Hamas pays Tehran a visit. Again.
Could it have ANYTHING to do with the fact that IRGC is traveling everywhere unrestricted and the president just gave Europe permission to do business in Iran?
Nah, couldn't possibly be.
Showing posts with label JCPOA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JCPOA. Show all posts
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Friday, October 20, 2017
My article on the Iran decertification published in JPost
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Trumps-Iran-policy-shift-should-be-the-first-step-of-a-more-aggressive-approach-507777
Jerusalem Post Opinion
TRUMP’S IRAN POLICY SHIFT SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH
> 'Decertifying' Iran deal, Trump to propose new, unilateral terms
BY IRINA TSUKERMAN OCTOBER 18, 2017 20:56
Trump's recent 'decertification' of the nuclear deal signals the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy.
Trump’s Iran policy shift should be the first step of a more aggressive approach
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the nuclear accord at the White House on Friday. (photo credit:REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump’s speech on the shift in Iran policy last Friday was a welcome relief from the Obama administration’s apologetic and self-serving rhetoric, as well as its series of foreign policy steps leading up to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed for chaos in Syria, ignored as long as possible the fate of American prisoners in Iran and left the world, and the United States, more vulnerable to terrorism and ballistic missile attacks than ever before.
Trump condemned the extensive Iranian malfeasance in strong, unequivocal terms and vowed to move away from the policy of appeasement that only played into the hands of the ruthless regime that demands respect for its national sovereignty while contributing to violent uprisings and civil wars in a number of nations in the neighborhood.
It is a good first step, and psychologically important for both the US and its allies alike. Moral leadership is of the essence in a world increasingly plagued by a lack of clarity and courage. That said, and as Senator Ted Cruz has put it, all economic, diplomatic and if necessary, military options must be explored with regard to Iran.
The current shift in policy, while a promising beginning, is neither entirely new nor sufficient, and we should not be misled into believing that it will solve all problems. In reality, the White House’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, crackdown on human rights abuses, and other steps delineated in the speech were all parts of the policy shift outlined in this summer’s sanctions package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
What is left unstated in the numerous analyses of the speech provided by the full spectrum of pundits and journalists is that the “new” policy is merely a commitment to reinforcing existing law. The lawmakers who came out with positive statements with regard to the new speech are quite familiar with the legal provisions. No doubt they want to be supportive of the executive decision to finally do the right thing, but the question as to why it has taken so long to utilize the authority provided by Congress and enforce the mandatory provisions outlined in the law signed in July remains open. For that reason, it is hard to view this shift as anything particularly radical.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the anti-IRGC provisions, while a necessary step for security is by no means sufficient. It would allow the killing or arrest of such figures as Qasem Soleimani, and perhaps a greater focus on cracking down on entities that fund IRGC companies.
However, the US acting in isolation against Iran, where many Western countries are already heavily invested, would be an economic drop in the ocean.
And some of the worst violators of human rights may not be affiliated with IRGC. The prison wardens, guards, judges, doctors, and other non-military enablers of the regime remain beyond the reach of the law. And the non-IRGC intelligence agencies and military apparatus will continue to benefit from the sanctions relief and unfrozen assets provided by the terms of the JCPOA.
What’s worse, President Trump has asked Congress not to impose the new sanctions, which, as a public statement, will have unfavorable consequences for his own plan of actions. His comments signal that the administration has not yet recognized the full extent of the regime’s duplicity, providing it yet another opportunity to realign priorities and shift whatever illicit materials it may possess during an unspecified time period, while the US is cracking down on the IRGC, a step that Iran was already fully prepared for given the months of discussion and public statements in that regard. What’s missing from the new policy is an element of surprise vital to keeping the adversary off-balance. Congress recognizes the limitations of just focusing on terrorism, while ignoring other central concerns of the JCPOA.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) is already set to craft a new bill which would address this missing piece.
The bill would reimpose the original sanctions if Iran does not comply with the terms within six months: give access to inspects its military sites, stop all work on ballistic missiles. It would kill the rightfully maligned “sunset clauses.”
The trouble is, six months (providing the bill even passes, and passes quickly) is more than enough time for Iran to take further deceptive action. Time is the regime’s greatest friend and our worst enemy.
And for all we know, the military sites we have in mind are not even the sites where the bulk of illegal nuclear activity is taking place. The exiled Iranian People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran recently came out with a bold claim that this entire time, IRGC has been operating four new military sites where this work has been taking place. Whether or not this is “fake news,” the fact that the claim was made should be publicly acknowledged and discussed, and at the very least, investigation of such statements should be demanded. Yet, there was no mention of the likelihood of continuous nuclear proliferation in the new policy, with the brunt of the focus on the IRGC.
While we continue trying to placate the staunch supporters of the JCPOA, Iran is likely continuing to acquire the very capabilities JCPOA sought to prevent.
While we continue to focus our efforts on lists of terrorists, which will likely take many months to compile, and which will shift again and again as the clever IRGC members will suddenly leave the organization and to everyone’s surprise join up with other intelligence agencies or newly created organizations, the many non-IRGC terrorists, military personnel and civilian enforcers will continue to get away with murder. What we should be doing instead:
1. Reimpose sanctions immediately and lift them only after full inspection of all available military sites and investigation of suspected secret sites.
2. Create a set of sanctions that would focus less on particular organizational membership and more on the harmful/aggressive activity.
3. Engage in a much more efficient listing and enforcement of existing sanctions.
4. Penalize individuals and entities responsible for specific violations against US nationals, such as arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.
5. Reengage with our allies in bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would make their financial withdrawal from the risky and unsavory investments in Iran worth their while.
Unless we focus on Iran’s activity as a mutlifaceted problem that requires a holistic approach, the Islamic Republic will continue playing games, reaping the benefits of time extensions and breaks, while also growing increasingly stronger as a threat to our national security interests, and the well-being of our allies and the entire region.
The author is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
Jerusalem Post Opinion
TRUMP’S IRAN POLICY SHIFT SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH
> 'Decertifying' Iran deal, Trump to propose new, unilateral terms
BY IRINA TSUKERMAN OCTOBER 18, 2017 20:56
Trump's recent 'decertification' of the nuclear deal signals the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy.
Trump’s Iran policy shift should be the first step of a more aggressive approach
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the nuclear accord at the White House on Friday. (photo credit:REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump’s speech on the shift in Iran policy last Friday was a welcome relief from the Obama administration’s apologetic and self-serving rhetoric, as well as its series of foreign policy steps leading up to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed for chaos in Syria, ignored as long as possible the fate of American prisoners in Iran and left the world, and the United States, more vulnerable to terrorism and ballistic missile attacks than ever before.
Trump condemned the extensive Iranian malfeasance in strong, unequivocal terms and vowed to move away from the policy of appeasement that only played into the hands of the ruthless regime that demands respect for its national sovereignty while contributing to violent uprisings and civil wars in a number of nations in the neighborhood.
It is a good first step, and psychologically important for both the US and its allies alike. Moral leadership is of the essence in a world increasingly plagued by a lack of clarity and courage. That said, and as Senator Ted Cruz has put it, all economic, diplomatic and if necessary, military options must be explored with regard to Iran.
The current shift in policy, while a promising beginning, is neither entirely new nor sufficient, and we should not be misled into believing that it will solve all problems. In reality, the White House’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, crackdown on human rights abuses, and other steps delineated in the speech were all parts of the policy shift outlined in this summer’s sanctions package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
What is left unstated in the numerous analyses of the speech provided by the full spectrum of pundits and journalists is that the “new” policy is merely a commitment to reinforcing existing law. The lawmakers who came out with positive statements with regard to the new speech are quite familiar with the legal provisions. No doubt they want to be supportive of the executive decision to finally do the right thing, but the question as to why it has taken so long to utilize the authority provided by Congress and enforce the mandatory provisions outlined in the law signed in July remains open. For that reason, it is hard to view this shift as anything particularly radical.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the anti-IRGC provisions, while a necessary step for security is by no means sufficient. It would allow the killing or arrest of such figures as Qasem Soleimani, and perhaps a greater focus on cracking down on entities that fund IRGC companies.
However, the US acting in isolation against Iran, where many Western countries are already heavily invested, would be an economic drop in the ocean.
And some of the worst violators of human rights may not be affiliated with IRGC. The prison wardens, guards, judges, doctors, and other non-military enablers of the regime remain beyond the reach of the law. And the non-IRGC intelligence agencies and military apparatus will continue to benefit from the sanctions relief and unfrozen assets provided by the terms of the JCPOA.
What’s worse, President Trump has asked Congress not to impose the new sanctions, which, as a public statement, will have unfavorable consequences for his own plan of actions. His comments signal that the administration has not yet recognized the full extent of the regime’s duplicity, providing it yet another opportunity to realign priorities and shift whatever illicit materials it may possess during an unspecified time period, while the US is cracking down on the IRGC, a step that Iran was already fully prepared for given the months of discussion and public statements in that regard. What’s missing from the new policy is an element of surprise vital to keeping the adversary off-balance. Congress recognizes the limitations of just focusing on terrorism, while ignoring other central concerns of the JCPOA.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) is already set to craft a new bill which would address this missing piece.
The bill would reimpose the original sanctions if Iran does not comply with the terms within six months: give access to inspects its military sites, stop all work on ballistic missiles. It would kill the rightfully maligned “sunset clauses.”
The trouble is, six months (providing the bill even passes, and passes quickly) is more than enough time for Iran to take further deceptive action. Time is the regime’s greatest friend and our worst enemy.
And for all we know, the military sites we have in mind are not even the sites where the bulk of illegal nuclear activity is taking place. The exiled Iranian People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran recently came out with a bold claim that this entire time, IRGC has been operating four new military sites where this work has been taking place. Whether or not this is “fake news,” the fact that the claim was made should be publicly acknowledged and discussed, and at the very least, investigation of such statements should be demanded. Yet, there was no mention of the likelihood of continuous nuclear proliferation in the new policy, with the brunt of the focus on the IRGC.
While we continue trying to placate the staunch supporters of the JCPOA, Iran is likely continuing to acquire the very capabilities JCPOA sought to prevent.
While we continue to focus our efforts on lists of terrorists, which will likely take many months to compile, and which will shift again and again as the clever IRGC members will suddenly leave the organization and to everyone’s surprise join up with other intelligence agencies or newly created organizations, the many non-IRGC terrorists, military personnel and civilian enforcers will continue to get away with murder. What we should be doing instead:
1. Reimpose sanctions immediately and lift them only after full inspection of all available military sites and investigation of suspected secret sites.
2. Create a set of sanctions that would focus less on particular organizational membership and more on the harmful/aggressive activity.
3. Engage in a much more efficient listing and enforcement of existing sanctions.
4. Penalize individuals and entities responsible for specific violations against US nationals, such as arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.
5. Reengage with our allies in bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would make their financial withdrawal from the risky and unsavory investments in Iran worth their while.
Unless we focus on Iran’s activity as a mutlifaceted problem that requires a holistic approach, the Islamic Republic will continue playing games, reaping the benefits of time extensions and breaks, while also growing increasingly stronger as a threat to our national security interests, and the well-being of our allies and the entire region.
The author is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
Monday, October 16, 2017
The Fall of Kirkuk - and of the US new policy on Iran
Left mostly to civilians, PKK volunteers, and others Kirkuk fell to Iraqi troops and Iran-based militias in a matter of hours. Iraq is seeking to take back the oil-rich region from Kurdish control.
US stood by and did nothing.
President Trump recently announced a shift in policy in Iran, which would include designating IRGC as a terrorist organization, responding to Iranian militias engaged in terrorism with harshness, and preventing Iran's expansionism in the region.
Well, today's assault on Kirkuk following the recent independence referendum and a week of tensions, threats, and attempted negotiations was the first test of our commitment to the new policy and we failed it.
We have allowed Iraqi forces, armed with US weaponry, and on the dole from the US government for many years, as well as Iran backed militias, adversarial to our efforts in the region and inimical to US interests and those of her allies, to attack an ally who has stalwartly backed us in our fight against ISIS, showed an openness to Western values of democracy and liberalization, and a strong interest in a growing alliance with the United States.
Furthermore, we have hypocritically allowed the source of the many factionalist troubles in the Middle East, the Sykes-Picot treaty, to continue dictating the present and the future of the region, effectively killing the dream of self-determination, moving away from colonialist maps, and towards a future, where nations can forge their own paths and choose their own governments. Foolishly, we have also allowed a large supply of oil to end up in the hands of groups backed by an expansionist regime, and committed to terrorism and domination of the region.
It would have taken but one phone call from President Trump to stop Abadi's forces from entering Kirkuk, bring all parties to the table for a negotiation, and resolve the matters civilly, peacefully, and diplomatically. Instead, we have allowed our ally, the Kurds, to be publicly brutalized and humiliated by the presence of the enemy forces in the city they helped liberate from ISIS.
And the head of this operation is none other than the fearsome Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, who plays a key role in the intelligence and the IRGC, the very organization President Trump just designated as part of Global Terrorists organization, enforcing the law he signed as part of the sanctions package on Russia, North Korea, and Iran earlier this year. We had multiple opportunities to nab Soleimani in the last few years of the Obama administration, but let him get away, liberating him from the sanctions lists, and allowing him to cut weapons deal in Russia, in violation of our own security interests.
I need not tell you what is likely to happen when someone like Soleimani is in charge. But let's not leave the matter to our imagination. Let's look at Iran's treatment of its own significant Kurdish minority - treatment that includes disproportional executions, facilitation of drug flow into the regions, frequent denial of civil rights, and brutal torture of even peaceful human rights activists. Our failure to stop Soleimani from playing an active role in the fall of Kirkuk, as well as our lack of will in enforcing both our own existing laws and the newly articulated policy by the White House shows that our interest in stopping IRGC is significantly less than our apparent interest in appeasing Abadi, Erdogan, and various Arab states vehemently opposed to the existence of a Kurdish state.
Besides showing ourselves once again as a poor ally to the one group that is openly embracing our interest in liberalization, diversity, and enlightenment in the region, we are also shooting ourselves in the foot by opposing an important buffer state against Iran and increasingly bellicose Turkey, who would likely have positive relations with Israel, could be a good trade partner, and could move the region in a positive direction through its commitment to education and business investments. There's only one thing that's worse than betraying good allies, and that is betraying our own constituents. Americans and Congress have shown strong opposition to the IRGC, articulated by the sanctions signed into law this summer. We were explicitly promised the end of the Obama administration's failed appeasement posture and the beginning of a stronger, more assertive US that looks out for US national security interests above all else. Instead, we are getting more of the same - failure to contain an organization we just designated as terrorist, spread of strife and needless violence in the one part of the region that showed signs of promising stability, and endless deception over what standing up to Iran means in practice as opposed to what we were led to believe we were getting.
I urge President Trump to listen to good advice not from former and still interested oil executives, but from regional and national security experts well familiar with the dangers of IRGC and Erdogan's neo-Ottoman ambitions, to take all action that would get Abadi to back off, to secure Kirkuk against invasions, and to have Soleimani taken into custody or killed, as the head of a terrorist organization that he is. That is the only way to show our commitment to our new policy on Iran, and to secure our national security interests and those of our regional allies, and to be taken seriously on the international stage by friends and foes alike.
US stood by and did nothing.
President Trump recently announced a shift in policy in Iran, which would include designating IRGC as a terrorist organization, responding to Iranian militias engaged in terrorism with harshness, and preventing Iran's expansionism in the region.
Well, today's assault on Kirkuk following the recent independence referendum and a week of tensions, threats, and attempted negotiations was the first test of our commitment to the new policy and we failed it.
We have allowed Iraqi forces, armed with US weaponry, and on the dole from the US government for many years, as well as Iran backed militias, adversarial to our efforts in the region and inimical to US interests and those of her allies, to attack an ally who has stalwartly backed us in our fight against ISIS, showed an openness to Western values of democracy and liberalization, and a strong interest in a growing alliance with the United States.
Furthermore, we have hypocritically allowed the source of the many factionalist troubles in the Middle East, the Sykes-Picot treaty, to continue dictating the present and the future of the region, effectively killing the dream of self-determination, moving away from colonialist maps, and towards a future, where nations can forge their own paths and choose their own governments. Foolishly, we have also allowed a large supply of oil to end up in the hands of groups backed by an expansionist regime, and committed to terrorism and domination of the region.
It would have taken but one phone call from President Trump to stop Abadi's forces from entering Kirkuk, bring all parties to the table for a negotiation, and resolve the matters civilly, peacefully, and diplomatically. Instead, we have allowed our ally, the Kurds, to be publicly brutalized and humiliated by the presence of the enemy forces in the city they helped liberate from ISIS.
And the head of this operation is none other than the fearsome Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, who plays a key role in the intelligence and the IRGC, the very organization President Trump just designated as part of Global Terrorists organization, enforcing the law he signed as part of the sanctions package on Russia, North Korea, and Iran earlier this year. We had multiple opportunities to nab Soleimani in the last few years of the Obama administration, but let him get away, liberating him from the sanctions lists, and allowing him to cut weapons deal in Russia, in violation of our own security interests.
I need not tell you what is likely to happen when someone like Soleimani is in charge. But let's not leave the matter to our imagination. Let's look at Iran's treatment of its own significant Kurdish minority - treatment that includes disproportional executions, facilitation of drug flow into the regions, frequent denial of civil rights, and brutal torture of even peaceful human rights activists. Our failure to stop Soleimani from playing an active role in the fall of Kirkuk, as well as our lack of will in enforcing both our own existing laws and the newly articulated policy by the White House shows that our interest in stopping IRGC is significantly less than our apparent interest in appeasing Abadi, Erdogan, and various Arab states vehemently opposed to the existence of a Kurdish state.
Besides showing ourselves once again as a poor ally to the one group that is openly embracing our interest in liberalization, diversity, and enlightenment in the region, we are also shooting ourselves in the foot by opposing an important buffer state against Iran and increasingly bellicose Turkey, who would likely have positive relations with Israel, could be a good trade partner, and could move the region in a positive direction through its commitment to education and business investments. There's only one thing that's worse than betraying good allies, and that is betraying our own constituents. Americans and Congress have shown strong opposition to the IRGC, articulated by the sanctions signed into law this summer. We were explicitly promised the end of the Obama administration's failed appeasement posture and the beginning of a stronger, more assertive US that looks out for US national security interests above all else. Instead, we are getting more of the same - failure to contain an organization we just designated as terrorist, spread of strife and needless violence in the one part of the region that showed signs of promising stability, and endless deception over what standing up to Iran means in practice as opposed to what we were led to believe we were getting.
I urge President Trump to listen to good advice not from former and still interested oil executives, but from regional and national security experts well familiar with the dangers of IRGC and Erdogan's neo-Ottoman ambitions, to take all action that would get Abadi to back off, to secure Kirkuk against invasions, and to have Soleimani taken into custody or killed, as the head of a terrorist organization that he is. That is the only way to show our commitment to our new policy on Iran, and to secure our national security interests and those of our regional allies, and to be taken seriously on the international stage by friends and foes alike.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
The World is Silent On Bombshell MEK Claim
What am I missing here?
There has been NO commentary or discussion about MEK's claim that Iran has been continuing illegal nuclear proliferation at 4 inaccessible IRGC-controlled military sites since JCPOA was implemented at all.
Even if this claim turns out to be fake news, shouldn't our elected officials, pundits, analysts, and journalists at least acknowledge that such a claim has been made and needs to be thoroughly investigated?
There has been NO commentary or discussion about MEK's claim that Iran has been continuing illegal nuclear proliferation at 4 inaccessible IRGC-controlled military sites since JCPOA was implemented at all.
Even if this claim turns out to be fake news, shouldn't our elected officials, pundits, analysts, and journalists at least acknowledge that such a claim has been made and needs to be thoroughly investigated?
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
The Known Knowns
Today there was a Congressional hearing regarding the MEK bombshell report concerning Iran's continuous nuclear proliferation work, with input from North Korea.
But did we hear anything about it? No. All we heard all day long was the latest about Harvey Weinstein, more stuff about the NFL, and Trump's latest tweets.
Priorities, priorities...
But did we hear anything about it? No. All we heard all day long was the latest about Harvey Weinstein, more stuff about the NFL, and Trump's latest tweets.
Priorities, priorities...
Shocked, SHOCKED that Iran may have been running nuclear proliferation all this time
Assuming that the new MEK report that alleges that IRGC has been running fully operational military nuclear proliferation facilities after JCPOA was implemented is verifiable and accurate, I will not spend any time holding my breath awaiting regrets and apologies from the Obama administration, assorted political hacks and media hacks, and the hopelessly naive masses that whole-heartedly believed in the nuclear deal this entire time.
None will be forthcoming.
However, I will expect that those who are more independent-minded will take self-serving and highly speculative assertions by the experts with a somewhat bigger grain of salt in the future and certainly before engaging in decisions that will ultimately risk putting us in a significantly worse position than before we start on that path.
Oh, and in other breaking news: North Koreans were in on it, and helped with the creation and design of nuclear warheads. Who could ever have guessed?!
In other news: lying liars lied, continue lying, and will always lie.
None will be forthcoming.
However, I will expect that those who are more independent-minded will take self-serving and highly speculative assertions by the experts with a somewhat bigger grain of salt in the future and certainly before engaging in decisions that will ultimately risk putting us in a significantly worse position than before we start on that path.
Oh, and in other breaking news: North Koreans were in on it, and helped with the creation and design of nuclear warheads. Who could ever have guessed?!
In other news: lying liars lied, continue lying, and will always lie.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Band-Aids for Open Wounds
Emotional dependence on public posturing and band-aids for open wounds means the substance of the issue never gets addressed and things get a lot worse even as we think we are doing the right thing and making them better. #IRGC #Iran
Decertification is Not Enough; We Must Declaw and Defang Iran to Prevent Greater Bloodshed
Let me spell it out: whether you recertify or decertify, stay or go, unless Iran is completely and utterly isolated, all this running commentary are merely pinpricks and distractions.
Iran has ALREADY secured major investments from European firms and has strong commitments from China, its top trading partner.
Russia is providing Iran with weapons.
North Korea is likewise cooperating on ballistic missiles.
Unless US ALSO gets China on board, our own sanctions will have very limited effect.
The reasons any sanctions were working against Iran before the nuclear deal was precisely because Iran was basically brought to its knees and treated as an international pariah.
Going after IRGC would, in this context, have to mean more than just shallow designations and rhetoric. It would mean: "shoot on sight". IRGC and ALL OTHER militant Iranian entities and proxies would have to be regarded as adversaries, not just annoyances.
Our entire strategy would have to be reoriented not merely towards fighting Hezbullah and other Shi'a groups in the battlefields in Syria but going after them everywhere with the goal of obliterating them entirely.
Nothing in what Trump or any of his associates are saying shows any such determination.
Throwing the issue back to Congress means that MAYBE the administration would be willing to sign off on some of the sanctions bills (provided they are not lost among unrelated pork and watered down by leftist interests - which they are likely to be).
Congress can fund and defund programs related to our mechanisms of war or impose sanctions and recommend entities for blacklisting. Congress cannot by itself redirect all of foreign policy.
Unlike many who are giddy with excitement about the upcoming and belated decertification, I view this discussion as a waste of time along the lines of the 'too little-too late" department.
If we are serious about this, we are going to have to do A LOT MORE than pat ourselves on the back for largely symbolic gestures. We are going to have to drag our allies on board; we are going to have to push the president's national security team towards reorganizing against all things Iran, we are going to have to view what's coming as a non-lethal total war.
Iran has ALREADY secured major investments from European firms and has strong commitments from China, its top trading partner.
Russia is providing Iran with weapons.
North Korea is likewise cooperating on ballistic missiles.
Unless US ALSO gets China on board, our own sanctions will have very limited effect.
The reasons any sanctions were working against Iran before the nuclear deal was precisely because Iran was basically brought to its knees and treated as an international pariah.
Going after IRGC would, in this context, have to mean more than just shallow designations and rhetoric. It would mean: "shoot on sight". IRGC and ALL OTHER militant Iranian entities and proxies would have to be regarded as adversaries, not just annoyances.
Our entire strategy would have to be reoriented not merely towards fighting Hezbullah and other Shi'a groups in the battlefields in Syria but going after them everywhere with the goal of obliterating them entirely.
Nothing in what Trump or any of his associates are saying shows any such determination.
Throwing the issue back to Congress means that MAYBE the administration would be willing to sign off on some of the sanctions bills (provided they are not lost among unrelated pork and watered down by leftist interests - which they are likely to be).
Congress can fund and defund programs related to our mechanisms of war or impose sanctions and recommend entities for blacklisting. Congress cannot by itself redirect all of foreign policy.
Unlike many who are giddy with excitement about the upcoming and belated decertification, I view this discussion as a waste of time along the lines of the 'too little-too late" department.
If we are serious about this, we are going to have to do A LOT MORE than pat ourselves on the back for largely symbolic gestures. We are going to have to drag our allies on board; we are going to have to push the president's national security team towards reorganizing against all things Iran, we are going to have to view what's coming as a non-lethal total war.
Iran Decertification Farce
Does anyone here seriously think that the same group of people who wish to keep the Iran deal in place because their financial interests are heavily invested in Iran and because their ideological proclivities dictate that course of action would actually let the President take any truly tough action against Iranian proxies, particularly the official Iran body, IRGC, since any such measure would inevitably be interpreted by Iran to be a violation of the deal? I see decertification without also backing away from JCPOA as a symbolic measure, and whatever action is taken afterwards will be largely cosmetic.
Now if the President decided to freeze all assets by all relevant officials, cut off the flow of Iranians traveling into the US for pleasure, and made Iranians into international pariahs instead of "partners" for financial investments, that might have had some effect. But that won't happen, because it's pretty clear that the new plan is there just to shut down the critics and make Congress feel useful
Now if the President decided to freeze all assets by all relevant officials, cut off the flow of Iranians traveling into the US for pleasure, and made Iranians into international pariahs instead of "partners" for financial investments, that might have had some effect. But that won't happen, because it's pretty clear that the new plan is there just to shut down the critics and make Congress feel useful
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)