Post, “What I saw was a lot of misinterpretation and wanting conflict coming from the administration and intelligence community. Intel doesn’t show existential threats. Even what it shows, it doesn’t show threats to U.S. interests.”

The claim that Iran poses a major threat to the U.S. in 2019, according to Gallego, is mainly being advanced by National Security Adviser John Bolton and Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. On Saturday, Gallego took to Twitter and warned, “I get the same intel as Cotton. He is greatly exaggerating the situation to spur us to war. Don’t fall for it.”

President Donald Trump has been highly critical of President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry on Iran policy, terminating their arms agreement with the Iranian government. But Trump has, at times, been quite critical of neocons as well. And according to the Washington Post, Trump has reportedly become frustrated with Boltonas well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over Iran—believing them to be unnecessarily hawkish with that country.

“Deterrence is important to contain bad actors like Iran, but there has to be a fine line between deterrence and escalation,” Gallego told the Washington Post. “We can’t automatically go to war because a 17-year-old fires an AK-47 at U.S. interests.”

After serving in the Arizona State Senate for four years, Gallego was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014 and was reelected in 2016 and 2018.

==

==

alt fact post truth:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/john-bolton-threatens-iran-over-debunked-pursuit-of-nuclear-weapons/255032/

no lnx twit

As Iranians this week mark the 40th anniversary of their country’s 1979 revolution, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton declared in a message to Iranian leaders on Monday that he doesn’t think they will “have many more anniversaries to enjoy”—a comment that was immediately perceived as a direct threat of war.

In a video posted to the White House’s official Twitter page on Monday, Bolton echoed false assertions and repeatedly debunked claims by the Trump that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and described the Iranian government as the “central banker of international terrorism.”

Responding to Bolton’s video, Sen. Chris Murphy warned in a tweet on Tuesday that Trump’s hawkish national security adviser is knowingly lying to build momentum for a U.S. military attack on Iran.

...

==

see black cube gorka

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/us/politics/iran-deal-benjamin-rhodes-black-cube.html

For years, opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran have accused Benjamin J. Rhodes, a top national security aide to President Barack Obama, of scheming to sell the diplomatic agreement on false pretenses to the American people.

Now, just as President Trump appears likely to announce his decision to withdraw from the deal, evidence has surfaced that the agreement’s opponents engaged in a sophisticated effort to dig up dirt on Mr. Rhodes and his family that continued well after the Obama administration left office.

A detailed report about Mr. Rhodes, compiled by Black Cube, a private investigations firm established by former intelligence analysts from the Israel Defense Forces, contains pictures of his apartment in Washington, telephone numbers and email addresses of members of his family, as well as unsubstantiated allegations of personal and ethical transgressions.

In a separate case in 2017, the same firm was hired to gather dirt on women accusing Harvey Weinstein, the movie mogul, of multiple instances of sexual misconduct.

It is unclear who hired Black Cube to prepare the report on Mr. Rhodes and a similar report on Colin Kahl, the national security adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., which were obtained by The New York Times from a source with knowledge of their provenance.

The Guardian, which first publishedthe existence of the reports on Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Kahl, said aides to Mr. Trump hired the firm, but there is no evidence in the documents that indicate any connection to anyone in Mr. Trump’s administration. A spokesman for the company vehemently denied any connection to the president.

“Black Cube has no relation whatsoever to the Trump administration, to Trump aides, to anyone close to the administration or to the Iran nuclear deal,” said Ido Minkowski, the company’s spokesman. “Anyone who claims otherwise is misleading their readers and viewers.”

One person with knowledge of the reports suggested that the company had been hired by a commercial client with an interest in opposing the nuclear deal.

The reports appear to be aimed at undermining public support for the agreement by finding ways to discredit Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Kahl, who have been staunch advocates of the deal on social media and in television appearances. In an interview on Monday, Mr. Rhodes said he was surprised that ferocious criticism directed at him continued after he left government.

“I never imagined that upon leaving government, that not only would that information campaign continue, but that it would be supplemented by investigations into me and my family by shadowy international operations, involving foreign entities,” Mr. Rhodes said.

The deal to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program was signed by the United States, Iran and several European countries in 2015. Its critics, including Mr. Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, have said it does nothing to curtail the danger posed by Iran and will not curtail Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. The president said Monday that he will announce on Tuesday whether he will formally withdraw the United States from the deal, as he has repeatedly signaled he would.

While there is no evidence directly linking Trump officials to the preparation of the reports, several current or former members of the Trump White House have repeatedly attacked Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Kahl for their support of the Iran agreement.

Sebastian Gorka, a Trump supporter who served briefly in the White House as an adviser, has repeatedly attacked both men on social media and in conservative news outlets, accusing Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Kahl of working to undermine Mr. Trump and defend the Iran deal from its critics.

Current and former Trump administration officials have also targeted John Kerry, the former secretary of state who negotiated the Iran deal for the United States. Even Mr. Trump himself said in a Twitter post on Monday that recent efforts by Mr. Kerry to save the deal amounted to “possibly illegal Shadow Diplomacy.”

Photo

Unlike Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kahl and Mr. Rhodes were not part of the nuclear deal negotiating team for the United States. But even before he left the White House, Mr. Rhodes was the target of criticism for his efforts to help build support for its approval.

“Why did whoever did this conjoin Ben and me? Why the two of us?” Mr. Kahl said. “Being vocal on Twitter would make me a target. But why would it bring down the Iran deal?”

A New York Times Magazine profile of Mr. Rhodes in May 2016 described a White House “war room” in which he tried to manage news coverage of the Iran nuclear negotiations. In the article, Mr. Rhodes was quoted as saying: “We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

Critics of the Iran deal have seized on the article to insist that Mr. Rhodes — and by extension, the entire Obama administration — were secretly manipulating public opinion by misrepresenting the implications of the nuclear deal.

The report on Mr. Rhodes by Black Cube notes that “in the article, he boasts about the creation of an ‘echo chamber’ in which he told journalists what to say and they repeated it back over and over as original thoughts.”

The reports also provide a list of several Washington journalists who have had “extensive contact” with Mr. Rhodes. Among those listed under the heading “contacts to investigate” are Jeffrey Goldberg, now the editor of The Atlantic; Mark Landler, a White House correspondent for The Times who often writes about foreign policy; Andrea Mitchell, now NBC News’s chief foreign affairs correspondent; and Glenn Thrush, a Times reporter who covered the Obama White House for Politico.

On Monday, reporters asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, whether anyone at the White House had knowledge of whether aides to Mr. Trump had hired Black Cube to dig up dirt on former Obama officials.

“I’m not aware of anything on that front,” Ms. Sanders said, adding that “if something comes up, we’ll let you guys know.”

===

AN fox admits deal working

===