Somebody in the Middle East must have been watching Breaking Bad reruns. On the last episode of the acclaimed crime series, its anti-hero Walter White makes an effective use of a remote-controlled machine gun to slaughter a small army of neo-Nazis.

A somewhat similar event was reported last Friday on the road leading east from the Iranian capital of Tehran to a city named Absard. According to various Iranian sources, a machine gun opened fire from a parked Nissan, spraying a passing convoy of cars. Immediately afterwards, the Nissan exploded. Apparently all this occurred —somewhat bizarrely — while no person was inside the car. Everything had been done by remote control, and the assassins managed to escape the scene. Perhaps they were never even really there.

Was Fakhrizadeh Really ‘the Father of the Iranian Nuclear Program’?

The target of this mysterious attack was the Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh who died in the attack. Western media outlets began referring to him as the “Father of the Iranian Nuclear Program.” The title may not be entirely accurate. Fakhrizadeh was actually the man in charge of Iran’s clandestine military project — the one meant to supply the Islamic Republic with its first nuclear bomb, a goal which the regime has been vehemently denying for years.

American and Israeli intelligence sources describe Fakhrizadeh as a genuine “talent” who led the project and had more knowledge of the secret aspects of the program than anyone else in Iran’s security establishment.

“Remember the name”, said Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, while exposing Fakhrizadeh for the first time in May 2018 at a Jerusalem press conference in which Israel presented the Iranian nuclear archive, stolen by Israeli Mossad agents from a site in Tehran four months earlier.

In the Crosshairs: Iranian Military and Nuclear Program Leaders

It is, indeed, Israel which Iran blames for the latest attack. Fakhrizadeh wasn’t the first Iranian nuclear scientist to die from unnatural causes. During the first years of the previous decade, four other scientists were killed in Tehran, while another was wounded. In fact, Iran’s covert projects have been riddled with deaths and seemingly unfortunate accidents. Last January, in Iraq, the U.S. assassinated General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the “Quds” forces, an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). And in July, an explosion destroyed centrifuges in the Natanz nuclear site, reportedly pushing the project back by about two years.

Unlike the nuclear archives raid, Israel didn’t publicly claim responsibility for Professor Fakhrizadeh’s killing. Yet Israeli leaders have often stated that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state. And a few hours after the assassination, while Netanyahu recorded his weekly message to the public, published on social media, the PM told Israeli citizens that he would not be able to “tell you everything” that was done during the week. Other Israeli sources, speaking anonymously to Western media, claimed that the world owed them thanks for ridding it of Fakhrizadeh’s potentially lethal presence.

The Reaction Stateside

The reaction from Washington had been more subdued than euphoric. US officials hurried to explain to the DC press that this time the operation was Israeli, not American. Some veterans of the Obama administration took to Twitter to attack Benjamin Netanyahu. Former CIA Director, John Brennan, described the assassination as a “criminal act & highly reckless,” claiming it risks provoking a new round of regional conflict. It was, Brennan wrote, “state-sponsored terrorism”. Brennan did not mention Israel directly.

As for the President-Elect Joe Biden, as of this moment neither Biden nor any of his new appointees have muttered a word over the incident. Yet it is safe to estimate that they are probably angry at Netanyahu. Like many former senior officials in Israel’s defense establishment, Biden’s people suspect that the operation’s goal was two-fold: to further complicate the situation in the Middle East and also to make it harder for the Biden administration to rush to resume negotiations with Iran on a new nuclear deal.

The Importance of the Iran Nuclear Deal

As you may remember, Trump decided to drop out of the nuclear agreement in May 2018. Biden, like Trump, intended to resume discussions with the Iranians after January 2020, in order to try and achieve a better deal than the 2015 agreement, shaped by the Obama administration. But Netanyahu isn’t sure he can influence Biden the way he does Trump. His relationship with Barack Obama and his Vice-President, Biden, had suffered through periods of turmoil.

Obama and Netanyahu didn’t agree on the Iranian nuclear threat or the possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps no less importantly, they couldn’t stand each other on a personal and professional level. Biden has declared himself Israel’s — and Netanyahu’s — friend, but it is no secret that Netanyahu was rooting for a different outcome in the US presidential elections.

As for the Iranians themselves, they have already announced that they will be happy to go back to the negotiations table and to stricter adherence to the original agreement, if only Biden will agree to lift the sanctions implemented by Trump. But perhaps they have a more urgent matter to attend to, even before Biden’s inauguration in seven and a half weeks.

Different Iranian leaders and officials have directly threatened Israel with a military response to the scientist’s death. Israeli security agencies are particularly worried about the United Arab Emirates. After Israel and the UAE signed a normalization agreement with Trump’s blessing this past September, tens of thousands of Israelis are expected to visit Dubai this month alone. Israel has blamed Iran in the past for sponsoring terrorist acts against its citizens.

2020 was quite a terrible year for the Middle East, with a combination of the pandemic and violent incidents. Next year may still turn out just as bad — or worse.

L'articolo Near Tehran, an Assassination à la Breaking Bad proviene da InsideOver.

The strategic Strait of Hormuz has been a source of tension between the US and Iran for some time. The US military’s Central Command recently published a black-and-white video showing that the Iranian Navy boarded and briefly seized a Liberian-flagged oil tanker called the MT Wila in the Strait.

The video also showed that special forces were fast-roping down a helicopter onto the MT Wila, whose last position appeared to be off the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates near the city of Khorfakkan.

The Iranian Navy captured the vessel for approximately five hours before releasing it on Wednesday, according to a US military official who spoke to the Associated Press. So far, no reason has been given for the vessel’s seizure.

US Sanctions are Having a Limited Effect

In July, an oil tanker wanted by the US was “hijacked” off the coast of the United Arab Emirates after supposedly smuggling Iranian crude oil.

US President Donald Trump has provided no response to this latest incident so far, but with a presidential election around the corner, he has a limited amount of time to tackle Iran’s action.

The US President recently pledged to strike a new nuclear deal with Tehran “within four weeks” if he is re-elected in November, according to a video of his remarks from inside a New Jersey fundraiser that was reported on by the Independent. Regardless, it is unclear what a new deal would look like, but it is needed fast if Trump is serious about curbing the threat that Iran poses to peace in the Middle East.

One option that is available to Trump in the meantime is that he could impose more sanctions on Iran. It is clear that the Iranian economy has been badly damaged by both the coronavirus and preexisting US sanctions. Focus Economics states that US sanctions and the coronavirus will cause the Iranian economy to contract sharply for the third consecutive year by 7.3 percent.

Iran is Breaching its 2015 Deal

Whilst US sanctions have succeeded in slowing down the Iranian economy, they are not a long-term solution to the problem. It is clear that they are not preventing Tehran from developing its nuclear program.

Bloomberg’s Jonathan Tirone discovered that the Iranian Government is moving to boost production of nuclear fuel at a crucial facility in Natanz which was struck by apparent sabotage last month. Iranian engineers have already installed piping needed to accumulate higher volumes of material that will be generated by three new centrifuge cascades. This represents an apparent breach of the 2015 Iran Deal that Barack Obama signed during his tenure as US president.

For now, Washington has no choice but to exercise all diplomatic options available to them to exert pressure on Iran. The Trump Administration recently revised a resolution that would extend a UN arms embargo on Iran for an indefinite period of time. The original resolution is due to expire on October 18. The UN Security Council will vote on this resolution on Friday, but Tehran’s allies, China and Russia, have the power to thwart such a proposal and they have already voiced strong opposition to it.

The Trump Administration has few Options Left

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has already warned of consequences if the UN approves of such a measure.

The resolution does have the support of Saudi Arabia as the country’s UN ambassador, Abdul Aziz Al-Wasel, said during a conference held in Geneva that Tehran smuggles weapons to militias to destabilize peace in the Middle East.

The Trump administration is right to prioritize a deal with Iran should the US President succeed in getting re-elected in November. But until Trump can produce a coherent plan to achieve this aim, it seems like his options are limited, at least until later on this year. This is why Iran is bold enough to continue to seize oil tankers and enrich its nuclear fuel. Whoever wins the US election this year has an enormous challenge ahead of them.

L'articolo How Should Trump React to Iran’s Seizure of Another Oil Tanker? proviene da InsideOver.

At a time when the Trump administration has been distracted by the coronavirus, both Iran and North Korea are currently testing US President Donald Trump’s resolve as his foreign policy record will face scrutiny in the upcoming November election.

North Korea leader Kim Jong Un ordered his military to bolster his country’s nuclear deterrence recently. In his first public appearance in three weeks, Kim implemented new policies to boost North Korea’s nuclear war readiness during a meeting with the ruling Workers’ Party’s Central Military Commission, according to state news agency KCNA. 

Testing Trump on Foreign Policy

The Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, had also warned Trump of retaliatory measures against the US if Washington causes problems for tankers carrying Iranian fuel to Venezuela. The first of five tankers loaded with gasoline sent from Iran has reached Venezuelan waters, and these shipments are expected to temporarily ease the South American nation’s fuel crunch while also defying the Trump administration’s sanctions aimed at the two US rivals.

As for North Korea, its leader warned the US President last fall that he had until the end of 2019 to restart denuclearization negotiations. Since the beginning of this year, the North Korean regime has continued testing missiles. In late March, the nation’s government fired an unidentified projectile into the sea near Japan’s coast, marking its sixth launch in one month.

Like with all US presidents, Trump came to power hoping to end North Korean hostilities toward America with good intentions. He went to great lengths to make peace with North Korea’s regime in a way that no other US president has ever done before. For example, he has publicly met Kim numerous times and he became the first sitting US leader to take 20 steps into North Korea.

However, the Hanoi summit ended with no deal in February because the US would not compromise on sanctions relief after the North Korean leader offered to close a nuclear facility at Yongbyon in return.

Trump Needs China’s Help to End Pyongyang’s Nuclear Program

Victor Cha, who was the director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council from 2004 to 2007, believes that Trump cannot hope to achieve a successful outcome in North Korea without the help of China. However, now that the coronavirus has pitted Washington and Beijing against each other, cooperation on this issue is unlikely. For example, Beijing’s payments that maintain the North Korean regime’s existence should be tied to denuclearization. This means that Trump is unlikely to make any progress in persuading North Korea to surrender its nuclear program before the November election.

Compromise of Some Kind is Inevitable

With all the countries that signed up to the 2015 Iran Deal distracted by the coronavirus as well, Trump will find it difficult to convince his allies to tackle the threat from Tehran, even though it is clear that Rouhani is becoming increasingly hostile following his recent remarks that Israel is a ‘cancerous tumor.’

Last October, French President Emmanuel Macron managed to persuade the Iranian leader and the US President to agree to a four-point document that would pave the way for the end of Iran’s nuclear program and US sanctions against Tehran. However, a meeting between Trump and Rouhani never happened as the former refused to lift any sanctions in a sign of good will to Iran.

It is not entirely Trump’s fault that his first term has ended with no real progress being made to tackle the twin threats of Iran and North Korea. The coronavirus will continue to distract the world’s attention and whilst China’s involvement in Pyongyang’s denuclearization program is crucial, Washington and Beijing look likely to engage in another war of words soon. But if the US President is serious about forcing Rouhani and Kim to surrender their nuclear weapons, he must ease his sanctions against both their countries at some point should he win a second term.

L'articolo Why Iran and North Korea are Currently Testing Trump proviene da InsideOver.

U.S Senator Chris Murphy (Dem-Conn) secretly met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) as conservative news outlet the Federalist first revealed. However, the news organization did not elaborate more about what both men were apparently discussing at that time. The meeting seemed to upset U.S President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It indicated a stark difference of opinion in the Trump administration about how to handle the ongoing tension with Tehran.

Iran’s Reaction

Iran’s Foreign Ministry responded to the recent meeting between both senior politicians, saying that it occurred in the framework of Iran’s general diplomacy.

“These measures are part of public diplomacy, including meeting with elites, think-tanks, and interviewing and meeting with media associates. These meetings are also an opportunity for the Islamic Republic to put forward its views on “the realities of the region,” foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousawi tweeted.

Trump, Pompeo Slam Meeting: ‘Violation of the Logan Act‘

Trump criticized the Connecticut-based Senator’s act for violating the seldom-enforced Logan Act, which bans non-governmental figures from having contacts with foreign governments. The bill was ratified following an illegal meeting between U.S senator George Logan and the French government in 1798 during the presidency of John Adams.

“Sen. Murphy met with the Iranians. Is that a fact? I just saw that on the way over. Is there anything that I should know? Because that sounds like, to me, a violation of the Logan Act,” Trump told reporters as Middleeasteye.net reported.

Pompeo also echoed his boss’ statement, wondering about what both Murphy and Zarif were talking about. The former CIA chief hoped the Senator promoted the White House’s policy, not the Senator’s personal view.

“It’s Dangerous Not to Talk to One’s Enemies”

While Murphy argued that there was nothing wrong with his private talk with Zarif, adding that someone should talk to a country dubbed as the U.S’ enemy. “It’s dangerous not to talk to one’s enemies,” he said, adding that if Trump did not want to talk to Iran, then someone should do so.

Murphy explained that he discussed Iran’s support for Houthi rebel groups in Yemen, Tehran’s influence in Iraq, and American prisoners in Iran, The Hill wrote. The Democrats politician also wanted to make sure whether the revenge for the killing of Iran’s influential general Qasem Soleimani was over.

“I want to make sure it is 100 percent clear to him that if any groups in Iraq that are affiliated with Iran attack the United States’ forces in Iraq, this will be perceived as an unacceptable escalation,” Murphy stated.

A Brief Background of U.S-Iran Tension

Trump has repeatedly criticized the Iran nuclear deal or known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed under the Barack Obama administration in 2015. The real estate mogul argued that the agreement was not effective in pushing Iran to halt its nuclear ambition, despite the compliance report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In 2018, the White House announced its formal withdrawal from the JCPOA, a step that sparked criticism from other signatories such as France, Germany, the U.K, Russia, and China. Washington also imposed a series of sanctions on Tehran.

Iran then retaliated by reducing its commitment to the JCPOA. The Middle East nation announced its plan to enrich uranium above the level stipulated in the agreement.

The attack on Saudi’s oil facility in September last year and the killing of Soleimani in early 2020 in Iraq have intensified the tension. Then, Iran was under worldwide condemnation for accidentally shooting a Ukraine passenger airplane after mistakenly assuming the aircraft was an enemy’s aircraft. Tehran apologized for the incident and was ready to be responsible for the horrific incident that killed around 176 passengers, most of them Iranians and Canadians.

Is White House Split over Iran?

Murphy stated Trump’s approach to Iran has failed, indicating the differences between the POTUS and U.S lawmakers in dealing with Tehran. In May 2019, Senator Ruben Gallego revealed that the U.S intelligence has faked and exaggerated Iran’s threat to the U.S and its allies, accusing the then National Security Adviser John Bolton and Republican senator Tom Cotton of creating a false narrative over Tehran.

“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,” Gallego told the Washington Post in a telephone interview.

Just a few days after Iran apologized for accidentally shooting down the Ukrainian plane, Pentagon chief Mark Esper refuted Trump’s claim that Iran had planned to attack four U.S embassies, adding that Trump was ready for a dialogue unconditionally.

L'articolo The Meeting Between Chris Murphy and Iran’s Foreign Minister proviene da InsideOver.

In 1953, after Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened to limit the oil reserve control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP, British Petroleum) and threatened to nationalize the country’s oil industry, the United States CIA put “Operation Ajax” (“Operation Boot” in the United Kingdom) into action. This successful coup d’etat put the Shah of Iran back into power and reestablished Iran’s oil policy in a favorable direction for Anglo-American interests. Thus began US involvement in attempting to control the Iranian government that holds approximately 10 percent of the world’s oil reserves and is “too close for comfort” to America’s closest ally in the Middle East with its vehemently anti- Israel position.

America’s Desire To Recapture Control Of Iran

The Western puppet regime of the Shah stayed in power in Iran for 26 years, until the 1979 Iranian revolution deposed the Shah and Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took over, establishing the Islamic Republic. Since then, the United States has been tightening the economic and political noose around Iran to varying degrees. In response to the 1979 revolution, President Jimmy Carter placed economic sanctions on Iran. Put another way, he engaged in “economic warfare,” with the country. These sanctions included the freezing of assets, including property.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan placed a second round of sanctions that were expanded in 1996 to include any firm doing business with Iran.

A third round of sanctions in 2006 were expanded to encompass banking and insurance transactions, shipping and web-hosting services in addition to the preexisting sanctions on oil, gas, the export of refined petroleum products and any dealing with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Trump’s Intensification Of Iran Sanctions

These already crippling sanctions were expanded for the fourth time in September of 2019 after President Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and the country was subsequently alleged to have perpetrated an attack on a Saudi oil field. These new sanctions specifically targeted the Iranian National Bank with the US threatening to sanction “any country that purchases oil from Iran.”

This type of sanctioning or “economic warfare”, isn’t unique to Iran. Currently, America has about 8,000 (7,967 as of March 2019) sanctions in place around the world. While this is a lot, under President Bill Clinton it’s estimated that around 40 percent of the world’s populations (2.3 billion people) were subjected to some form of US sanctions. Nonetheless, given the tumultuous nature of the Middle East, Iran’s oil reserves, and the country’s strongly anti-Israeli stance, Iran is undoubtedly currently the biggest target for sanction by the US.

What Is America’s Sanctions Strategy?

America uses these sanctions to disrupt not just Iran’s national government but to impact all areas of the affected country, typically with a desire to cause unrest in the populace and change the regime. This economic strangling in place of an active or sponsored military coup d’etat has been the preferred method for the US government for decades now. Naomi Klein refers to the disruption of both the economy and the sociopolitical environment as “the Shock Doctrine” and is explained in detail in her book by the same name.

While “economic warfare” had been practiced for decades, the marriage between the economy and the sociopolitical aspect of a country began to take full shape in Indonesia and Greece in the 1960s. The strategy was fully realized by Milton Friedman and his “Chicago Boys” who assisted the CIA in the overthrow of socialist President Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 through a combination of economic and sociopolitical manoeuvring and subversion. The successful coup resulted in the death of the Chilean leader. He was replaced with the American-endorsed dictator General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet promptly privatized all of what Allende had nationalized. This allowed Western multi-national companies to bilk the country of both resources and money. Under the guise of “free-market capitalism”, this is the desired end game of Friedman’s plan and the US sanctions philosophy.

Overthrow, Replace, Plunder: Different Justifications, Same Strategy

Under the guises of “anti-communism” and the Drug War, Friedman’s ideas became the template for most of Latin America or anywhere America determined a threat. Today, “anti-terrorism” has been added to the list of reasons to enact this model of economic warfare.

Often requiring some element of military force to be effective, economic warfare prevents growth, prohibits manufacturing and causes businesses to fail which results in higher unemployment. Sanctions and economic strangulation also squeezes the middle class. Ironically, while these sanctions are designed to punish a regime or government, a disproportionate amount of the burden of them lands at the doorstep of the poorest and most vulnerable.

The efficacy of sanctions or this type of “economic warfare” remains questionable. In almost every case, some form of the military advisor or involvement was required to see the sanctions fully realized. The military involvement was either sanctioned and sponsored by America or was direct use of American troops. For example, during the Salvadoran Civil War from 1979 to1992, the US-supported and financed the creation of a junta to change the political environment. More recently, 13 years of international sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s and early 2000s starving and slowly killing hundreds of thousands of its population still ended up with the 2003 US-led invasion.

Iran’s Economic Nosedive And Resulting Civil Unrest

In Iran, the Milton Friedman boilerplate of strangling a country into submission by using both the economy and sociopolitical measures has seen the country spiral into an economic nosedive. This, in turn, has led to civil unrest. While these current sanctions were meant to bring Iran to the negotiating table to discuss their nuclear program, it’s not working. According to the NY Times, “the Iranians may be trying to reassemble the elements of the nuclear program and they have not yet re-engaged in negotiations. But the uprisings are soaking up political time and attention.”

These most recent sanctions on Iran have pushed Iranian citizens into the desired result of open protests, but the Iranian government and military have responded differently than other countries have in the past. Instead of ceding ground they have responded with even more ruthlessness. In November of 2019, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini summoned his forces to “do whatever it takes” to quell the current uprising. They did this by opening fire on unarmed Iranian protesters. While both the US State Department and Amnesty International put the death toll in the hundreds, the Iranian Interior Ministry reported to Reuters that the crackdown has led to a death toll closer to 1,500.

Sanctions Are Hurting Iranians More Than The Iranian Government

It seems as though the traditional model of sanctions and “economic warfare” is working as designed but not having the desired outcome of regime change. While citizens feel the brunt of them, they have only strengthened the resolve of Iranian hard-liners. They argue that “any negotiation” with America is futile because all the US wants is regime change and is vociferously “anti-Islam.” Moreover, because of America backing out of the nuclear deal, Iran’s government can often successfully argue that America’s government is inherently untrustworthy.

No one anticipated the resolve of the Iranians. Despite negative economic growth, the halving of Iran’s oil output and the skyrocketing cost of gas for its citizens that led to the current uprising, Iran’s leaders show no sign of acquiescing to American demands or caving into international condemnation and pressure.

Trump Is Strengthening Iran’s Hardliners

Almost unwittingly, combined with everything else, these latest sanctions by President Trump have almost made America an ally in Iran’s “quest for political dominance.” While these crippling sanctions continue to force Iran towards the edge of economic collapse they’re also leading Iran to align itself with the two largest foes of America: China and Russia.

As Iranian leadership continues to spout anti-American rhetoric, its citizens continue to suffer and the economy marches toward certain implosion, the Iranian Navy is preparing for four days of naval exercises with America’s two other adversaries, Russia and China.

It’s fair to say that Iran is facing its toughest period since the 1979 revolution. It’s also fair to say the current situation is not America’s desired result of the ongoing economic sanctions.

L'articolo Iran Uses Economic Sanctions To Become Third Biggest American Adversary proviene da InsideOver.

Ever since he pulled America out of President Obama’s 2015 Iran Deal, Donald Trump has met criticism from his allies and his enemies. French President Emmanuel Macron tried to use this year’s G7 summit as an opportunity to bridge the gap between Tehran and Washington and get both sides talking again. The French President even boasted that Trump-Rouhani talks ‘could happen within weeks.’

President Trump’s convictions on this issue have been clear from the start; the Iran Deal does not work, and he is right to exercise that point. Obama’s deal failed to prevent Iran from sponsoring terrorist groups like Hezbollah and it did not curb Tehran’s nuclear activities altogether. Both NATO and Washington are to blame for failing to agree on a coherent plan that could replace the 2015 agreement sooner.

Since the Iran Deal was cancelled, the US President has issued sanctions that are crippling Iran. Newsweek’s Jonathan Broder said his sanctions have caused Tehran to get weaker as protests escalate at home and abroad. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards have killed approximately 106 protesters in disruptive demonstrations against fuel price increases. Amnesty International said the actual death toll could be higher, with Iranian reports suggesting at least 200 people might have been killed.

Iranians have smashed stores, burnt vehicles and ransacked buildings in the capital and other major cities. This has triggered Iran’s judiciary into agreeing that death by hanging is the most suitable punishment for protest leaders.

Iran’s influence abroad is being tested too. Street demonstrations have erupted across Iraq and protesters have burnt Iranian flags in the holy city of Karbala. Iraqi militias trained and armed by Tehran have killed more than 300 people and injured 15,000 more.

Demonstrations in Lebanon, although less severe than in Iraq and Iran, have been targeted against Hezbollah. Perhaps this could be a sign that Iran’s grip on the Middle East could be starting to break.

Trump is achieving his desired effect. He never believed war was the answer to the Iranian crisis and he has no intention of ending Iran’s sanctions until he can reach a deal with Iran or ensure there is a regime change, followed by Tehran’s total capitulation. As the Islamic Republic finds itself crippled by protests, it begs the question as to which nation should make the first move in resolving this situation?

National security adviser John Bolton was fired because the President lost faith in his ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran. Now that it is working, it could bring Hassan Rouhani to the negotiating table. Trump knows that his goal of removing Tehran’s current regime is an unrealistic prospect in the short-term, so a deal must be his first solution.

Rouhani declined a meeting with Trump because the latter refused to ease his sanctions, but now that Tehran has witnessed the effect they can have on its economy, the Iranian leader should realise the US is in a stronger position. Rouhani will only agree to talks if the President eases his sanctions, which he must consider doing so that both sides can conclude a new deal.

Furthermore, both leaders must adhere to the 4-point plan that Macron coordinated and that Trump and Rouhani agreed to. This plan would ensure that all US sanctions against Iran are lifted in exchange for Tehran completely surrendering its nuclear programme. As Politico’s Rym Momtaz said, it would be a ‘win-win’ for both sides: the President can claim he forced the Islamic Republic to completely surrender its nuclear arsenal, whilst Rouhani could argue he rescued his country from US sanctions.

Therefore, Trump’s sanctions may be working, but to resolve this situation altogether, he should meet his Iranian counterpart and implement the four-point plan they agreed to. If he doesn’t, many Iranian citizens will continue to suffer.

L'articolo What is Trump’s Next Move in the Face of Iranian Demonstrations? proviene da InsideOver.

Tensions between Iran and the US seem to show no sign of easing. The BBC reports that the Adrian Darya-1, the oil tanker seized in Gibraltar in July with the help of British forces over fears it was heading to Syria, has been caught heading towards the Syrian port of Tartus by satellite images released by Maxar Technologies. Furthermore, Fox News has revealed that Tehran is deploying new technology to enrich its uranium supplies to build an atomic bomb, which violates the 2015 Iran Deal. Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, told the news channel Europe is key to saving Obama’s 2015 deal.

The problem President Trump faced with the EU’s current leaders like European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is that they were both committed to the 2015 Iran Deal. They opposed Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement, but none of Europe’s leaders have managed to suggest an alternative arrangement with Tehran.

The G7 was an opportunity to do that, with French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian meeting his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif. But the biggest breakthrough at the Biarritz summit was that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told Macron he is open to meeting with Trump. Considering the US President has met with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un on numerous occasions, it would be a breakthrough for him if he managed to do the same with Iran’s President.

Europe’s involvement in US-Iran tensions is crucial to resolving this crisis. With Russia and China continuing to trade with Tehran in opposition to US sanctions, European nations like France are vital to mediating all sides into a compromise over the situation. The appointment of the EU’s new leadership team is an opportunity to do that. Relations between Trump, Tusk and Juncker became tense over Iran, and the EU’s new leaders may view the Iranian question differently to their predecessors.

This is why US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Brussels last week to meet European Parliament President David Sassoli and the EU’s incoming leadership team: Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen, Council President-elect Charles Michel, and the nominee for foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell. He discussed issues Washington and Brussels have failed to agree upon recently like trade, Iran and climate change. It is hard to predict how the Trump administration’s relationship with Brussels’ new team will evolve in years to come regarding Iran, but there are two areas both sides can agree need to be resolved immediately.

One of them is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s ongoing support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah. As long as Tehran continues to sponsor terrorists, Trump is unlikely to agree with his allies that the 2015 Iran Deal must be preserved. Trouble between Israel and Lebanon is brewing as the former recently said it was returning fire after anti-tank missiles were launched at its border from the latter.

Although Israel is escalating the crisis by staging an evacuation of ‘wounded’ Israeli soldiers with fake blood, their Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is threatened by Iran. He believes that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is building a new empire in Syria, Gaza and Lebanon. The EU’s new leaders could persuade the US that they must urge Tehran to surrender its support for terrorism and economic sanctions can be lifted in return. If they fail to do this, Brussels and Washington can impose further sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards.

Neither side wants war and that is why there is still a chance to end the Iranian crisis peacefully. But Trump cannot resolve this situation without the cooperation of his European allies. It is time they stop protesting that the President scrapped his predecessor’s 2015 agreement, and start cooperating with their closest partner to reach a new settlement on Iran.

L'articolo How Trump and the EU can resolve tensions over Iran proviene da InsideOver.

The president of Iran made headlines this week after declining a planned meeting with Donald Trump. Hassan Rouhani, who holds the highest elected position as president – while being subordinate to the supreme leader – says he will only talk with the US president when sanctions from its government are lifted. Political experts are mostly aligned in saying that this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

The news must have strained the nerves of other world leaders, notably France’s Macron, who hoped to renegotiate Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has sent conflicting messages ever since the deal was signed-off in 2015 – testing the most liberal interpretations of that agreement. Trump’s heated rhetorical style (to put it mildly) has strained relations, and some sort of entente between major nations of the US, Russia, and China, and the Islamist nation now looks very far off.

Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons could be seen to be needless belligerence – but it has good reason to fear for its stability. Iran borders Iraq and Afghanistan – two countries invaded by the US, and many hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives since, as well as untold damage to their economies.

Nuclear weapons, rightly or wrongly, could act as a safeguard and a symbol of power for the Islamic Republic.

Defence against foreign threats

Iran was declared, along with Iraq, an ‘axis of evil’ by the George Bush in 2002 – an invocation of a racist, would-be imperialist power along the lines of Nazi Germany, or fascist Italy.

This was part of the run-up to US invasion of Iraq months later. The Iraq war lasted nearly a decade and two hundred thousands soldiers and civilians lost their lives. Many more were displaced. It also saw notable accidents, like the downing of civilian passenger plane Iran Air flight 655 and the deaths of its 290 passengers by American forces. It nearly goes without saying that the war was devastating, and helped cement the view in the Middle-East that the US is an imperialist, recklessly interventionist foreign power.

Iran may seek a deterrence from similar US intervention in the form of nuclear weapons. The country has no major foreign allies, and some countries, like Canada and Morocco, have formally cut-off relations because of Iran’s ongoing support of foreign rebel and terrorist groups, as well as its poor human rights record. It is, diplomatically, an island.

There is also some evidence that Iran hoped to use nuclear weapons to get some parity with western nations. The word ‘dignity’, for example, crops up in broadcasts from senior government officials.

In November 2013, when talks over a nuclear deal began, foreign minister Javad Zarif said they sought “equal footing” with the other prospective signatories: the US, France, Russia, and China, among them. He asked for “mutual respect”, and said: “We expect and demand respect for our dignity” as a nation. The threat of nuclear weapons may have been hoped to pave the way for that.

Regional power and dominance

Iran has few friends at home. Nearly 95% of the population are Shia, a branch of Islam, while the country is surrounded by Sunni nations. This is pertinent at a time when sectarian divisions are deep, and oftentimes violent. Indeed, the nuclear program in Iran was only started in the 90s, after Afghanistan, under Saddam Hussein, invaded the country.

It doesn’t help the country’s regional standing that it continues to pursue his foreign policy. Iran supports groups abroad, like Hamas and Hezbollah as a counterbalance to American and Israeli power. It has also lent its support to pro-Iran militant groups in other Middle-Eastern countries, like Syria and Yemen, to strengthen its influence in those countries.

Nuclear weapons in this context serve to protect Iranian interests. Pakistan did something similar in 1998, when it successfully developed nuclear arms. Following that, the country began aiding Islamist militants in India, which lead to the Kargil crisis in 1999 in Kashmir, and a standoff with India in the following years. There are implications here for Iran, if it intends to use the threat of nuclear weapons to project its interests safely: Pakistan was on the losing side of these conflicts, in the end.

Nuclear weapons are a political wedge of issues within the country as well. In 2004, Iran’s hard-liners took control of the parliament, and then the presidency the following year. It was during this time that the political parties in Iran, to differentiate themselves, started to use weapons: opponents who disagreed with the program were accused of being pro-US or against the interests of the Iran. This result was greater popular support for the program, and attempts to walk it back were slandered as ‘defeatist’.

It is almost impossible to think that Iran wants nuclear weapons because they want to use them – but rather to use the idea of them as leverage in negotiations. That they brought the largest economies and military powers in the world to the negotiation table could be seen as a victory – and may indeed protect them from invasion in the longterm. Rouhani’s bold attempt to dangle the success of the nuclear deal based upon whether sanctions are lifted, anyway, shows an acute sense of the leverage his country controls with the threat of these weapons, and its potential as guarantor of Iran’s economic and political independence.

L'articolo Why Does Iran Want Nuclear Weapons? proviene da InsideOver.

There has always been bad blood between Europe and Donald and the Iran crisis has revived conflicts which have been of constant concern for the presidential administration in the United States.  

For those European countries that undersigned the agreement on Tehran’s nuclear program (but also those who were not involved, such as Italy) it is vital that the 2015 agreement remain in force. But the election of Trump is now challenging all this. And now, with the US dropping out of the pact, the resuming of sanctions, the numerous crises in the Middle East and the oil tanker wars in the Persian Gulf, the escalation of hostilities between the US and Iran have inevitably invested European diplomacy as well. 

Mainland Europe wants to keep at a distance from the crisis, both as individual countries as well as the EU as a whole. In the end no one seems particularly interested in finding themselves embroiled in the dispute. While no European power wants to stand against the US, neither do they want to be an obstacle in the way of the Iranian nuclear program or reassemble the Atlantic axis. The impression is that the divide between the two sides of the Atlantic is being aggravated by the current Gulf crisis. At present there is only one certainty: Trump has not been able to (or has not wanted to) recompose the Europe-US axis. While it has become increasingly evident that European countries want to take a distance from Washington’s policy (especially this administration’s) towards Iran. And we were just recently given confirmation of this with the European States’ decision to stall on (or openly refuse) the US request to join a coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb.

The European rejection front is led mainly by Germany. At yesterday’s press conference Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, renewed Berlin’s refusal to participate in the mission planned by the United States and Great Britain to secure Persian Gulf waters. Maas was adamant. Facing journalists the German Minister commented on Great Britain’s intention to participate in the American operation with these words: “At the moment the Britons would rather join an American mission. We won’t do that.” He also added that what Germany wished for was a “European mission.” 

Such a wish has a precise strategic significance: for Germany it is fundamental that such an operation be carried out by Europe with Germany at its head, not the United States in alliance with Great Britain. Two powers which today represent the real rivals of Germany’s strategy in Europe: Atlantic counterpoints to the dominance of Europe. 

From this point of view, the Persian Gulf is not just a challenge between Iran and the United States. It is also another facet of the deepening rift between America and Europe, which has marked recent years, and especially with Trump’s rise to power. The US administration has decided to declare war on a Germany-led Europe (more so than on a Franco-German one), confirming Washington’s strategic objective to limit rising German power over Europe. Trump cannot consider himself the architect of this clash, but he is definitely one of its best interpreters. And the US attack on a Germanocentric Europe takes on different forms: the attack on the Euro and the possible currency war; disputes over tariffs; Nord Stream 2 sanctions; support of Brexit, and those movements critical of the EU; clashes regarding relations with China and Russia. And finally the Iranian issue, with the US scheming to try and divide the European front concerning the Iranian nuclear program. 

On the other hand is Germany, resisting and attempting to play its cards. Germany’s refusal to take part in the Gulf maritime operation is in itself a very clear signal. As it is clear that both Italy and France are hesitating in the face of Washington’s request. There is no interest in joining this mission. But above all it is clear that those countries which are  closely bound to Germany will not be able to completely submit to The Donald’s requests. And this refusal on the part of its European allies is but the last in a series of refusals received by the American administration from the Old Continent. Particularly as concerns security. 

In any case, the dispute is before everybody’s eyes. On the one hand blows the Atlantic wind, gathering strength through the renewed special relationship between Great Britain and the United States, confirmed by Boris Johnson’s election as head of the British government. It is the Atlantic axis par excellence, but also an alliance representing Brexit and the departure from the EU. On the other is the European Union, attempting to take its first steps in asking to lead a naval mission in the Persian Gulf (as envisaged by Germany) , but above all refusing to abide by Trump, which in itself appears like yet another conflict between the two sides of the Atlantic. A financial and economic war which has now overflowed into the realm of politics. The Hormuz mission is only the latest example of this.

L'articolo Europe’s Great Refusal: Germany Leads the Anti-Trump Front proviene da InsideOver.

Iran has officially surpassed the enrichment level set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as of Monday. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javid Zarif announced that Iran had crossed the 300-kilogram limit, which was confirmed by General Yukiya Amano, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The limit had been implemented as part of the peace accords designed to limit the nation’s nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

Iran’s willingness to break through the stockpile ceiling is its latest maneuver in its standoff with the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump set in motion a series of escalatory events when he pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA. Since that time, there has been sabre-rattling from officials of both governments, demands, an American drone shot down, and mysterious oil tanker attacks for which Iran took the blame. There have not, however, been diplomatic negotiations, despite Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani expressing their desire for discussion.

Most critically, there have been harsh economic sanctions leveraged by Washington. These sanctions are the heart of the issue as Iran’s economy suffocates and its oil exports continue to plunge. While the U.S. reneged on the nuclear agreement, it still expects Iran to uphold it, an attitude that comes across as hypocritical in Tehran. Furthermore, it is also expected to suffer the sanctions without retaliation.

Exceeding the stockpile quota is one of the few cards Tehran could play in order to provoke the U.S. to return to the negotiating table. Following this, Zarif said it would begin enriching uranium above 3.76 percent. Crossing these lines is also a call for help to European nations which might be able to provide some relief or mediation. The immediate reaction from European leaders, however, has not been favorable.

Jeremey Hunt, United Kingdom foreign secretary, called for Iran to return to the limits set by the agreement as did French President Emmanuel Macron. As their governments continue to uphold their side of the deal by not retriggering United Nations or European Union sanctions, something they are well within their rights to do since Iran is officially in violation of the accord.

China and Russia have taken a different tone by publicly accused the U.S. of instigating the crisis. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said that the “Iranian side has repeatedly stressed that it is willing to stay in a comprehensive agreement, and the measures it has taken are reversible.” Sergey Lavrov, Russian foreign minister, pointed out that because of U.S. sanctions imposed in May, other countries have been unable to purchase the low-enriched uranium and heavy water from Tehran. With that in consideration, the only options for Iran were to surpass the 300-kilogram limit or simply halt their nuclear activities.

As a countermeasure to U.S. sanctions, the E.U. revealed the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) system at the beginning of the year. It went into effect on June 30, but will likely fall short of the relief Tehran needs. INSTEX was put together by the U.K., France, and Germany and allows for trade with Iran without using the U.S. dollar. Instead, companies dealing with Iran will barter between each other to exchange payment in the form of goods. The same will happen with Iranian companies through its newly created Special Trade and Finance Institute (STFI).

While the idea behind INSTEX and STFI is creative, it is unlikely to have a profound effect on the economy due to its limited nature – only medicine, medical products, and food will be offered on the exchange system. These humanitarian-focused products are not even sanctioned to begin with.  Furthermore, while the system would effectively skirt U.S. sanctions (if sanctioned products were even offered), it risks drawing fire from the Trump administration which has threatened anyone who does business with Iran. Washington foreign policy is not concerned with trivial technicalities where Tehran is concerned: “maximum pressure” is expected of all U.S. allies.

With Europe and other world powers seemingly handicapped, Iran is gradually playing all its cards to exert leverage where it can. Slowly, those cards are being burnt up, a prospect that begs the question of “What will Iran do when it runs out of diplomatic options?”

When news broke of Iran exceeding the first nuclear limit, Trump issued a warning to Tehran. “No message to Iran. They know what they’re doing,” he said. “They know what they’re playing with, and I think they’re playing with fire. So, no message to Iran whatsoever.”

Yesterday, a confusing White House press release also alleged that “There is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms.” Zarif issued a one-word reply on Twitter asking, “Seriously?”

As it’s quite impossible to violate terms of a deal before a deal is even made, it’s likely the White House meant that Iran had been violating the deal before the U.S. walked out, an unfounded claim that it has used to rationalize the restoration of sanctions.

L'articolo Iran Surpasses Nuclear Stockpile Limit and Now It Invokes Europe proviene da InsideOver.