His name consistently pops up in conversations of the highest level, ranging from North Korea to Latin America, but most people would struggle to answer, “Who is John Bolton?” If someone can recall his association with the Trump association as National Security Advisor, they probably couldn’t pinpoint exactly what his position entails. This is all by design – Bolton prefers being the puppet master lurking in the shadows. From the shadows, he manufactured the Iraq War, one of the longest military engagements in U.S. history.

Privileged Beginnings

Bolton was born during the end of World War Two and grew up in Baltimore, Maryland. His parents were ordinary folks: a fireman and a housewife. Bolton was academically-gifted and managed to earn a scholarship to a private boarding school where he finished his high school years. Already his political ambitions had begun to fester as he led his school’s Students for Goldwater campaign for presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.

After attending Yale, he graduated with honors of summa cum laude, the highest honor awarded at Yale. The top of his class, he grew more political as he partook in the Yale Political Union. Eventually he graduated with a law degree alongside Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It was then that he began brushing shoulders with presidents as he served as an intern for Vice President Spiro Agnew.

After working as a private attorney for some time, he eventually made his way back into presidential politics during President Ronald Reagan’s administration. He developed a proclivity for devoting his attention to what many would consider controversial issues such as illegal immigration and Japanese-American reparations.

War Puppeteer

In 2001, Bolton’s position as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security tasked him with preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). George W. Bush had just been sworn in and Bolton certainly was well-qualified in the field, at least on paper. However, it was clear from the onset that he had his own agenda to push, namely one of American nationalism. Bolton abused his post to deter the United Nations from enforcing the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention which would have permitted inspections of U.S. weapons sites. Although the U.S. can force weapons inspections upon other nations as part of nuclear agreements, it’s above incurring them itself.

Bolton’s headstrong attitude often found him going toe-to-toe with both U.S. and foreign diplomats. He had his desires and would strongarm anyone he viewed as an adversary into complying, such as during his meeting with José Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat and former director general of the Organization for the Prohibtiion of Chemical Weapons. Bustani had arranged for both Libya and Iraq to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, but Bolton had other ideas.

“He came to my office and said: ‘You have 24 hours to quit, and this is the instruction from Mr Dick Cheney,’” Bustani said. “And then Bolton said: you better think it over, because we know where your kids are.”

Eventually, Bustani was pushed out of his post. It was vital to Bolton’s self-interests that the Libya and Iraq not sign the accord in order to beat war drums. Without their compliance, he could paint the picture of a rogue regime running amuck with WMDs, which he did indeed do. He succeeded in pushing the U.S. into war against Iraq having found a willing president in George W. Bush.

Bolton’s management style both in Washington and on the global stage proved too much even for Bush to control. Bush had to sidestep the typical senatorial approval process for cabinet members to install him as a U.N. ambassador. When it became clear that he wouldn’t be confirmed by the Senate after his first term, he willingly resigned.

“This man is different from anyone I have met in my life. He doesn’t allow for a dialogue,” Bustani said. “You don’t discuss anything with him. It’s just brute force, that’s all.”

Iraq 2.0

After nearly three decades serving presidents, Bolton was out of the game, but he harbored no intention of retiring to a sunny island while sipping margaritas all day. No, he worked to spread his messages of American nationalism through other means. From 2013 – 2018, he served as chairman of the Gatestone Institute, an organization well known for spreading anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant propaganda. The Gatestone Institute thrives on inciting fear amongst its audience by warning of a “jihadist takeover” and that the West is being “islamicized”.

Amidst the Syrian humanitarian crisis, the institute rang alarm bells as migrants began “invading Europe.” Often times the institute has simply created fake news such that European countries had created non-Muslim zones and even inaccurately reporting the number of churches and mosques in London.

Without a doubt, the Gatestone Institute was the perfect home for someone like Bolton, but he stepped down when he was offered a path back to the White House as Trump’s national security advisor.

Under Trump, Bolton has continued to look for war, starting with Iran. It was only a few years ago when he penned an editorial in the New York Times arguing that Washington should preemptively bomb Tehran. It was, from his perspective, the only logical way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. This sentiment casually glides over the fact that President Barack Obama successfully negotiated a nuclear agreement that, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, was working.

So, this could not be allowed to stand because it was too diplomatic. Having a peaceful Iran complying with weapons inspections ran counter to Bolton’s pro-war agenda, therefore the deal was torn up. Although Trump insists it was his doing, there is little question that his foreign policy was until recently directly coordinated by Bolton.

After the bombing of several oil tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, Bolton had his opening and requested that the Pentagon prepare plans to strike back. One plan even called for the employment of 120,000 troops. Calmer heads thankfully prevailed, but the U.S. did send 1,500 more to the region for intelligence and missile defense.

Bolton’s ambitions have caused him to gain too much notoriety recently. The White House has had to rebuke reports that Bolton is causing chaos in the West Wing and that he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are at odds. Even Trump himself had to clarify that he is not seeking to overthrow Iranian leadership. By some accounts, this has Bolton frustrated that he cannot push Trump into another war.

Foreign policy is seldom the result of one man in a suit, even the president. It consumes the collective minds of advisors and diplomats spanning the globe and funneling that information into the White House. With a president who notoriously loathes reports and a revolving door of advisors in just two years, there is something to be said for anyone who can seize the power behind the throne.

Bolton did this so by controlling the flow of information and pushing the president down the path for war against Iran. While that situation might be cooling down, there will always be new opportunities and more targets for the aging war hawk.

L'articolo Who is John Bolton – Trump’s Hidden Puppet Master? proviene da InsideOver.

The noises from the Middle East are increasingly bellicose. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says that his country could withdraw from parts of the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J-CPOA). US President Donald Trump has responded by ordering reinforcements to the region; reduced non-essential diplomatic personnel in Iraq; and is reportedly firming up attack plans.

In the four decades since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the US has always tried to contain Iran rather than confront it directly through decisive military action.
But Trump has steadily ratcheted up US tensions with Tehran since withdrawing from the 2015 agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This feels like the final end game.

Trump has an extremely hawkish team in place headed by national security advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Bolton has long-argued that the US should bomb Iran to stop the Islamic Republic from gaining a nuclear weapon while Pompeo also has the Tehran regime in his crosshairs despite his inability to find European allies who could help lend legitimacy to such a conflict. At the same time, the US is coming under sustained pressure to act on Iran from within the region. Its three key regional allies: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel have long championed strikes on Tehran.

Iran too is not afraid of war. Its leadership may even believe that war is in their best interests. More than anything, US economic pressure has pushed Iran to the brink of economic collapse. Trump’s decision last month to end exemptions from sanctions for countries still buying oil from Iran was the final turning of the screw. Not only does less oil revenue mean falling living standards at home it also severely limits the amount of largesse that the Tehran regime can distribute to regional allies like Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and proxies such as the Houthi insurgency in Yemen.

New sanctions have allowed the Iranian regime to blame the US for the current economic crisis. But Rouhani put his reputation on the line to negotiate the nuclear deal, and the US withdrawal has damaged its supporters in Iran. Moderate Iranian support for rapprochement with the US has dwindled. Now the hardliners in Tehran are calling the shots. All of this makes Iran more likely to seek conflict, not capitulation. It is still pushing the Europeans to do more to help its ailing economy and threatening if they do not then it will go ahead and withdraw from the nuclear deal.

Bolton would most likely advocate a military response to such a move. But Trump may well be more cautious. He would dearly love the Iranian regime to crumble on his watch, and he would probably be forced to respond if US forces or facilities were attacked. But Trump has shown in his dealings with North Korea that while he likes to win, deal-making rather than war is his preferred option.

Trump may also have decided that a war with Iran is one that’s just not worth fighting. After all, Iran is a very different proposition to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Crucially, it’s a key Russian ally, and as we have seen with Assad in Syria, Putin’s Russia is prepared to stand by its allies in the Middle East, whatever the cost in treasure and prestige.

Iran’s close military ties with Russia also make war less likely. Even the US’s military advantage in the air could not be taken completely for granted given that Tehran possesses a state-of-the-art S-300 missile defence system purchased from Moscow in 2016. Iran and Russia have also announced plans for a joint military exercise in the Persian Gulf this summer.

What this means is that a full-scale invasion of Iran is not going to be on the cards. If fighting does break out it would most likely be a series of asymmetrical air and sea battles while Iranian proxies in the region would seek to cause the US maximum casualties. That’s not the kind of war that results in a clear victory and it’s also not the kind of war that plays well with the US electorate – and with a second term up for grabs in 2020 it would likely cost Trump votes against Democratic Party challengers such as Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders.

Trump knows this. He has already said that he would talk to Iran’s current leadership, without advocating for a change in the government first. This view has been echoed by Pompeo. And it probably should be taken at face value. Trump could like nothing more than to emerge with a better Iran deal than his predecessor Barack Obama.

The downside to such a strategy is that it is high-risk and could lead to misjudgements on both sides. Trump’s base might not want war but it also wants Trump to show that the US won’t be pushed around. Senator Richard Durbin is already worried that it could result in a “Gulf of Tonkin moment” that could draw America into war, referring to the mysterious naval incident that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War.

“America has lost a great deal of credibility in the Middle East with its recent wars where it has gone in with all guns blazing and lofty intentions only to leave a few years later under a cloud and with the job half done. The question is does the US really have the stomach for another war?” said Iranian-American filmmaker Tina Gharavi.

L'articolo Trump’s War Games with Iran proviene da InsideOver.

President Trump has fulfilled a campaign promise he made during the 2016 General Election by withdrawing the United States from Obama’s Iran Deal. His reasons for doing so are understandable. The Iran Deal was a small but significant step in curbing the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions, but it was also flawed in many other ways.

The Obama administration argued the Iran Deal guaranteed that the time frame for Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb increased from two to three months to one year. They also boasted the agreement reduced Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and cut the nation’s number of centrifuges by two-thirds. Other victories that President Obama supposedly secured included preventing Iran from producing weapons-grade plutonium and allowing the US to track their nuclear activities with robust transparency and inspections.

However, Obama failed to exploit this opportunity to the full, which made it easy for Trump to attack the agreement during his election campaign. The Islamic Republic continues to fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Under Obama’s watch, the State Department was attacked for an explicit link between a $400 million payment and the release of prisoners like American citizen Robin Shahini. David Ibsen, President of United Against Nuclear Iran, said this move proved the Obama administration was rewarding- not thwarting- Iran’s treatment of prisoners. Since he was elected to office, Donald Trump scrapped the Iran Deal for those reasons.

The question remains as to what the Trump administration intends to replace the Iran Deal with. Whilst this agreement was far from perfect, it provided a framework for future administrations to build on. The President was right to fulfil a campaign promise, but by failing to replace the Iran Deal, the likelihood of war has increased. As Daniel McCarthy wrote in The Spectator, Trump is smarter than his predecessors, who tarnished America’s reputation by involving the US in the failed Iraq and Libya invasions. The current President is much more peaceful than Bush and Obama and he is cleverer than them because he is good at reading the mood of the nation. And it is unlikely many Trump supporters do not desire another American military intervention. After all, Trump was elected on the premise that he would be ‘different’ to his predecessors.

For all his intelligence, the President is failing to dilute the growing tension between Iran and America. Trump tweeted a warning to Iran that they should not threaten the US or else it would face its ‘official end.’ The Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, accused the President of ‘genocidal taunts’ and ‘economic terrorism.’ Yet the Trump administration still has an opportunity to prevent a conflict between the Islamic Republic and the US and expand upon the Iran Deal with something more substantial.

Trump could initiate an agreement with his Western allies that implements thresholds preventing companies from trading with Iran. The European Union declared its intention of continuing trade with the Islamic Republic following the President’s withdrawal from the agreement last year.

The Trump administration could make the argument that a lack of sanctions only benefits the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp, which is intertwined with 35 percent of Iran’s economy.

He could also instruct the Treasury to clarify that offshored dollarised transactions would be subject to American jurisdiction. Currently, transactions between an Iranian company and a European bank are outside the US’s jurisdiction. The President could urge his allies to end Iran’s access to the US dollar, thereby preventing them from investing in the US. He could also adopt a more assertive stance to companies re-entering Iranian markets.

The President has an opportunity to end the Iranian threat without war. He just needs to do so in time. He must persuade his NATO allies to support him, because they currently see no benefit in ending the 2015 Iran Deal.

L'articolo Trump Can Still Reform the Iran Deal and Prevent War proviene da InsideOver.

To write about the history of Iran’s nuclear program means recounting the story of a Nation which for over 70 years has witnessed a sequence of dramatic events including coup d’etats, revolutions, wars and repression.

Four years after the coup orchestrated by the US to enable the return of the Shah andwhich deposed Mossadeq, Washington and Teheran signed a cooperation agreement concerning civil uses of atomic energy: it was 5^th of March 1957. The treaty called for the supply of technology, not covered by secret, for the construction of a research reactor with the intent of boosting development in the areas of energy and medicine. Also part of the agreement was the sharing of information on staff and infrastructure security, the sale of a certain amount of U-235 (6 kg enriched at 20%) which would be sufficient for the initial operations and recharging of what was to become the first Iranian reactor.

Paragraph b of article IX of the treaty explicitly states that no kind of material supplied as part of the agreement could be used for the construction of atomic weapons or the research and development of related technologies. These clauses were in line with president Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” policy, which aimed to assist different Nations(including India, Pakistan and Israel) in investing in nuclear power in the hope that a peaceful use of the technology would prevent its military exploitation.

The following year, partly as a direct consequence of the agreement, Iran became part of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) founded in 1957 and which today counts 169member states.

L'articolo Everything you need to know about Iran’s nuclear program proviene da InsideOver.