Is Iran Backing Away From Its Conflict With The U.S.?

Ahmed Aboudouh, The Independent: This is the real reason Iran is backing away from its conflict with the US

Iranian authorities were surprised by the unrest that followed the shooting down of a Ukrainian airline in ‘human error’. They can’t risk the political fallout of another crisis at a time of huge economic uncertainty.

Iran is moving from a policy of brinkmanship to the art of appeasing the US. This new Iranian strategy is now expected to continue through what remains of Donald Trump's period of presidential office.

Reports this week revealed secret talks between the two rivals had resulted in securing Mustafa al-Kadhimi, the US-leaning politician, as the new prime minister of Iraq. Iran has also reportedly played a central role in helping Washington facilitate a crucial reconciliation between the two main power contenders in Afghanistan - President Ashraf Ghani and his opponent Abdullah Abdullah. Then comes the talk about the withdrawal of Iranian troops from Syria, a strategic objective the Trump administration has long pressed for.

In return, the US pulled patriotic air-defence systems out of Saudi Arabia and agreed to grant waiver status for some of the countries trading with Iran, exempting them from strict economic sanctions.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The U.S. is in the midst of a pandemic that has killed tens of thousands, and has destroyed its economy. Now is not the time to mess around with the U.S..

Will The U.S. - Iran Conflict Return To The Shadows?

People gather at the funeral of the Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, top commander of the elite Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, and the Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who were killed in an air strike at Baghdad airport, in Baghdad, Iraq, January 4, 2020. REUTERS/Wissm al-Okili

Kimberly Dozier and John Walcott, Time: After Retaliation, Iran’s 40-Year Conflict With U.S. Likely to Return to the Shadows

Now that Tehran and Washington have openly exchanged fire, the conflict between the two nations will continue in the shadows where it has been fought for 40 years — and where Iran’s Revolutionary Guard still seeks to exact revenge for the U.S. killing its top commander.

But after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran now knows that any attack that even its proxies launch could trigger another American strike. President Donald Trump’s backers say the raised stakes have restored “big stick” deterrence that American enemies and allies had begun to doubt after Trump failed to respond militarily to repeated Iranian aggression. His critics say he has ushered in a new era that makes every American a target for kidnapping and assassination across the Middle East, and beyond.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The dynamics have changed in the past week. Helped by Iran's own rhetoric, any future attack against US or allied assets in the Middle East will end with fingers being pointed at Iran.

Is Trump Really Headed To War With Iran?

John Dale Grover, National Interest: Is Trump Really Headed to War With Iran? Here is What Two Experts Think

Kenneth Pollack and Paul Pillar discuss Iran and the Trump administration strategy at a CFTNI event.

America’s policy of maximum pressure on Iran continues, with the U.S. Department of the Treasury announcing new sanctions on eight Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commanders. That directive was tweeted during a luncheon event on Iran at the Center for the National Interest, which was moderated by Geoffrey Kemp, the Senior Director of Regional Security Programs at CFTNI who also served in the White House during the first Reagan administration as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council Staff. The discussion focused on the ongoing crisis, Iran and America’s interests, and whether war could be avoided.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I do not believe President Trump wants a war with Iran. I also believe that many in the Iranian regime do not want a war with the U.S.. And while the focus is on redoing the Iranian nuclear deal and U.S. sanctions, the real problem in the Middle East is the Iran-Saudi/Sunni-Shiite/Islamic extremism/regional disputes and conflicts that have been ongoing for generations. The Middle East already sucked-in the U.S. to fight wars against Iraq, will it now suck-in the U.S. to fight a war against Iran? I hope not. But sometimes events spiral out of control, as it almost did last week when two oil tankers were attacked and a U.S. drone was shot down by Iran.

How Iran Is Using The Nuclear Deal To Pursue Its Objectives In The Middle East

New York Post editorial: Obama held hostage: How Iran’s using the nuke deal as license to go wild

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were convinced their one-sided nuclear deal would lead to better relations with Iran, but it’s already doing the reverse.

Tehran has taken two more Americans hostage just this month — and followed up with a massive cyberattack on the US government, especially the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs.

The kicker: Iran is holding the nuke deal hostage — threatening to junk it if Obama tries to punish the country for its fresh outrages.
Wake up and smell the coffee, guys.

When they seized one of the new hostages, the Iranians also grabbed his computer and forced him to unlock it. That allowed the Revolutionary Guard to launch what The Wall Street Journal reports is a massive cyberattack.

And, of course, the new hostages — charged with spying, natch — join three other American citizens already held.

WNU Editor: The Iranians see President Obama as a lame duck .... hence the reason why Iran (and everyone else) is taking advantage of this current U.S. policy of "inaction".

Remembering The 1988 Naval War Betweeen The U.S. And Iran And The Lessons That Can Be Learned From The Engagment

David B. Crist, Politico: What Obama Should Learn From Reagan’s War With Iran

It’s been nearly 30 years since the U.S. Navy fought Iran in the Persian Gulf. How much longer will that peace last?

President Barack Obama must have spent last week wondering if he’d stumbled back into the 1980s as he responded to new Iranian aggressions in the Strait of Hormuz and ordered the Navy’s 5th Fleet to escort ships transiting the Persian Gulf. The headlines could have been ripped right out of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, when naval engagements with Iran became all-too commonplace.

It’s a chapter of history that most U.S. policymakers—and too many military officers—have long forgotten. But the Iranians certainly haven’t. Ryan Crocker, one of America’s old Middle East hands and whose first posting as a newly minted diplomat was to Khorramshahr during the days of the Shah, once explained, “For Iran, history is not the past, but the present.” Just as Vietnam shaped a generation of American military officers, the Tanker War of the 1980s profoundly influenced the thinking of Iran’s current military leaders; in fact, today Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Navy is headed by a veteran of that war. The 1980s conflict also has influenced the Iranian military’s view of any future war with the United States, and it’s spent decades ensuring that it won’t repeat the crippling mistakes made fighting a previous U.S. president.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon has begun listening to those lessons only recently.

WNU Editor: A sobering essay. Read it all.

When It Comes To Nuclear Negotiations, President Obama Is No President Reagan

U.S. president Ronald Reagan (left) and General Secretary of the Central Committee of CPSU Mikhail Gorbachev at the joint meeting exchanging ratification instruments on bringing into force Soviet-American treaty on elimination of medium and short range missiles, Vladimirsky hall, the Grand Kremlin palace.(RIA Novosti / Yuryi Abramochkin)

Robert Joseph & Eric Edelman, NRO: Here’s the Difference Between How Obama and Reagan Handled Nuke Negotiations

President Obama’s new national-security strategy places the highest priority on what he considers the urgent need to move forward with the so-called Prague agenda — derived from his 2009 address calling on the international community to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons. At that time, the call was seen by many as idealistic but generally harmless.

Now, as we approach the sixth anniversary of the speech, it seems dangerously naïve.

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, China’s military rise while pressing territorial claims in the Asia-Pacific region, exploding Islamic extremism across the Middle East and North Africa, and Iran’s growing dominance in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen are all raising questions about the credibility of longstanding U.S. security commitments to friends and allies that are grounded in nuclear guarantees. These commitments, as President Kennedy stated more than 50 years ago, required the United States to maintain a nuclear capability “second to none.” If we failed to do so, there would be more nuclear proliferation, less stability, and a greater risk of war.

WNU Editor: Former President Reagan definitely had the will, strategic foresight, and commitment to confront the former Soviet Union on issues of nuclear weapons, proliferation, and verification. President Reagan also had timing on his side .... the Soviet Union was falling apart, and former Soviet leader Gorbachev understood only too well that a new strategy and policy had to implemented. President Reagan took advantage of that .... and the rest is history. And while I do understand that President Obama and the world that he is facing is different from the one that President Reagan faced, I must confess that I do not have any confidence that the White House will be successful in stopping Iran's nuclear program .... in fact .... I see this agreement as a recipe for more instability in the Middle East, and a very real possibility of nuclear proliferation. And the reason why is simple .... Iran is determined to keep intact its nuclear program, and in this giant test of wills .... President Obama is clearly the weaker party.

Is There A 'Secret Iran Strategy'?

President Barack Obama meets with members of his Cabinet in the Cabinet Room of the White House, January 29, 2010. The President’s chair is marked with a plaque engraved with the date of his inauguration. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Michael Doran, Mosaic: Obama's Secret Iran Strategy

The president has long been criticized for his lack of strategic vision. But what if a strategy, centered on Iran, has been in place from the start and consistently followed to this day?

WNU Editor: This is a long post .... but well worth the read. And the disturbing part is .... Michael Doran may be onto something.

The U.S. And Iran Have A Shared Enemy

US, Iran Share A Common Enemy: Heroin -- Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe

According to a principle of traditional geopolitics, countries should seek to help their friends and hurt their enemies. This sounds logical. It can also help assure, however, that enemies remain enemies. Sometimes it can lead countries to ignore their own interests as they seek to harm others.

Decisions about whether a particular country qualifies as a friend or an enemy are almost always based on the politics of the regime in power. This is too narrow a standard. Bad governments should not disqualify nations from American help, especially when that help also serves American interests.

A fine opportunity to test this approach now presents itself. The United States is cautiously negotiating with Iran after 35 years of bitter hostility. Many in Washington still consider Iran to be a font of evil — and certainly not a potential partner. Yet Iran and the United States share a great challenge that neither can deal with alone: opiate addiction.

Read more ....

My Comment: Heroin is an enemy of mankind. Unfortunately .... even if the U.S. and Iran find some common ground to work together in stopping the trade .... the real effort must come from Afghanistan, and in that country there are just too many people involved in the heroin trade that any dent in it will probably be next to impossible.

Was The U.S. Desperate For A Nuclear Deal With Iran?

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (R) are seated during a meeting of the foreign ministers representing the permanent five member countries of the United Nations Security Council, including Germany, at UN Headquarters in New York September 26, 2013. Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid

Desperate For A Nuclear Deal With Iran -- Kori Schake, Shadow Government/Foreign Policy

Barack Obama's administration is under the gun to produce a "final" agreement justifying its six-month sweetener for Iran. In return for cessation of progress in the country's nuclear programs, Iran has received some sanctions relief. The White House is trumpeting this as a great advance toward eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, even hinting it could dramatically reshuffle American alliances in the Middle East. What the Obama administration appears not to understand is how much the interim deal highlights its incredible -- literally, lacking in credibility -- declaratory policy.

President Obama has stated unequivocally that the United States will not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. His closest aides have defended the interim deal as forestalling military strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In fact, the administration has explicitly tied the negotiations to forestalling "another war in the Middle East."

Read more ....

My Comment: Jeffrey Goldberg has done an excellent analysis on what is wrong with the Iranian nuclear agreement. In short .... this agreement promises a lot while ignoring the most critical issue which is Iran's nuclear enrichment program. And while I will give the administration the benefit of the doubt (reluctantly) for the next six months that are outlined in this agreement .... I just cannot understand the reason why the White House is now exploring ways to permit Iran to enrich uranium even before these nuclear discussions have started.

Should President Obama Go To Iran?

Just As Nixon Went To China, Should Obama Go To Iran? -- Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor

World powers, and the US in particular, need a game-changer to move Iran to a cooperative stance concerning its nuclear program, a few analysts argue. Such an Obama overture to Iran is a provocative idea, they say, but the alternative may be military confrontation.

In the 34 years since its revolution, Iran has marked key gains in the Middle East and pursued a nuclear program that shows little signs of slowing, despite a barrage of Western economic sanctions. Is it time for the United States to switch course and make a Nixon-to-China move vis a vis the Islamic republic?

That provocative idea, at the center of a new book by two American experts on Iran, is raising eyebrows in Washington even as a new round of talks between world powers and Iran over Tehran’s advancing uranium-enrichment program began Tuesday.

Read more ....

My Comment: Before President Nixon went to China his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger first paved the way .... doing the necessary negotiation over arrangements, agreements, and understandings that eventually resulted in a rapprochement between China and the U.S.. In short .... these agreements and understandings were already completed before Nixon went to China .... his visit there was to only finalize and sign the agreement(s). What also helped Nixon was that the Chinese were eager for a rapprochement .... in short .... the timing was perfect.

In today's world Iran's leadership cannot see itself to be in a position of negotiating with someone that they have always called the 'Great Satan' .... it would undermine what has always been an important ideological position for them since the revolution. In addition .... let's face it .... President Obama is no Nixon (which many will probably argue is a good thing), but he also certainly does not have a Henry Kissinger on his staff.

Want To Attack Iran? Then Make A Case.

Strategic Horizons: Want to Attack Iran? Then Make a Case -- Steven Metz, World Politics Review

Talk of a U.S. attack on Iran is like a late-summer thunderstorm that rumbles ominously in the distance without ever drifting further away. Few American observers advocate an immediate attack, but a growing number hint that the question is when, not if, a strike takes place. The distance from saber-rattling to war is narrowing.

As is often the case in the prelude to war, the discussion has so far been informed more by passion than by analysis, stoked by popular distrust of the Iranian regime. As the United States found when contemplating the invasion of Iraq in 2002, such an over-heated environment makes it difficult to coolly assess alternatives. But to avoid disaster, that is exactly what we must do. The burden of proof lies with those who contend that an attack is necessary and that the strategic benefits for U.S. national security outweigh the costs. So far advocates of military action have not made their case. If they are to do so, they must first answer three central questions.

Read more ....

My Comment: I concur .... advocates for a "war of choice" against Iran have not made a convincing case that we should pursue this policy. But (unfortunately) I suspect that we will not have this debate .... that U.S. policy will be pushed by others who will be primarily motivated by their own interests .... and not ours .... and that when war does break out, we will then be drawn into a bloody conflict because of strategic treaties and national security obligations.

U.S.-Iran Cold War Unfolds In Lebanon

Photo: Hezbollah militants display arms and an image of Hassan Nasrallah. (Credit: AFP Photo/Mahmoud Zayat/Newscom)

From The New Republic:

'Yes, sometimes I go into the room with my advisers and I start shouting. And then they say, 'And then what?'" The question hangs in the perfectly cooled air in Sa'ad Hariri's marble-floored sitting room, where Beirut appears as a sunlit abstraction visible at a distance through thick windows. Hariri's father, the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, martyr of the Cedar Revolution, arches his black eyebrows from a giant poster near the sofa, looking out at his son with a sidelong, mischievous glance. "It hasn't been a joyful trip," Sa'ad Hariri is saying. "In the past four years, I have lost friends. Pierre Gemayel was my friend. My father was murdered. It's been an agonizing four years."

Read more ....