Iran

[blindpig]

Leaked US Documents Detail Preparations for Israeli Strike on Iran
Posted by Internationalist 360° on October 20, 2024
Al Mayadeen



Top secret documents have revealed the details behind Israeli Air Force preparations for a strike on Iran, which includes dozens of stand-off missiles, including a secret ALBM weapon.

Leaked documents attributed to the American National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), regarding Israeli preparation for an attack on Iran have spurred fear among both American and Israeli officials after the highly sensitive information was made public.

The agency focuses on providing geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), which can be collected via satellite or aircraft, by the United States Department of Defense.

Documents published by Middle East Spectator, a Telegram Channel focused on Middle East related news, where originally sourced from an alleged whistleblower within the Pentagon, who shared the documents on a private Telegram group.

— // EXCLUSIVE: One of our sources in the U.S. intelligence community has shared with us an extremely sensitive top secret U.S. intelligence document, dated October 15-16, detailing Israeli preparations for an extensive strike inside Iran: pic.twitter.com/pH53YiJ390

— Middle East Spectator (@Spectator_MENA) October 17, 2024\







Although Middle East Spectator said it is unable to determine the authenticity of the documents, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, has confirmed that the American intelligence community is investigating the incident.

Our official statement regarding the leak of two classified U.S. documents. pic.twitter.com/LgSd4sShJr

— Middle East Spectator (@Spectator_MENA) October 19, 2024

“The leak is very concerning. There’s some serious allegations being made there, an investigation underway, and I’ll get a briefing on that in a couple of hours,” Johnson told CNN.

These documents were marked top secret and are marked FVEY (Five Eyes), meaning they are only meant to be viewed by authorities in the US, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

So what do the documents entail?

The top secret information details the supposed preparation of the Israeli Air Force for a strike against Iran.

The first document, published on October 15-16, 2024, is titled “Israel: Air Force Continues Preparation for Strike on Iran and Conducts a Second Large-Force Employment Exercise,” and follows up on similar information gathered on October 13, 2024.

In detail, the Israeli Air Force conducted its second large force employment (LFE) exercise from October 15 to October 16, following up on an LFE exercise conducted on October 13.

Additionally the Air Force handeled air-launched ballistic missiles (ALBMs) and conducted cover unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations.

In this context, 16 Golden Horizon ALBMs and 40 Rocks stand-off air-launched missiles, and other weapons were being handled in the Hatserim Airbase, Ramat David Airbase, and the Ramon Airbase.

Air refueling and other reconnaissance aircraft were also operated during that time.

The second document assesses the weapons handling, air defense, air operations, nuclear and missile facilities, special forces, and the Navy by Israeli occupation forces.

It deemed that the level of weapons handling of ALBMs is medium, while precision-guided munitions handling was low. It also focused on the use of nuclear-capable missiles, the Jericho II in particular, and the use of nuclear facilities, saying that no significant activities were recorded on October 16.

A serious breach

Mick Mulroy, a former US defense official, told CNN that if the leak is true, this means that the Israeli tactical plans to attack Iran have been leaked, marking a “serious breach”.

“The future coordination between the US and Israel could be challenged as well. Trust is a key component in the relationship, and depending on how this was leaked that trust could be eroded,” he underlined.

On the other hand, an Israeli Member of the Knesset on behalf of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud Party, Tally Gotliv, accused the US of purposefully leaking the documents.

She said that the incident “was not done by accident.”

“The leaking of the documents was done deliberately to prevent Israel and to hinder Israel from attacking Iran,” she claimed, accusing the Biden administration of being “Iran’s puppet.”

‘All Israeli targets’ identified for retaliation in case regime attacks Iran


Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (L) speaks during a joint press conference with his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan (unseen) in Istanbul on October 19, 2024. (Photo by the Iranian Foreign Ministry)

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned that Iran has “identified all its targets” in the occupied territories for a retaliatory attack against Israel.

Araghchi made the remarks in an interview with the Turkish broadcaster NTV on Saturday amid Israeli threats to launch strikes on Iran.

“Any attack against Iran means crossing its red line. We will not leave it unanswered. A necessary response will be given to any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities or a similar raid,” he said.

“Now, we have identified all our targets there (in the occupied lands) and a similar attack will be carried out on them.”

Araghchi also referred to Iran’s October 1 missile attack on the Israeli military, espionage, and intelligence bases that came in response to the regime’s barbaric acts of assassination against the resistance front’s top leaders.

During the operation, he said, 90 percent of Iranian missiles hit their targets, which were only military facilities, not economic or civilian ones.

Since early October 2023, Israel has been waging brutal two-front aggression that has killed at least 42,519 people in the Gaza Strip and 2,448 others in Lebanon so far.

Over the same period, the usurping regime has also killed several resistance leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, leader of the Palestinian Hamas resistance group.

Araghchi said Sinwar’s martyrdom will not stop Hamas’ activities, but will rather strengthen the group’s determination and motivate Palestinian youth.

He further denounced the United States’ support for Israel, saying the regime cannot live and commit crimes in Gaza and Lebanon without Washington’s assistance.

“If the Americans had real political will, they would be able to halt the attacks and stop Israel,” the top Iranian diplomat emphasized.

“For us, the US is an ally of the Zionists. If a large-scale war breaks out in the region, the United States will be drawn into it, something we do not want at all.”

He further warned that the war may spread to the Persian Gulf countries, noting, however, that “there is still a chance for diplomacy; we cannot leave everything to the will of one person in the Zionist regime.”

www.presstv.co.uk

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/10/ ... e-on-iran/

Iran’s Bomb is Real — and It’s Here
Posted by Internationalist 360° on October 20, 2024
Scott Ritter


Anti-aircraft guns guarding Natanz Nuclear Facility, Iran.

For months now, the world has focused on the danger of nuclear war between the United States and Russia. But Iran and Israel could beat them to it.

The outbreak of conflict between Iran and Israel appears to have changed Iran’s stance against possessing a nuclear weapon as Israel is poised to strike after Teheran’s retaliation with two major attacks of drones and ballistic and cruise missiles.

Iran has issued at least three statements through official channels since April that has opened the door to the possibility of religious edicts against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons being rescinded.

The circumstances which Iran has said must exist to justify this reversal appear to have now been met.

No mere threats, these statements issued by Teheran should be viewed as declaratory policy indicating Iran has already made the decision to obtain a nuclear weapon; that the means to do so are already in place and that this decision can be implemented in a matter of days once the final political order is given.

The religious fatwa against possessing nuclear weapons was issued in October 2003 by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It reads:

“We believe that adding to nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons and biological weapons, are a serious threat to humanity…[w]e consider the use of these weapons to be haram (forbidden), and the effort to protect mankind from this great disaster is everyone’s duty.”

However, the Shia faith holds that fatwas are not inherently permanent, and Islamic jurists can reinterpret the scripture in accord with the needs of time.

Shortly after Iran launched Operation True Promise against Israel in April, Ahmad Haghtalab, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander responsible for the security for Iran’s nuclear sites, declared:

“If [Israel] wants to exploit the threat of attacking our country’s nuclear centers as a tool to put pressure on Iran, it is possible and conceivable to revise the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear doctrine and policies to deviate from previously declared considerations.”

In May, Kamal Kharrazi, a former foreign minister who advises the Supreme Leader, declared: “We [Iran] have no decision to build a nuclear bomb, but should Iran’s existence be threatened, there will be no choice but to change our military doctrine.”

And earlier this month Iranian lawmakers called for a review of Iran’s defense doctrine to consider adopting nuclear weapons as the risk of escalation with Israel continues to grow. The legislators noted that the Supreme Leader can reconsider the fatwa against nuclear weapons on the grounds that the circumstances have changed.

These statements, seen together, constitute a form of declaratory policy which, given the sources involved, imply that a political decision has already been made to build a nuclear bomb once the national security criterion has been met.

Has the Capability


Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can reverse the fatwa. (Khamenei.ir, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0)

Iran has for some time now possessed the ability to manufacture and weaponize nuclear explosive devices. Using highly enriched uranium, Iran could construct in a matter of days a simple gun-type weapon that could be used in a ballistic missile warhead.

In June Iran informed the IAEA that it was installing some 1,400 advanced centrifuges at its Fordow facility. Based upon calculations derived from Iran’s on-hand stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium hexaflouride (the feedstock used in centrifuge-based enrichment), Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium (i.e., above 90 percent) to manufacture 3-5 uranium-baed weapons in days.

All that is needed is the political will to do so. It appears that Iran has crossed this threshold, meaning that the calculus behind any Israeli and/or U.S. attack on Iran has been forever changed.

Iran has made no bones about this new reality. In February, the former chief of the Atomic Energy Organization, Ali-Akbar Salehi, stated that Iran has crossed “all the scientific and technological nuclear thresholds” to build a nuclear bomb, noting that Iran had accumulated all the necessary components for a nuclear weapon, minus the highly enriched uranium.

Two weeks later, Javad Karimi Ghodousi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission, declared that if the supreme leader “issues permission, we would be a week away from testing the first [nuclear bomb]“, later adding that Iran “needs half a day or maximum a week to build a nuclear warhead.”

A simple gun-type nuclear weapon would not need to be tested — the “Little Boy“ device dropped on Hiroshima by the U.S. on Aug. 6, 1945 was a gun-type device that was deemed so reliable that it could be used operationally without any prior testing.

Iran would need between 75 and 120 pounds of highly enriched uranium per gun-type device (the more sophisticated the design, the less material would be needed). Regardless, the payload of the Fatah-1 solid-fueled hypersonic missile, which was used in the Oct. 1 attack on Israel, is some 900 pounds—more than enough capacity to carry a gun-type uranium weapon.

Given the fact that the ballistic missile shield covering Israel was unable to intercept the Fatah-1 missile, if Iran were to build, deploy, and employ a nuclear-armed Fatah-1 missile against Israel, there is a near 100 percent certainty that it would hit its target.

Iran would need 3-5 nuclear weapons of this type to completely destroy Israel’s ability to function as a modern industrial nation.

Consequences of Pulling Out of Iran Nuclear Deal


U.S. team on way to JCPOA meeting at U.N., New York City, 2016. (State Department)

This situation came about after President Donald Trump in 2017 withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal. The driving factor behind the negotiation of the JCPOA, which took place under President Barack Obama, was to shut down Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon. As Obama said,

“Put simply, under this deal, there is a permanent prohibition on Iran ever having a nuclear weapons program and a permanent inspections regime that goes beyond any previous inspection regime in Iran. This deal provides the IAEA the means to make sure Iran isn’t doing so, both through JCPOA-specific verification tools, some of which last up to 25 years, and through the Additional Protocol that lasts indefinitely. In addition, Iran made commitments in this deal that include prohibitions on key research and development activities that it would need to design and construct a nuclear weapon. Those commitments have no end date.”

Early on in his administration, in June 2021, after Trump had already pulled the U.S. out of the deal, President Joe Biden declared that Iran would “never get a nuclear weapon on my watch.”

The director of U.S. National Intelligence said in a statement released Oct. 11 that, “We assess that the Supreme Leader has not made a decision to resume the nuclear weapons program that Iran suspended in 2003.”

In the aftermath of Trump’s precipitous decision to withdraw from the JCPOA, Iran took actions which underscored that it no longer felt constrained by any JCPOA limits.

Iran has expanded its nuclear program by installing advanced centrifuge cascades used to enrich uranium and scaled back International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring of its nuclear program. In short, Iran has positioned itself to produce a nuclear weapon on short order.

While the ODNI currently believes that the Supreme Leader has not made the political decision to do so, an assessment published in July contains a telling omission from past assessments of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The February 2024 ODNI assessment noted that, “Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device.”

However, this statement went missing from the July 2024 assessment, a clear indication that the U.S. intelligence community, due in large part to the reduction in IAEA inspection activity, lacks the insight into critical technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear-related industries.

Senator Lindsey Graham, after reading the classified version of the July 2024 ODNI report on Iran, said he was “very worried” that “Iran will in the coming weeks or months possess a nuclear weapon.”

What Confronts the US & Israel

This is the situation confronting Israel and the United States as they decide on an Israeli retaliation against Iran for the Oct. 1 missile attack.

Iran has indicated that any attack against its nuclear or oil and gas production capabilities would be viewed as existential in nature. That could trigger the reversal of the fatwa and the deployment of nuclear weapons within days of such a decision being made.

President Joe Biden told reporters on Friday that he knows when and where Israel will strike but refused to say. Leaked U.S. intelligence documents in recent days showed the limits of U.S. knowledge of exactly what Israel plans to do.

The United States and nuclear-power Israel have long said that a nuclear-armed Iran was a red line which could not be crossed without severe consequences, namely massive military intervention designed to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

That line has been crossed — Iran is a de facto nuclear power, even if it hasn’t taken the final steps to complete the construction of a nuclear bomb.

The consequences of attacking Iran could prove fatal to the attackers and possibly the whole region.

?? ???????? ???? ??

????? ????? ?? ??????’? ???? ?? ?????? ????…

Biden says he knows when Israel will strike Iran but won’t share details. pic.twitter.com/BZcowjHJMj

— Iran Spectator (@IranSpec) October 20, 2024

Here are the docs. Looks like it’s just US observations while spying on Israeli drills. Biggest thing I think is the acknowledgment of Israel having nuclear weapons. https://t.co/c1AoQUYbvj pic.twitter.com/QHEedOEhV7

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) October 20, 2024

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/10/ ... -its-here/

[blindpig]

Trump’s Opportunity to Reset U.S.-Iran Relations
Posted on November 22, 2024 by Yves Smith

Yves here. This is a refreshingly even-handed piece about what might happen with US-Iran relations under Trump. It points out that Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign to retighten oil sanctions against Iran might not have much impact, both because Iran has become more self sufficient and key buyers, particularly China, have gotten to be pretty accomplished at evasion. Admittedly the US can attempt secondary sanctions on Chinese banks and other players that facilitate these trades.

But the second question is whether Trump will have anyone on his team who is a decent negotiator, a capacity notably in absence in the Biden Administration, and whether Trump is willing to go this route despite what are sure to be vociferous objections by Israel. Perhaps the new Administration will recognize that Iran really does have deterrence dominance even with full bore US support of Israel. But how does it give enough of a face saving cover for Israel? It also notes that Iran has no reason to think the US will adhere to any deal, with the JCOPA one of many examples of bad faith.

This usefully very detailed piece does not posit what an end game might look like, and it ignores the elephant in the room, the Axis of Resistance commitment to stop the Gaza, and apparent Lebanon, genocide. But it does signal that there may be serious talks and reduction of the temperature in the region. That alone would be welcome.

By James D. Durso, the Managing Director of Corsair LLC, a supply chain consultancy. In 2013 to 2015, he was the Chief Executive Officer of AKM Consulting, a provider of business development and international project management services in Central and Southwest Asia to U.S. clients in a variety of industries including telecommunications, homeland security, and defense. Originally published at OilPrice

The potential return of Donald Trump and the “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran could reshape U.S.-Iran relations, but regional dynamics have shifted since 2018.
Iran has increased its economic resilience through stronger alliances with China and Russia, expanded oil exports, and strategic infrastructure projects.
Both sides face an opportunity to negotiate a pragmatic deal focused on regional stability and economic growth, but significant barriers remain.
Donald Trump is back and so is the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran to “drastically throttle” Iran’s oil sales to kill Tehran’s nuclear program and its ability to fund regional proxies. But Trump aide Brian Hook who ran the anti-Iran campaign in Trump’s first term claimed Trump has “no interest in regime change.”

That may be true but Iran, and everyone else, probably doesn’t believe it.

The Trump 47 officials may soon learn that 2025 is not 2018 and, while Iran was on the ropes as Trump’s first term ended, things are different now.

To start, open-handed American support for Israel’s campaigns against the Palestinian and Lebanese people has eroded support for U.S. moves by Middle East governments that might normally favor limits on Iran’s behavior.

Saudi Arab’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), declared Israel was committing “genocide” in Gaza. By using the G-word, MbS has made it hard for his government to walk back his remarks or reverse course absent a cease fire and implementation of something like the Arab Peace Initiative (which has been gathering dust since 2002 and may need a reboot).

MbS also warned Israel against attacking Iran.

Arab-Sunni Saudi Arabia and Persian-Shia Iran have been drawing closer since 2023 they agreed to resume ties after seven years of tensions. That the deal was brokered by China is a sign the regional powers had little confidence in a U.S. role, possibly suspecting it is in Washington’s (and Jerusalem’s) interest to keep the countries of the region divided.

The countries’ military chiefs recently held defense talks, and planned a joint military exercise in the Red Sea (that probably won’t be interrupted by Yemen’s Houthi rebels.) In the civil realm, the countries are moving toward increased economic ties.

The presidents of the United Arab Emirates and Iran held their first face-to-face talks in October, and UAE – Iran trade is on the upswing, and the Saudi crown prince (and de facto ruler) recently spoke to Iran’s new president.

Qatar (which shares a natural gas field with Iran) and Iran are trying to broaden their economic ties that are largely based on hydrocarbons, and Iran supported Qatar during the Saudi-led 2017-2021 attempt to isolate Doha for allegedly supporting terrorism, though criticism of Riyadh by Doha-based Al Jazeera and friendship with Iran are the likely reasons.

After a recent exchange of fire by Israel and Iran, Iran warned its neighbors not to attack Iran or to help the Israelis, and the Gulf Cooperation Council promptly declared, “Our focus has been on de-escalation.” The Gulf states are dubious about “maximum pressure” and are concerned it will upend warming relations with Iran and increase regional tensions.

Middle Eastern governments are sensitive to public anger over American support for Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, so will avoid any display of support for a U.S. campaign that may target Arab or Muslim peoples. The countries that signed up for the Abraham Accords may soon look pretty foolish, so when MbS accused Israel of “genocide” in Gaza he was demonstrating Saudi Arabia’s distaste for the U.S. line, unlike the UAE which has increased daily airline flights to Israel.

Also wary of a renewed U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran and the Central Asian republics. The republics are growing their trade ties to Iran, a market of 90 million people, and the host of seaports at Bandar Abbas and Chabahar, essential for Central Asia trade with Asia and Africa. Iran also hosts the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-kilometer multi-modal transport corridor that connects India to Europe, and is Plan B if a transport route through Afghanistan and Pakistan is not reliable.

Iran has been actively working to strengthen its relations with Central Asian countries as part of its Look East strategy which has seen increased relations with China, Russia, and to offset the effect of Western sanctions. Iran’s Foreign Minister has engaged in discussions with his counterparts in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the other republics and the newly-elected president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, has met the presidents of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

In Central Asia. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan have all increased trade links with Iran, in Tajikistan’s case to include a defense pact. The republics don’t want to sacrifice the opportunity in Iran, a country with a consumer market projected to grow 11% by 2030.

Iran’s focus on Central Asia includes improving trade ties, developing infrastructure projects, and increasing connectivity through transportation networks. For example, Iran has proposed linking the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway project to its own network, which would provide Central Asian countries with access to the Persian Gulf and beyond.

And the oil market has changed since 2018.

According to Argus Media, Iran’s oil exports, which were below 500,000 b/d through the second half of 2019 and 2020 due to Trump-era sanctions, began increasing in 2021 and have increased every year since: “Exports averaged around 1.6mn b/d in January-October [in 2024].”

If the U.S. again sanctions Iran, it may find it hard going as the remaining buyers may be “those who do not necessarily fear sanctions.” Iran has built out its network to bypass sanctions, and has expanded its tanker fleet, though the clandestine effort is not without substantial costs, such as Chinese customers demanding a substantial discount, and the cost of rebranding the oil to disguise its origin.

Iran has an oil export terminal on the Gulf of Oman, which was inaugurated in July 2021, and can export 1 million barrels per day of oil. The facility cannot replace Iran’s main export terminal at Kharg, which can handle 8 million barrels per day, but it allows Iran to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint and will require the Americans to try to cover two terminals instead of just the main facility at Kharg if Washington decides to attack Iran

The U.S. may try to interdict Iran’s oil exports to China, but what will China’s response be if it considers the interdiction an act of piracy? Beijing may decide to provide a naval escort for the oil shipments or may reflag the vessels as Chinese, upping the ante for the Americans.

If the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy, the world’s largest navy with newer vessels than the U.S. Navy, deploys to escort the tankers it will refine its “blue water” operating skills. The increased operating tempo will also stress the U.S. fleet which for the second time in a year has no aircraft carrier in the Middle East.

A recent U.S. Navy report noted on the material readiness of Navy ships: “several functional areas and subsystems remained degraded or showed declining trends” since 2017, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office noted in 2021 the Navy needed to improve its limited capacity for battle damage repair, in the event the U.S. and any foe come to blows.

And if the U.S. seizes a China-bound cargo, then what? The ship will have to be anchored somewhere, the cargo will possibly be offloaded and stored, the crew will need to be housed and fed, consular support will need to be provided, and someone will have to guard the vessel. China is the biggest trading partner for every country between the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea, so the U.S. may be unable to find volunteers for these low-return chores.

The U.S. ignored the warning of former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who said the U.S. should avoid actions that would create “a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition.” The U.S. has masterfully created that coalition by expanding NATO, ignoring the One China Policy, and sponsoring the 1953 coup in Iran that has freighted the Iranian people with more and more authoritarian rulers.

But the ascension of new presidents in Tehran and Washington may be an opportunity to start rebuilding relations.

After his election in July 2024, President Masoud Pezeshkian announced his program in “My Message to the New World” and declared his intent to strengthen relations with Iran’s neighbors, specifically mentioning Iraq, Türkiye, and the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. He emphasized the need for a “strong region,” said he hoped for “constructive dialogue” with Europe, criticized the U.S. for exiting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and urged Washington “come to terms with reality.”

In October, President-elect Trump declared, “I would like to see Iran be very successful. The only thing is, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.” In 2023, then-Senator JD Vance said that Republican senators who wanted at attack Iran were “living in the past.” In 2024, Republican Vice-President candidate JD Vance said, “And our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran. It would be a huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country,”

Those are hopeful signs of a desire to reach a negotiated solution, but can the U.S. abide by any deal once the ink is dry?

Neither Russia, China, nor Iran believe the U.S. will abide by the spirit and letter of any agreement as it has a record of bailing out of any commitments when it is convenient, to wit,

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
NATO expansion (“not one inch eastward”)
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Paris Agreement (Paris Climate Accord)
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
Minsk agreements
Open Skies Treaty
Algiers Accord
One China Policy

U.S. intervention in Iran started with the 1953 coup. The U.S. then supported Iraq during 1980-1988 war after the U.S. and Iran agreed on the Algiers Accords (January 1981) where the U.S. pledged, “it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs,” but this did not stop the U.S. from backing Iraq when the war starting to go in Iran’s favor in 1982.

The U.S. killed General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq when he was carrying a message to Saudi Arabia in an effort to defuse tensions between Tehran and Riyadh. Many Iranians and Saudis probably think Soleimani was killed because he was working to reduce tensions in the region, which they think only benefits the U.S. and Israel. Then there is the killing of civilian Iranian scientists involved in nuclear power research. No one has taken the credit, but the Iranians no doubt believe it was the Americans or the Israelis with American connivance.

Last is the STUXNET virus, a joint U.S.-Israel effort to attack break Iranian nuclear centrifuge equipment which “leaked” and infected computers worldwide.

The Chair of the NATO Military Committee recently admitted the only reason NATO troops are not is Ukraine fighting Russian troops is because Russia has nuclear weapons, which no doubt confirmed the views of Iranians who think the country should have nuclear weapons. Then there is the cautionary tale of Libya’s surrender of its nuclear program, and the mystery of why North Korea, one of the poorest and most isolated countries in the world, has not been attacked by the U.S.

Iran’s relations with Russia and China have strengthened which adds to the country’s resilience.

China and Iran signed a 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement in March 2021. This agreement aims to enhance bilateral relations and includes significant investments from China in Iran’s economy.

China plans to invest $400 billion in Iran’s oil, gas, petrochemicals, transportation, and manufacturing sectors. In return, China will receive a steady and heavily-discounted supply of Iranian oil. The agreement allows China to deploy security personnel to protect its projects in Iran.

The investments will also go towards upgrading Iran’s infrastructure, and the agreement supports China’s One Belt One Road Initiative, by enhancing connectivity and trade routes.

Russia has supplied Iran with Su-35 fighter jets, Mi-28 attack helicopters, Yak-130 pilot training aircraft; Iran has sent Russia drones, and ballistic missiles.

Non-military trade is also increasing. The Moscow Times reports, “Russian exports to Iran rose 27% last year, and Russian imports from Iran increased 10%. Both sides have agreed to scale up trade in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, while Russia has pledged to invest an unprecedented $40 billion in Iran’s oil and gas sector.”

The Times also notes, “Perhaps the most important changes, however, have been in transport networks. As a result of the fighting in Ukraine, and in a bid to bypass Western sanctions, Russia has begun shifting trade routes southward. This is why Iran and Russia have ramped up work to develop the much-touted and ambitious International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which will stretch from the Persian Gulf to the Baltic Sea.”

Despite its economic problems, Iran has increased its military budget, no doubt anticipating attacks by America or Israel. At the same time Iran has signaled it is willing to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but not “under pressure.” Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araqchi clarified that when he told state television, “”There is still an opportunity for diplomacy, although this opportunity is not much. It is a limited opportunity.”

A recent IAEA report notes Iran has begun implementing measures “aimed at stopping the increase of its stockpile [of near bomb-grade uranium]” though the IAEA also noted that Iran increased its inventory of 60% enriched uranium by 60% since the last report in August 2024.

Iran’s President Pezeshkian has indicated he is open to U.S. engagement: “”Whether we like it or not, we will face the United States in regional and international arenas, and it’s better that we manage this arena ourselves.” And opinion leaders in Iran are saying their government should engage with Trump, with Shargh, the reformist daily newspaper editorializing that President Pezeshkian, must “avoid past mistakes and assume a pragmatic and multidimensional policy,” though others are skeptical anything will change under Trump.

Even the Quds Force commander, General Qassem Soleimani, once mused: “maybe it’s time to rethink our relationship with the Americans,” though in the end it didn’t do him much good.

All that said, “maximum pressure” is a slogan, not a strategy. If Iran says “Yes,” will Washington finally produce a coherent, executable strategy for its future dealings with Iran? Up to now its only strategy has been “more sanctions,” hoping some liberals will miraculously appear and (democratically) seize power when in fact the Revolutionary Guard may take over and finally dispense with Vilayat-e Faqih.

Whatever strategy Washington produces will be overshadowed by the disastrous retreat from Afghanistan in 2021, so the U.S. should favor a policy that increases regional connectivity and economic growth rather than carrying water for Israel or satisfying its desire to avenge the humiliation of 1979.

Iran won’t surrender its hard-won nuclear expertise and has increased cooperation with the IAEA, but will it ever dash to the bomb? Israel claims it destroyed key Iranian nuclear fabrication facilities but the head of the IAEA said of the attack, “as far as the IAEA is concerned, we do not see this as a nuclear facility.” Trump will not want to start a war with Iran over its nuclear program as he will be sensitive to the impact on the U.S. economy, so sanctions (and the occasional Israeli attack) will be all he has left. If that is the case, and Iran’s economy and oil export scheme is resilient enough, and Russia and China remain constant, we may be looking at years of low-level “endless wars” to the joy of the Iran hawks in Washington.

And there is a deadline of sorts for negotiations with Iran: 18 October 2025 sees the end of the JCPOA snapback mechanism, the last opportunity for world powers to initiate the snapback mechanism, returning all the sanctions that were lifted in the JCPOA agreement…”

If the U.S. rejoins any sort of nuclear deal, it will have to be a new deal as Iran blew past the JCPOA 1.0 conditions after the U.S. abandoned the agreement. If the Americans want to expand a 2.0 deal to include ballistic missiles or Iran’s foreign policy, Iran may suggest similar limits on other countries in the region, and then demand that 2.0 be a treaty to bound future U.S. action, and to exploit differences in the U.S. on what is a “good deal” that will be all too evident once the Senate takes up the treaty for ratification.

So far, each side has demonstrated a lack of empathy for the other, the result of years of successful propagandizing, leaving each feeling more sinned against than sinning. And the hard-liners in each capital believe in the other’s perfidy, see conflict as key to their continued influence, and reap economic rewards from the status quo.

On the U.S. side, Washington has never explained to American citizens its role in the 1953 coup that stifled Iran’s economic and political development, though Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted the U.S. role in overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and called the coup “a setback for Iran’s political development.” To many Americans, the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis appeared out of thin air.

The U.S. needs to think long-term. Iran’s mullahs won’t rule forever and Americas association with economic hardship and violence won’t benefit it in the future. The U.S. should adopt a parallel effort to President Pezeshkian’s “strong region” plan to emphasize trade and connectivity which will help the region make up the gains sacrificed in the “lost decades” of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.

Despite all the talk about what Trump might do, Biden is still the U.S. president until 11:59 on 20 January 2025.

If both sides stick to what is feasible, keep their emotions and hard-liners in check, and Iran offers Trump a deal that he feels only he could have made, we may see stability and more economic opportunity for the region’s youth and the start of the banishment of the legacies of 1953 and 1979

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/11 ... tions.html

Good luck with that...I and convinced that Trump is not the savvy businessman and negotiator he pretends to be but rather an ignorant ego-driven screwhead who is still mortally offended by seeing US embassy staff taken hostage by Iranian students in 1979. His 'savvy negotiation' with China and Korea the last go round was pathetic, those leaders laughed up their sleeves. He is only successful when dealing from a position of great strength, which is why he failed then and will fail now.

[blindpig]

Iran faces energy shortage as factories, schools, govt offices close

According to The New York Times, poor planning, mismanagement, US sanctions, and Israeli attacks have all contributed to a major energy shortage in Iran this winter

News Desk

DEC 22, 2024


(Photo credit: Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

Iran is now facing a major energy crisis that is forcing schools, government offices, and factories to shutter and cutting power and heating to ordinary Iranians. The New York Times (NYT) reported on 22 December that the Islamic Republic has found itself in a “full blown energy emergency” coinciding with recent regional setbacks.

“We are facing very dire imbalances in gas, electricity, energy, water, money, and environment,” President Masoud Pezeshkian announced in a live televised address earlier this month. “All of them are at a level that could turn into a crisis.”

The crisis reached a head last week - the country was virtually shut down to save energy - following years of US sanctions, mismanagement, aging infrastructure, wasteful consumption, and Israeli attacks on natural gas pipelines, the NYT added. The cuts are expected to last at least several weeks.

“We must apologize to the people that we are in a situation where they have to bear the brunt,” Mr. Pezeshkian said. “God willing, next year, we will try for this not to happen.”

The government chose to shut down the supply to 17 power plants that generate electricity rather than cut gas service to residential homes amid freezing winter temperatures.


“The policy of the government is to prevent cutting gas and heat to homes at all costs,” Seyed Hamid Hosseini, a member of the Chamber of Commerce’s energy committee, told the NYT.

“They are scrambling to manage the crisis and contain the damage because this is like a powder keg that can explode and create unrest across the country.”

Mehdi Bostanchi, the head of the country’s Coordination Council of Industries, estimated that manufacturing in Iran had fallen by 30 percent to 50 percent, causing tens of billions of dollars in losses.

“Naturally, the damages from the widespread and abrupt power outage that has lasted all week will be extremely serious for industries,” Mr. Bostanchi said.

The NYT notes that the crisis is in part the result of Israeli sabotage operations that blew up two natural gas pipelines in Iran back in February.

Natural gas accounts for about 70 percent of Iran’s sources of energy, while 90 percent of Iranian homes rely on gas for heat and cooking.

“All across the chain, you basically see challenges where Iran is not able to produce as much electricity as it needs, and at the same time, it is not able to reduce its consumption,” said Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, chief executive of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, a London-based economic think tank that tracks Iran’s economy. “It’s very difficult to keep this going.”

Iran began enforcing two-hour scheduled daily power cuts to residential homes in November in an effort to avoid using mazut, a highly polluting heavy fuel oil, in the power plants of Arak, Karaj, and Isfahan.

“It is not just for part of society to pay for electricity production with their health,” government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani stated, suggesting “scheduled power outages” as a temporary alternative to reduce air pollution.

But now, the cuts happen randomly and last longer.

“The power outage has severely affected daily life and work. When the power goes out, the water is also cut off, and the boilers are turned off, and, as a result, all the heating devices are out of order,” said Sephideh, a 32-year-old teacher in Tehran.

Political analyst and Cradle contributor Fereshteh Sadeghi wrote on the social media site X that Pezeshkian’s government has sought to deflect blame for the crises. Pezeshkian claims the administration of former president Ibrahim Raisi had similar problems, although power outages at that time mainly targeted industry, and not ordinary people. Supporters of Raisi have responded by saying that Pezeshkian’s administration should have stockpiled enough fuel oil this summer to feed power stations now.
Sadeghi adds that the power cuts are causing enough disruption in daily life to potentially cause anti-government protests in Iran.

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-face ... ices-close

[blindpig]

Can True Promise III reshape Iran’s geopolitical fate?

A likely but for-now hypothetical military operation, True Promise III presents Iran with a critical opportunity to neutralize US and Israeli overreach in West Asia and secure a decisive settlement for its domestic challenges.


Shivan Mahendrarajah

JAN 4, 2025


Photo Credit: The Cradle

Why is the US vested so heavily in entrenching itself in West Asia? The reason is certainly no longer to ensure access to cheap oil and gas, as in past decades – the US has sufficient supplies of its own; it is even seeking to position itself as Europe's key energy supplier.

Today, the US is in the region for one main reason, which is to protect Israel's existence and enable Tel Aviv to flex its economic, diplomatic, and military muscle across the Arab world. But in order to achieve this, it must remove Israel and Zionism's greatest impediment, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Tehran not only sponsors the region's Axis of Resistance against western hegemony but, more than anything, represents sovereign, independent, self-sufficient Muslim capabilities – the ‘threat of a good example,’ if you will.

To this end, Washington has imposed sanctions on Iran, fortified military bases across the Persian Gulf, and deployed troops, aircraft, and carrier strike groups, all to ‘contain’ the Islamic Republic.

The fall of former president Bashar al-Assad’s Syria adds another dimension to the threats accumulating against Iran: the possibility that NATO member Turkiye will be used as a US proxy to open anti-Iran fronts in Iraq and Azerbaijan. In the Persian Gulf, the US's Saudi and Emirati allies maintain a front against Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned forces, a relatively new and powerful member of the Resistance Axis.

While the rhetoric of Iran's leaders is often focused on the evils of western ‘malevolent’ agendas, on the home front, Iran also faces mounting challenges. Inflation is soaring, the rial is in freefall, housing is increasingly unaffordable, and energy shortages have led to blackouts. Public frustration mounts as these issues are often blamed on governmental incompetence. Iranians are asking pressing questions – What about skyrocketing rents? Food prices? Heating during winter? How will eradicating the ‘roots of Zionism’ help with ‘bread-and-butter’ issues?

No doubt, Washington will seek to take full advantage of this rare convergence of Iran's domestic and regional setbacks to target the Islamic Republic in the coming months.

Will an Iranian counter materialize?

Iran’s true adversary is not Israel directly but the US, without which Tel Aviv could never hope to project its power in the region. Neutralizing US influence – through war or the credible threat of it – would weaken Israel’s protector. Operation True Promise III presents such an opportunity.

As noted by The Cradle earlier last month: “The only agreements with the US that hold weight are those blessed by Israel – and Israel will only agree if it is militarily defeated.”

A follow-up to Iran’s previous direct operations against the occupation state, this retaliatory operation will likely aim to strategically defeat Israel – and, if necessary, deter the US – to compel a comprehensive treaty that addresses Iran’s economic woes. Time is not on Tehran’s side; prolonged negotiations akin to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are no longer viable.

Renowned 19th-century strategist Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “The degree of force that must be used against the enemy depends on the scale of political demands on either side.”

What are the objectives – the political demands – of Operation True Promise III? Deterring Israel from attacking Iran as it did on 26 October? Or bringing the US, and thereby Israel, to the negotiating table?

Tehran’s political and military leadership must view the next operation as an opportunity to bring about a full and final settlement. This is no longer about incremental escalation to deter the US–Israeli war on Gaza, but about settling the prospects of any foreign direct war on the Islamic Republic.

In 2003, Iran proposed a ‘grand bargain;’ however, it was rejected by the Bush Administration. It can be revived, not through nuclear talks, but by calibrated force. A ‘Peace of Westphalia’ that settles the Iran–Israel question is possible.

Economic malaise

Iran’s economy is ailing. There is no sugar-coating this fact. Decades of sanctions have destroyed the rial, which stands at over $1 = 800,000 rials and is expected to decline further. Inflation officially hovers around 33 percent, though real rates are thought to be much higher in the provinces.

Borrowing costs, tied to high interest rates, stifle businesses and families alike. Tehran’s housing market is equally grim, with rents up 50 percent year-over-year. As winter deepens, blackouts and natural gas shortages worsen the situation, and air pollution renders Tehran’s air nearly unbreathable.

A source in Iran sent a picture of polluted air to The Cradle with the caption, “This is what we breathe every day.”

Not all of this economic malaise can be blamed on sanctions, which is Tehran’s oft-repeated excuse. Despite Iran's recognized development miracles over the past four decades, governmental neglect has exacerbated infrastructure issues in irrigation, energy, and housing. Population growth has outpaced housing development, while the centralization of ministries in Tehran has further strained resources. With a third of the workforce employed by the state, decentralization could alleviate urban pressures. Meanwhile, unemployment remains stubbornly high at 7.5 percent.

Israel may be “weaker than a spider’s web,” as the late Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah famously stated, but Iran also has inherent vulnerabilities.

War is inevitable

Assad’s fall has emboldened Tehran’s enemies. Iran is perceived as vulnerable because it has lost a ‘central’ member of the Axis of Resistance, Hezbollah has been ‘sidelined’ yet adapting, and US regional partners Saudi Arabia and the UAE are currently pressuring Yemen’s de facto government in Sanaa.

In Washington and Tel Aviv, discussions of war with Iran are no longer whispers. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right allies openly advocate for conflict, backed by financial and ideological zeal from figures like billionaire Miriam Adelson, who has invested heavily in President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. Her late husband, Sheldon Adelson, once said the US should “solve the Iranian problem by dropping a nuclear bomb.”

Threat scenarios to pressure Iran internally include Turkish-backed terrorists in Syria attacking Iraqi Shia-led resistance factions and attacks inside Iran by Mujahideen-e Khalq (MeK), Baluch, and Kurdish terrorists. Geopolitical analyst Lee Slusher posits that Ankara may also try to foment unrest among Azeri peoples in (Iranian) Azerbaijan.

Washington and Tel Aviv are not seeking government change in Iran; they seek government collapse. The ideal scenario is for Iran to disintegrate along ethno-linguistic lines, with warring factions jockeying for supremacy.

Their models are Libya (post-Qaddafi), Iraq (post-Saddam), and Syria (post-Assad). While Iranian factions fight among themselves, as Syrians are doing, US and Israeli bombers will seek to demolish Iranian military infrastructure just as the occupation air force destroyed 80 percent of Syria’s remaining military capabilities.

Clausewitz’s guidance

If the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's (IRGC) goal is merely to deter Israel, it can achieve this. However, such deterrence alone will not lift sanctions or revive Iran’s economy. Without broader action, US support for proxy groups and internal destabilization will persist, potentially leading to a scenario akin to the Syrian state’s prolonged demise.

Iran must, therefore, consider a grander strategy. As Clausewitz noted, “The scale of the military objective … must align with political aims.”

In True Promise III, Tehran must aim higher than in past operations. The true target is not Israel – a mere proxy – but its enabler, the US. Deterring the US would, by extension, weaken Israel’s position. The IRGC must deliver a clear message: US air defenses like THAAD cannot protect military or civilian assets.

Strikes on key Israeli targets such as infrastructure in Haifa and Tel Aviv, refineries, and offshore platforms must visibly disrupt the region, producing damage too significant for western media to ignore. Such actions would expose Israel’s vulnerabilities, undermining the illusion of its military invincibility.

Yemen’s ability to force the USS Harry Truman vessel to retreat offers a template. Demonstrating that the US Navy cannot effectively project power against Iran would shift the strategic calculus in Washington. Similarly, targeting Saudi and Emirati energy infrastructure would showcase the regional ramifications of any conflict, driving home the ‘unacceptable costs’ of war.

Operation True Promise III must be guided by two principles: exposing the ‘improbability of victory’ and demonstrating the ‘unacceptable cost’ of conflict. Israel’s narrative of perpetual ‘victory’ is basically a Ponzi scheme reliant on appearances.

By dismantling this illusion, the IRGC can force US policymakers to reevaluate their commitments. The real battle lies not in Tel Aviv but in Washington. For Iran, the stakes are existential – secure a decisive settlement or risk slow disintegration under relentless pressure. True Promise III offers a fleeting but critical window to negotiate from strength. Tehran must seize it.

https://thecradle.co/articles/can-true- ... tical-fate

[blindpig]

February 7, 2025 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
Trump revives ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran but adds a message on US-Iran deal


US President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum ‘reimposing maximum pressure on Iran’, White House, Feb. 4, 2025

France’s distinguished former career diplomat Sylvie Bermann, wrote an op-ed recently in the leading financial paper Les Echos that a new chapter of ‘transactional geopolitics’ has begun with Donald Trump.

Extremely unlikely events can be expected, metaphorically called ‘black swans’. The so-called ‘black swan theory’ characterises events that come as a surprise, have a major effect, but can be rationalised only after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

One may say, on February 4 morning, a black swan appeared in the White House, even as President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) restoring “maximum pressure” on Iran, denying that country “all paths to a nuclear weapon” and outlining a tough policy posture toward Tehran.

Later in the day, a White House Fact Sheet detailed that NSPM establishes the following truism:

“Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles”;
“Iran’s terrorist network should be neutralised”; and,
“Iran’s aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, should be countered.”
The black swan’s appearance was intriguing. On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrival in DC (later on Tuesday), Jerusalem Post had written:

“The Trump administration is in the process of formulating its Iran policy, and Netanyahu’s visit at this early stage in the president’s second term affords him a golden opportunity to give his input. And Iran remains Israel’s number one threat and problem…

“While his (Trump’s) administration still seeks to contain Iran’s regional influence and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, there have been early signs of shifts in tone and priorities.

“These shifts may reflect internal divisions within the administration – between Iran hawks like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and isolationists like Vice President JD Vance, who said in October: “Our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran… this is where smart diplomacy really matters.”

At any rate, Trump decided to sign the NSPM without waiting for Netanyahu’s “input.” Equally, Marco Rubio was conspicuous by his absence in Trump’s team for the talks with Netanyahu. And Vice-President Vance not only assisted Trump at the talks but the president made it a point to ostentatiously convey his appreciation by hailing him in public view, in the presence of Netanyahu and his entourage, which was striking.

And the mother of all surprises was that the NSPM document as such studiously avoided any threat of war against Iran. Trump avoids anti-Iran rhetoric lately, which used to be a running feature of his first term as president. Although a mercurial personality, Trump is not tweaking, either, the complex web of unwritten ground rules and norms of conduct that kept the four decades-old US-Iran standoff from turning into military confrontation ( something which, of course, neither side wants).

Meanwhile, all indications are that Trump senses that the Iran question has transformed as Tehran’s deterrent capability began surging in recent years, and is no longer a ‘stand-alone’ challenge for the US, as the external environment too has changed phenomenally and works in Tehran’s favour since the Ukraine war began.

For instance, Russia and Iran are in a quasi-alliance today. That said, Russia is also a stakeholder in nuclear non-proliferation and also has a congruence of interests with the US that Iran abides by the NPT. Again, the China-brokered Iran-Saudi rapprochement has dramatically changed the alignments in the region both bilaterally as well as regionally. Simply put, containment of Iran has become an obsolete strategy.

Even otherwise, a sense of proportions is always necessary to assess the US-Iran tensions. Therefore, Trump’s remarks on Tuesday after signing the executive order on NSPM need to be properly understood. Suffice to say, It was a carefully choreographed performance by Trump, caught on camera, and one of those rarest of rare occasions, speaking with an eye on the prompter — rather unusual for Trump who is famous for his stream of consciousness.

Trump spoke calmly in a measured tone — even sombre tone. He noted stoically, “This is what everybody told me to sign and I signed. It is very tough on Iran. The Iran situation — hopefully, we don’t have to do very much.

“We will see whether we can arrange to work out a deal with Iran and everybody can live together. Maybe it is possible, maybe it is not possible.”

Trump continued: “So, I am signing this and am unhappy to do it. But I really have not so much choice because we have to be strong and firm. And I hope that it does not have to be used in any great measure at all.

“We could have a Middle East and a world in total peace. Right now, we don’t have that. I like to have peace all over the world but now you have the world blowing up.”

Trump repeated, “I am signing this but, hopefully, it will be a document which will be important but hardly has to be used.”

When asked by a journalist what kind of a deal is envisaged with Iran, Trump replied, “We will see. They (cannot) have a nuclear weapon. With me, it is simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. We don’t want to be tough on Iran…This (deal) could have been done long ago.”

When asked about alleged Iranian plots to assassinate him, Trump reacted, “They (Iranians) have not done that. That will be a terrible thing to do. Not because of me, but they will be obliterated… I have left instructions. If they do it, they will get obliterated. There won’t be anything left. If anything like that happens (from any quarter), there will be total obliteration of that state — not only Iran…

Trump concluded, “So, I am signing this. It is a very powerful document, but hopefully, I will not have to use it.”

In essence, Trump conveyed a nuanced message to Tehran before Netanyahu’s arrival that he has an independent line of thinking regardless of what the hotheads in Tel Aviv might be saying. And that is to work for a deal through smart diplomacy — the JD Vance line.

Trump understands that the Masoud Pezeshkian government also seeks dialogue and negotiations. Trump does not believe that Iran is on a course to develop nuclear weapons, no matter the decade-old propaganda by the pro-Israel interest groups to malign Iran.

Tehran has rich experience in ‘smart diplomacy’. Quite obviously, the NSPM document is for record, given the reality of a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US which also happens to be a core constituency in the American political system, including within the Republican Party. With his remarks, Trump endeavoured a soft landing for NSPM on the diplomatic arena.

Tehran will grasp Trump’s nuanced message of ‘transactional geopolitics’. Iranian officials have welcomed Trump’s remark that he is willing to work out a deal. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a message on X on Wednesday: “In addition to being one of the committed parties to the NPT and other global non-proliferation treaties, Iran has already explicitly declared that ‘Iran will not seek to produce or acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances’.” [Emphasis added.]

Araghchi proposed as conclusion: “Obtaining practical guarantees that Iran will not attain nuclear weapons is not difficult, provided that, in return, concrete assurances are given to effectively end hostile actions against Iran—including economic pressures and sanctions.”

Tehran has taken note that Trump did not rule out a meeting with Pezeshkian. When asked about Trump’s remark, the government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani told reporters at a press conference in Tehran on Wednesday, “Our international issues have been founded upon the principles of dignity, wisdom and expediency. All issues, specifically relations with other countries, are being pursued on the basis of these three principles.”

In effect, decoding the highly refined Persian idiom, Iran has responded positively to Trump’s estimation that a deal is possible and signalled flexibility, moderation and pragmatism on its part. The AP has picked up the trend and US government-funded PBS lost no time to flash the news.

The region too has been quick to sense the shift of tectonic plates. In an interview with Fox News, Trump’s favourite channel, Qatari foreign ministry has promptly offered to play a mediatory role between Washington and Tehran.



https://www.indianpunchline.com/trump-r ... iran-deal/

******

'Negotiations with US not reasonable, honorable, or intelligent': Khamenei

The Iranian leader recalled Washington's previous broken promises following years of sanctions removal talks

News Desk

FEB 7, 2025


(Photo Credit: AP)

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on 7 February that negotiations with the US government have no effect on solving the Islamic Republic's issues in his first comments after US President Donald Trump signed an order to reimpose “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran.

“Negotiations with the US are not reasonable, honorable, and intelligent and have no effect on solving the country’s problems, and the reason is what we have experienced in the past,” Khamenei said during a meeting with Air Force personnel in Tehran.

“In the past years, we negotiated with the United States and several countries for about two years, and the Iranian side smiled at it, shook hands with it, was honest with it, and made generous concessions, and a treaty was reached, but the Americans did not act according to the treaty, and the person in power tore it up and did not abide by it,” the Iranian leader added.

Khamenei also recalled that after signing the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – also known as the Iran nuclear deal – Tehran gave “many concessions to the other side. But the US did not implement the same treaty.”

“The same person who is in office now tore up the treaty. He said he would tear it down and did; they didn't act upon [the agreement],” he said, referring to Trump's first term in office and his unilateral exit from the JCPOA.

“We must not allow them to pretend that if we sit at the negotiating table, this or that problem will be solved. No; no problem will be solved by negotiating with the US … Therefore, negotiations with such a government should not be conducted, and it is not wise and prudent to negotiate with it,” Khamenei stressed.

His comments followed statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday in which he also replied to Washington's renewed sanctions by saying the Islamic Republic is not seeking to possess nuclear weapons, adding that verifying his claim “is an easy task.”

After signing the order to reimpose his “maximum pressure” on Iran, Trump said, “We will see whether or not we can arrange or work out a deal with Iran.”

“We don’t want to be tough on Iran. We don’t want to be tough on anybody. But they just can’t have a nuclear bomb,” he added.

https://thecradle.co/articles/negotiati ... t-khamenei

[blindpig]

February 9, 2025 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
Trump talks the talk with Iran, but needs to walk the walk


Iran’s Supreme Leader Imam Khamenei (R) met with Iran Air Force and Air Defense Force commanders, Tehran, February 7, 2025

Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, made a memorable speech to the stormy Labour Party annual conference in 2016, while per forma congratulating Jeremy Corbyn for winning the leadership election with an increased mandate but remaining sceptical that the party would be “trusted to govern again”.

He began the speech saying: “Labour in power. Not just talking the talk, but walking the walk too. Never sacrificing or selling out on our ideals, but putting them in action every single day.”

Khan forecast that Corbyn was “extremely unlikely” to lead Labour back into No 10. He proved right.

A whiff of wariness bordering on pessimism about the prospect of reaching an enduring nuclear deal with the US permeated the remarks by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 7 in Tehran in an address to the top military officials. (Video at link.)[youtube]

It was an unusual speech, coming just three days after the US president Donald Trump signed the National Security Presidential Memorandum imposing “maximum pressure” on Iran to deny it “all paths to a nuclear weapon” on February 4. (See my blog Trump revives ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran but adds a message on US-Iran deal, Indian Punchline, Feb. 7, 2025)

Succinctly put, the Supreme Leader made the following observations:

A nuclear deal per se is not panacea for Iran’s problems.
The JCPOA experience shows the US cannot be trusted. While President Barack Obama didn’t follow up that 2015 deal, President Donald Trump simply tore it up.
In retrospect, all the negotiations and all the concessions and compromises that Iran made turned out to be futile.
Negotiating with the US, therefore, is neither a wise nor intelligent thing to do or even an honourable thing.

Indeed, there is no substantive change in the US attitude toward Iran since 2015 when the Obama administration negotiated the JCPOA. Therefore, Khamenei’s remarks principally addressed the polarised domestic public opinion within Iran regarding the efficacy and purpose of renewed negotiations with the US, and implicitly urged national unity. This is the main thing.

As for the future course of action, it is for the government to decide. President Masoud Pezeshkian who has prided himself on being a follower of the Leader since his time as lawmaker, is yet to react to Trump’s stated willingness to meet him.

Instead he echoed Khamenei’s sentiments tangentially: “We and our children are capable of creating a better future with what we have. We just need to believe in ourself and realise that we can. When we develop a deep and long-term vision, we can achieve and undertake the actions we desire.”

The government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani also took a tangential line in her post on X that the government will do its best to abide by the Leader’s directive and resonate a unified voice from Iran. “While everyone is aware of the problems, today we need more unity and solidarity than yesterday to overcome these issues”, she wrote, adding at the same time, “Negotiations with European countries will continue, and everyone knows well that Iran will not engage in negotiations if they are dishonourable.”

Interestingly, Mohajerani also avoided making any direct reference to the Trump administration.

Evidently, the elites in Tehran are circling the wagons in anticipation of negotiations. Iran’s hardline Majlis Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf too affirmed Ayatollah Khamenei’s stance, asking his colleagues in the legislative body and other government branches to refrain from creating divisions.

“There should not be any duality here. The nature of the Leader’s remarks was firm, definitive, and different from the past.” [Emphasis added.]

The bottom line is that the diplomatic track led by the astute former career diplomat and ambassador, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (a former IRGC official, by the way), is what needs to be watched closely. Araghchi is a veteran nuclear negotiator himself who had a key role in the talks leading to the JCPOA when he was Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister during the administration of Hassan Rouhani..

What is most striking is that there is remarkable consistency in what Araghchi had said in a recent Sky News in an interview with its International Editor Dominic Waghorn some ten days ago and what he said today, two days after Khamenei spoke.

Indeed, the interview was conducted in the foreign ministry building in Tehran — an unusual gesture extended to a western editor. Waghorn is been one of the most experienced foreign correspondents in the West today, leading coverage in China, the Middle East and the US, who has interviewed Trump amongst other world leaders.



When Waghorn drew Araghchi’s attention to Trump’s recent hints that he would prefer a diplomatic solution — even saying a new deal with Iran would be “nice” — the top Iranian diplomat stated that although he was prepared to listen to the US President, it would take a lot more than that for Iran to be convinced it should begin negotiations for a new deal.

As he put it, “The situation is different and much more difficult than the previous time. Lots of things should be done by the other side to buy our confidence… We haven’t heard anything but the ‘nice’ word, and this is obviously not enough.”

In sum, there is a trust deficit which first needs to be overcome and that initiative has to come from the White House. Nice words cannot be the basis of serious negotiations between to intractable adversaries.

Waghorn himself had commented, “Iranians we spoke to on the streets of Tehran said they hoped a deal could be done with the West if it could lead to a lifting of sanctions and an improvement in Iran’s dire economic fortunes… Trust between Iran and America is also at rock bottom levels. Making progress towards any agreement and lifting sanctions will be enormously challenging.”

Now, fast forward. On Saturday evening in Tehran, the day after Khamenei spoke, Araghchi underscored, while addressing a gathering that included top officials and members of parliament, that the US sanctions currently in place against the Iranian people are “cruel”, and they are a big obstacle in the way of Iran’s economic development, which needs to be lifted, but that has to be through negotiations and not the “maximum pressure” policies announced by Trump in his presidential memo on February 7.

Araghchi said there are two tasks to be accomplished. The first one is to lift the sanctions through “negotiations and interaction with others.” The second one is to “nullify” the negative impact of the sanctions, which requires self-reliance, and is “prioritised” by the government and is also being regarded as a public duty.

Araghchi stressed: “Lifting the sanctions requires negotiations, but not under the maximum pressure policy. Negotiation cannot be carried out from a weak stance, as it will no longer be considered negotiation, but will be a kind of surrender. We never go to the negotiating table this way.”

That is to say, negotiations with the US and the advancement of Iran’s agenda of “self-reliance” to mitigate the negative impact of the sanctions are not mutually exclusive or is not a binary issue, as some observers of Khamenei’s remarks might misconstrue, but can be mutually reinforcing.

However, the big question remains: Is Trump who is walking the talk, also willing to walk the walk? It needs a subtlety of mind and creative thinking to do that. The crux of the matter is that the Trump administration is packed with one-dimensional men — hawks and super hawks on Iran.

https://www.indianpunchline.com/trump-t ... -the-walk/

******

<snip>

Iran Deal Redux
A second issue that is touched upon both in the New York Post story of Trump’s interview and also by Mercouris’ source, has to do with Iran, in the light of recent statements by its Supreme Leader,Ali Khameini that repeat the long-standing prohibition by fatwa against Iran’s development of nuclear weapons something that has also been confirmed over many years both by the CIA and by the UN’s IAEA but that has been spread about ad nauseum for the past twenty years by Netanyahu and is every so often seized upon and amplified by elements of the Israeli lobby and its mainstream media mouthpieces as just recently in a New York Times article that claims that Iranian scientists are discussing a short-cut route to nuclear weapons.

Trump claims he wants to do a deal with Iran that would give Washington and Israel the security (which in effect it already has) that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons in return for which Washington will lift some or all of the sanctions that it has imposed on Iran.

Khameini, however, is saying, quite understandably, that Iran will not enter into negotiations with the US. Why would it? The last time it did so (leading to the JCPOA), Trump in his first term welched on the deal. However, Iran and Russia now have a strategic partnership arrangement which puts the lid on the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia, therefore, is now in a position where it can offer guarantees to Washington that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons in return for which Washington can remove its sanctions on Iran and, at the same time and in the context of a package deal, remove sanctions on Russia and accept Russian conditions for a ceasefire deal on the Ukraine conflict (Istanbul Plus, the terms laid out by Putin in July 2024).

Russian Security

In brief, Russia’s diplomatic status in the Middle East, which appeared wobbly after the implosion of Assad in Syria, is now strengthened, first because of the strategic partnership agreement with Iran and second because the latest news from Damascus suggests that the new Turkish-backed and Western-supported terrorist leader of Syria, al-Jolani now favors the continued presence of Russia in Syria and the maintenance of its naval base in Tartous and its military base in Khmeimim. This could pave the way to coordination between Russian and Turkish forces in Syria, making life more challenging for Kurds to the northeast and east, and Israel to the south and to suppression of the worst feature of HTS rule, their vengeful aggressions towards Alawites and Christians. As things stand HTS has very little control over Syria beyond Damascus, and the economic and security situation of the country is fast deteriorating.

Washington-Moscow Deal on Tehran

In the context of Iran, therefore, it is not implausible that a solution to what for Washington is the “problem” of Iran could be resolved by an agreement between the US and Russia, one in which the voices of China and India would at a later date need to be heard. Similarly, in the context of Ukraine it is not implausible that a solution to what for Washington is the “problem” of Russia’s SMO could be resolved by an agreement between Washington and Moscow, which at a later date would involve China and possibly India, while the voices of Europe and Ukraine would be marginalized since neither bloc at this time seems capable of addressing the root causes of the problem or of negotiating in good faith.

Israeli Obduracy

Of course, none of this will placate Israel for whom the issue is nothing really to do with nuclear weapons – these are just a pretext weilded by a country, Israel, that has hundreds of nuclear weapons. What worries Israel is that Iran is a threat to Israel’s regional supremacy and that one day Iran could revert back to being Washington’s BFF, as it used to be before the 1979 revolution. And that Iran could be an obstacle to Zionist ambitions for a Greater Israel. Iran’s support for (but not control of) Hezbelloh in Lebanon and Syria, and of Hamas in Gaza, is a strong additional consideration. Israel will not be pleased that Hezbollah will once again enjoy a presence in the Lebanese parliament.

And even as it pretends to take Trump seriously on the US taking ownership of Gaza, Isreal prepares for further war and genocide.

Israeli Defense Minister Katz has ordered the IDF to prepare for the “departure” of Palestinians from Gaza, while framing this as “voluntary.” The plan will include “exit options via land crossings, as well as special arrangements for departure by sea and air.” Katz wants countries who have been critical of Israel’s genocide to allow Gazans to enter their territory. Not to do so, he claims, would be hypocritical. In other words, it is not just Egypt and Jordan that Israel would like to take Palestinians but also western countries like Ireland or Norway. Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt and other Arab countries are strongly opposed to such ideas as they are to a US takeover of Gaza. There is loose talk by the Trump administration about Palestinians leaving so that the land can be cleaned up for their return, but nobody seriously believes that Palestinians would ever be allowed to return.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/02/are ... n-ukraine/

[blindpig]

Leaked documents expose US interference projects in Iran

Newly leaked documents expose Washington’s ongoing, covert push for regime change in Iran. With millions funneled into secretive initiatives, the US aims to infiltrate civil society, manipulate political participation, and engineer unrest, all while keeping its Iranian beneficiaries in the shadows.


Kit Klarenberg

FEB 11, 2025


Photo Credit: The Cradle

A bombshell leak reviewed by The Cradle exposes the depths of Washington’s long-running campaign to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

For years, the US State Department’s Near East Regional Democracy fund (NERD) has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into covert operations aimed at toppling Tehran’s government – without success. Details on where this money goes and who benefits are typically concealed. However, this leak provides a rare glimpse into NERD’s latest regime-change blueprint.

Covert funding for Iran’s opposition

The document in question is a classified US State Department invitation for bids from private contractors and intelligence-linked entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID.

Circulated discreetly in August 2023, it solicited proposals to “support Iranian civil society, civic advocates, and all Iranian people in exercising their civil and political rights during and beyond” the next year’s electoral period, “in order to increase viable avenues for democratic participation.”

NERD summoned applicants to “propose activities” that would “strengthen civil society’s efforts to organize around issues of importance to the Iranian people during the election period and hold elected and unelected leaders accountable to citizen demands.”

The State Department also wished to educate citizens on purported “flaws of Iranian electoral processes.” Submissions were to “pay special attention to developing strategies and activities that increase women’s participation in civil society, advocacy, rule of law, and good governance efforts.”

The document is filled with lofty, euphemistic language. NERD claims to champion “participatory governance, economic reform, and educational advancement,” aiming to cultivate “a more responsive and responsible Iranian government that is internally stable and externally a peaceful and productive member of the community of nations.” In other words, another compliant western client state that serves imperial interests in West Asia rather than challenging them.

NERD envisaged successful applicants coordinating with “governments, civil society organizations, community leaders, youth and women activists, and private sector groups” in these grand plans.

State Department financing would produce “increased diversity of uncensored media” in Iran, while expanding “access to digital media through the use of secure communications infrastructure, tools, and techniques.” This would, it was forecast, improve the “ability of civil society to organize and advocate for citizens’ interests.”

‘Human subjects’

NERD viewed Iran’s 2024 election cycle and the campaigning period as “opportunities” for civil society infiltration. The plan envisioned a network of “civic actors” engaged in electoral strategies ranging from “electoral participation” to “electoral non-participation” – in other words, either mobilizing voters or undermining turnout.

Meanwhile, “technical support and training” would be offered to aspiring female, youth, and ethnic minority leaders at all levels of governance – though no “currently serving” Iranian government official was eligible for assistance.

Once in place, this network of Iranian regime change operatives would, it was hoped, organize “mock national referendums” and other “unofficial” political action outside the Islamic Republic’s formal structures to highlight the alleged disparity between government action and public will.

Iranians would also be assisted in drafting “manifestos” on the local population’s “unmet needs and priorities.” Reference to how crippling US and EU-imposed sanctions contribute significantly to public discontent in Tehran was predictably absent. Instead, it stated:

“Activities should be nonpartisan and open to participation from a broad range of groups in order to encourage diverse actors to organize around common interests … All proposed activities must clearly demonstrate an impact upon citizens and civil society groups inside Iran. Support may be provided in-country, through third-country activities with Iranian participants, or virtually through online channels, but the applicant must demonstrate a direct link to civil society actors inside Iran and the ability to engage with these individuals safely and effectively.”

Curiously, certain expenditures were explicitly prohibited, including support for “individual political parties or attempts to advance a particular political agenda in Iran,” US-based activities, academic research, social welfare programs, commercial ventures, cultural festivals, and even “entertainment costs,” such as “receptions, social activities, ceremonies, alcoholic beverages [and] guided tours.”

Most strikingly, the embargo extended to “medical and psychological research or clinical studies using human subjects.” This raises unsettling questions about past NERD-funded projects: Have there been proposals involving human experimentation on Iranian or other foreign citizens? Were efforts to use alcohol as a destabilization tool previously entertained?

‘Rising protests’

It remains unknown which groups ultimately secured NERD funding for these regime-change efforts. The mainstream media maintains that such information is classified ostensibly due to “the risk activists face from Iran.” However, Washington’s secrecy may have less to do with security concerns and more with obscuring the questionable nature of these covert operations.

Tehran long ago wisely banned the meddlesome, subversive activities of US government agencies and intelligence fronts on its soil. However, Washington continued to support multiple western-based Iranian “exile” and diaspora groups, and associated NGOs, civil society groups, and propaganda platforms abroad.

While US officials have publicly acknowledged these efforts, the details – including the identities of sponsored groups and individuals – are systematically concealed.

For example, since-deleted public records show NED alone invested at least $4.6 million in 51 separate counter-revolutionary efforts in Iran between 2016 and 2021. This included financing labor unions, “strengthening independent journalism,” creating a legal publication to encourage “lawyers, law students, and clerics” to agitate for “democratic” reforms, and multiple initiatives concerned with “empowering Iranian women” in business, politics, and society.

The organization charged with delivering a specific initiative was named in just seven cases – that being the DC-based Abdorrahman Boroumand Center.

The identities of the remaining 44 recipients remain unknown. Another erased NED entry reveals that in the year leading up to the September 2022 protests in Iran, the agency spent nearly $1 million on undisclosed projects focused on “human rights” advocacy.

Not a single participating organization was named. For instance, tens of thousands of US dollars were pumped into an anonymous entity to “monitor, document, and report on human rights violations.” The organization would, moreover:

“Work closely with its network of human rights activists [in Iran] to build their capacity in reporting, advocacy, and digital security.”

Foreign influence and the hijacking of Iran’s protests

It’s unclear whether this windfall in any way influenced the September 2022 mass unrest in Iran, but NED was markedly keeping an extremely close eye on events locally from an early stage. One week after demonstrations commenced, the Endowment encouraged anyone interested in “coverage of the rising protests” to follow its aforementioned repeat grant recipient, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center. While Iranian protests initially generated blanket western media coverage, they fizzled out as rapidly and abruptly as they began.

In a bitter irony, protesters’ energies were significantly dampened due to the brazen exploitation of the upheaval by western actors. Embittered activists openly complained their cause had been “hijacked” by foreign elements.

The most prominent of these US-based agitators is Masih Alinejad, an Iranian exile who has reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars from US government agencies for anti-Tehran propaganda operations. Falsely proclaiming herself to be “leading” the protest movement in the Islamic Republic was, it seems, sufficient to deter further action by locals on the ground.

This reveals the core reason why Washington conceals the recipients of its regime-change funding: Iran’s history of resisting western meddling makes its citizens deeply suspicious of foreign influence. Covert US backing erodes the legitimacy of opposition movements and fuels nationalist pushback.

Ironically, the Washington Post recently reported that many Iranians, across ideological lines, viewed US President Donald Trump's administration’s freeze on regime-change funding as an opportunity for meaningful political evolution.

In former US president Joe Biden’s final year in office, the White House requested an additional $65 million for NERD’s operations, as outlined in the leaked tender. However, with this funding now in limbo, Iran’s western-backed opposition – largely dependent on foreign subsidies – finds itself in a state of paralysis.

As a result, a significant impediment to genuine diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran may have been removed. The coming months could reveal whether this shift opens new avenues for dialogue – or simply marks a temporary pause in America’s longstanding quest for regime change in Iran.

https://thecradle.co/articles/leaked-do ... ts-in-iran

[blindpig]

March 17, 2025 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
Trump hypes up tensions with Iran


On Iran nuclear issue, Chinese foreign minster Wang Yi (C) held a joint meeting with Russia’s deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov (L) and Iran’s deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi, Beijing, March 14, 2025

On Saturday, US President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon “to launch a decisive and powerful military operation” against the Houthis of Yemen with “overwhelming lethal force” in the most significant military action of his second term, to date.

The US attacks began on Saturday and continued into Sunday on the Yemeni capital Sanaa and other areas reportedly killing 31 people and wounding 101 so far, most of them children and women.

Such wanton killing of defenceless women and children can only be seen as an act of cowardice. Trump has blood on his hand. Trump wrote on Truth Social addressing the Houthis, “Your time is up, and your attacks must stop, starting today. If they don’t, hell will rain down upon you like nothing you have ever seen before.”

Thereupon, Trump abruptly digressed to address Iran that it needed to immediately stop supporting the Houthis. Trump threatened, “America will hold you fully accountable and, we won’t be nice about it!”

Iran has reacted strongly. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Trump has no authority or business to dictate Iran’s foreign policy. Araghchi noted that Houthis are only reacting to “Israeli genocide and terrorism”. The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps General Hossein Salami warned that Iran would give “a destructive response” to any attack.

Trump’s belligerence came within two days of a visit by Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, to Tehran on Thursday to hand over a letter from Trump addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing talks on Iran’s nuclear programme and Iran’s support to resistance groups. Tehran remains open to nuclear talks but has rejected any linkage with its regional policies.

Meanwhile, Tehran has begun circling the wagons as a new phase is beginning in Trump’s foreign policies, with tensions rising steadily over the nuclear issue. The October deadline is drawing closer by the day for invoking the snapback clause in the JCPOA (2015 Iran nuclear deal) to reinstate UN Security Council sanctions will expire, and Iran’s enrichment programme, on the other hand, has apparently reached a point where it already has a stockpile to make “several” nuclear bombs, per the International Atomic Energy Agency.

On March 14, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi hosted a joint meeting in Beijing with the Russian and Iranian deputy foreign ministers where he proposed five points “on the proper settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue”, which, for all purposes endorsed Tehran’s stance. It was a resounding diplomatic victory for Iran.

Interestingly, the Beijing meeting was timed to coincide with the conclusion of a 6-day naval exercise at Iran’s Chabahar Port with the theme of Creating Peace and Security Together between the navies of Iran, Russia and China. A readout by the Chinese Ministry of Defence stated that “The naval exercise enhanced the joint operational capabilities of the three navies to respond to various emergencies and maintain maritime security, deepened military trust and practical cooperation among the navies of the participating countries, and laid a solid foundation for future cooperation.”

All these developments taken into account, Trump faces multiple challenges at the diplomatic level over the Iranian nuclear issue with Tehran, Moscow and Beijing coordinating their approaches in the crucial six-month period ahead and Tehran giving confusing signals over Trump’s letter to Khamenei. Trump cannot be pleased with the developing situation on the diplomatic track and some pressure tactic becomes necessary against Iran. Simply put, Trump’s egocentric mind took the easy route of punching the Houthis so hard to send an indirect message to Tehran (and Moscow and Beijing) that he is not to be trifled with.

Indeed, Moscow has lately waded into the Iran nuclear issue and is positioning itself for a mediatory role potentially. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently came out against attaching extraneous issues (eg., verifiable arrangements by Tehran to ensure the cessation of its support for resistance groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria) to the nuclear negotiations. Lavrov said frankly, “Such a thing is unlikely to yield results.”

Lavrov has also emphasised Moscow’s support for Tehran’s basic stance that any resumption of US-Iran negotiations ought to be stemming from the 2015 nuclear deal known as the JCPOA which carries the approval of the UN Security Council (which of course Trump tore up in 2018.)

Don’t be surprised if Moscow is wading into the US-Iran nuclear standoff with great deliberation when it is tackling on a parallel track Trump’s intrusive calls for cessation of Russian special military operations in Ukraine even while there is much unfinished business remains to be completed and Ukraine shown no genuine interest in negotiations with Russia — and has actually enacted a law expressly prohibiting such negotiations.

Specifically, Trump would know he is in no position to get Zelensky to agree to a surrender of weapons by the Ukrainian troops in Kursk — although, Putin has offered that “If they lay down their weapons and surrender, they will be guaranteed life and decent treatment.”

The crunch time is coming as the Russian deadline for peaceful surrender is about to expire by 6 am Moscow time today. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council wrote on Telegram channel that “should they refuse to lay down arms, they will all be systematically and mercilessly eliminated.” Trump’s nerves must be on edge as embedded within the Ukrainian occupying forces there could be Western mercenaries as well.

In the circumstances, one feels sorry for the Houthis whom Trump is using as a punchbag to vent his frustrations and suppressed fury against Tehran. Top officials in the Trump administration have openly acknowledged that Tehran is being notified that “enough is enough” — an expression used by Trump’s National Security advisor Mike Waltz to interpret the nuanced message of the air and missile strike against the Houthis.

Certainly, Yemen which has gone through so much suffering does not deserve such bestial attacks. As for Houthis, they are yet to attack any ships despite threatening to do so over Israel’s blockade on all food, fuel and other supplies into the Gaza Strip. The Houthis have accused the Trump administration of overstating the threat of maritime embargo, which is limited only to Israeli navigation until humanitarian aid is delivered to the people of Gaza according to the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel.

Evidently, the Houthis are neither looking for a showdown with Trump nor are they to be regarded as Iranian proxies. Houthis halted the drone and missile attacks altogether when the Gaza ceasefire was declared in January. Even Trump’s best argument is that Houthis had attacked US ships during the Biden administration.

Nonetheless, US Central Command described Saturday’s strikes as the start of a large-scale operation that may continue indefinitely. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X, “Houthi attacks on American ships & aircraft (and our troops!) will not be tolerated; and Iran, their benefactor, is on notice, Freedom of Navigation will be restored.” Behind such fictitious rhetoric, Hegseth probably understands that Trump expects him to keep the pot boiling in the Gulf region through the next several months as the Iran nuclear issue approaches a point of criticality.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a readout on Saturday, stated that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Lavrov and informed him about the US decision to attack the Houthis. It said Lavrov, in response, “emphasised the need for an immediate cessation of the use of force and the importance of all parties engaging in political dialogue to find a solution that prevents further bloodshed.” Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, isn’t it? On March 15, Trump forfeited the moral ground to be leading with peace through strength in his foreign policy.

https://mronline.org/2025/03/17/trumps- ... t-like-it/

[blindpig]

March 26, 2025 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
Talk of US-Iran war is all a load of baloney


The US special envoy for Middle East Steve Witkoff has disclosed that Tehran has made back channel contacts following a recent letter from President Trump (L) addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (R) suggesting talks.

The air is thick with the prognosis that a military confrontation between the US and Iran is now just a matter of time. Going by the pattern of such scare mongering in the past decades, Israeli media management skills are self-evident. There is a sense of de javu. Of course, therein lies the danger of miscalculations by the protagonists but that is unlikely to happen.

There are no takers among the regional states for a military conflagration in the Gulf region. The old US-led anti-Iran front has unravelled following the shift in the Iranian and Saudi policies towards reconciliation and amity and the display of strategic autonomy by even those countries who still remain close allies of the US (in particular, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar.)

In a recent interview with the famous American podcaster Tucker Carlson, Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani drew an apocalyptic scenario that his country and the Persian Gulf Arab states will run out of water within three days if Iran’s nuclear facilities are targeted by the US or Israel! Does that occur to anyone?



The big question is, what are the intentions of the Trump administration. An underlying assumption here is that President Donald Trump is under obligation to the Jewish-Israeli lobby who funded his election campaign to be supportive of Netanyahu all the way through thick and thin. This assumption is untested yet and may never be, perhaps, given Trump’s complex personality as a deal maker.

According to a recent poll from YouGov, 52% of Americans think Trump will have a shot at a third term; former White House strategist Steve Bannon is convinced that Trump will run and win in 2028. Indeed, Trump himself has not ruled out a 2028 White House bid. This is an X factor, given the historical legacy that the Iran question ultimately proved to be the nemesis of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Trump, a connoisseur of past American presidencies, cannot be unaware that he ought to tread with great circumspection.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson last week, Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff underscored that regional stabilisation in West Asia demands addressing Iran. In his words, “I would say the goal begins with how do we deal with Iran? That’s the biggie. So the first is nuclear… If they were to have a bomb that would create North Korea in the GCC, we cannot have that… we can never allow someone to have a nuclear weapon and have outsized influence. That doesn’t work. So if we can solve for that, which I’m hopeful that we can.

“The next thing we need to deal with Iran is they’re being a benefactor of these proxy armies because we’ve proven that … they’re not really an existential risk… But if we can get these terrorist organisations eliminated as risks. Not existential, but still risks. They’re destabilising risks. Then we’ll normalise everywhere. I think Lebanon could normalise with Israel, literally normalise, meaning a peace treaty with the two countries. That’s really possible.

“Syria, too, the indications are that Jelani is a different person than he once was. And people do change. You at 55 are completely different than how you were at 35, that’s for sure… So maybe Jelani in Syria is a different guy. They’ve driven Iran out.

“Imagine if Lebanon normalises, Syria normalises, and the Saudis sign a normalisation treaty with Israel because there’s a peace in Gaza. They must have that as a — without question — as a prerequisite. That’s a condition precedent to Saudi normalising. But now you’d begin to have a GCC that all work together. I mean, that would be, it would be epic.”

Does this ‘big picture’ envisage the destruction of Iran as a prerequisite? Not even remotely. And if anyone should know what he is talking about, it is Witkoff.

Later, towards the end of the interview, Carlson drew out Witkoff specifically with regard to Trump’s recent communication addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Excerpts of Witkoff’s remarks are reproduced below:

“Look, he [Trump] sent a letter to the Iranians. Usually it would be the Iranians sending a letter to him…They’re open to attack today. Yeah, they’re a small country compared to ours… If we used overwhelming force, it would be very, very bad for them…

“So under those circumstances, it would be natural for the Iranians to reach out to the President to say, I want to diplomatically solve this. Instead, it’s him doing that. Now, I can tell you that he’s not reaching out because he’s weak, because he is not a weak man. He is a strong man… Maybe the strongest man I’ve ever met in my life…

“So with that all said, he wrote that letter. And why did he write that letter? It roughly said, ‘I’m a president of peace. That’s what I want. There’s no reason for us to do this militarily. We should talk. We should clear up the misconceptions. We should create a verification program so that nobody worries about weaponisation of your nuclear material. And I’d like to get us to that place because the alternative is not a very good alternative.’ That’s a rough encapsulation of what was said…

“The Iranians have reached back out, and I’m not at liberty to talk about specifics, but clearly, through back channels, through multiple countries and multiple conduits, they’ve reached back out.

“I think that it has a real possibility of being solved diplomatically, not because I’ve talked to anybody in Iran, but just because I think logically it makes sense that it ought to be solved diplomatically. It should be.

“I think the President has acknowledged that he’s open to an opportunity to clean it all up with Iran, where they come back to the world and be a great nation once again and not have to be sanctioned and being able to grow their economy. Their economy—I mean, these are very smart people. Their economy was once a wonderful economy. They’re being strangled and suffocated today. There’s no need for that to happen.

“They can join the League of Nations and we can have a better relationship and grow that relationship… That’s the alternative he’s presenting… he wants to deal with Iran with respect. He wants to build trust with them if it’s possible. And that’s his directive to his administration. And hopefully, that will be met positively by the Iranians.

“And I’m certainly hopeful for it. I think anything can be solved with dialogue by clearing up misconception and miscommunication and disconnects between people… And the president is a president who doesn’t want to go to war, and he’ll use military action to stop a war … In this particular case, hopefully it won’t be necessary. Hopefully, we can do it at the negotiating table…”

Again, do such remarks sound like war mongering? Curiously, in the interview, Witkoff openly welcomed an opportunity to serve as Trump’s special envoy to Iran to navigate the dialogue and peaceful resolution of issues.

To my mind, Iranians understand the meaning of Trump’s letter. They are now in an engaging mood as back channels are clocking hours. A commentary by Nour News, a mouthpiece of the Iranian security establishment, rather playfully titled as Analysis of Trump’s Letter to Iran from a Game Theory Perspective, speaks for the mood in Tehran. Read it here.

Make no mistake that Iran and the US are seasoned adversaries who have absolute mastery over the guardrails that contain tensions from escalating in their complicated relationship.



https://www.indianpunchline.com/talk-of ... f-baloney/

I suspect that if Iran doesn't get nukes they will be sorry. Compare and contrast: Iraq, North Korea.

[blindpig]

Trump’s Iran Policy: A Grudge-Fest with No Strategy
Posted by Internationalist 360° on March 31, 2025
Hussein Assaf



Driven by self-aggrandizing optics and a thirst for imperial legacy, Donald Trump’s pursuit of a ‘big, big’ war on Iran risks igniting a regional conflict with nuclear consequences – one that could collapse US hegemony, not reinvigorate it.

As the prospect of a US–Israeli military assault on Iran grows, the likelihood of a full-scale war is no longer far-fetched. What is often overlooked, however, is that such a conflict will not remain contained, and would trigger a chain reaction far beyond West Asia – one that could end in nuclear tragedy.

At the core of this danger lies a simple, but dangerous, thirst for legacy.

Among the most perilous aspects of US President Donald Trump’s Iran policy is his compulsive need for contrast – to define himself as the antithesis of former president Joe Biden, and more exceptional than former president Barack Obama.

This impulse is not rooted in policy reform but in overt aggression, a performative posture designed to craft a presidency of spectacle. In such a framework, war becomes more than a strategic option – it becomes a vehicle for self-immortalization. That imperial hubris, coupled with a narcissistic obsession with legacy, pushes the world closer to nuclear calamity.

Trump’s obsession with distinction

A stark illustration of this mindset is Trump’s 2020 decision to assassinate Iranian Quds Force commander general Qassem Soleimani. As the New York Times (NYT) reported, Pentagon officials had presented Trump with several response options following protests at the US embassy in Iraq, including the “most extreme” one: targeting Soleimani.

“They didn’t think he would take it,” the report said, pointing out that “in the wars waged since the 11 September 2001 attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.”

His radical choice aligned with Trump’s long-running fixation on outshining Obama, particularly in eclipsing the 2011 Osama bin Laden raid and undoing the Iran nuclear deal – also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Trump repeatedly derided the JCPOA as “the worst deal in history,” withdrawing from it in one of his earliest foreign policy acts. Ironically, the man who once accused Obama of planning a war with Iran to secure re-election ended up coming closest to triggering one himself.

The Soleimani assassination was designed to burnish nationalist credentials and reinforce a mythology of Trump as a president of action and defiance, regardless of the global cost.

Signalgate

A window into Trump’s current foreign policy ethos came via a recent leak dubbed “Signalgate,” exposing how decisions in his administration pivot not on strategy, but on optics and political vendettas.

In a private Signal chat mistakenly shared with The Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, senior Trump officials were seen discussing potential strikes on Yemen – not with strategic precision, but with partisan spin.

US Vice President JD Vance warned that the public would likely question the decision, especially given its economic and political fallout in the US and EU.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded: “Messaging this to the public will be tough no matter what. Nobody knows who the Houthis [Ansarallah] are – which is why we need to keep the focus on: 1) Biden failed, and 2) Iran funded.”

He added that the attack had little to do with Ansarallah-aligned armed forces and more to do with “restoring freedom of navigation” and “reestablishing deterrence – which Biden cratered.” Foreign policy, here, is reduced to a performative grudge match.

Historical legacy

Trump treats electoral victory not as a mandate with limits but as an open license – permission to govern through whim – and, as such, has been quite open about the possibility of extending his presidency for a third term.

For him, the presidency is a referendum on himself. In a recent post on X, Trump quoted Napoleon Bonaparte: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” The sentiment speaks volumes. Like Napoleon, Trump sees himself above the law, bound only by his imagined destiny.

Trump’s decisions – especially regarding Iran – often carry this Napoleonic signature: bold, risky, and personal. He is not just pursuing policies; he is sculpting mythology. Just as Napoleon framed imperial campaigns as national salvation, Trump frames escalations as acts of patriotic courage, relying on military aggression not just for strategic advantage, but to consolidate his image as the indispensable leader.

The portrait of Andrew Jackson now hanging in the Oval Office underscores this vision. Jackson’s ruthless push for “national greatness” through expansion and forced removals is no footnote in Trump’s ideological framework – it is a blueprint. Where Jackson saw Native Americans as obstacles to be erased, Trump frames Iran in similar terms: an uncivilized force resisting US supremacy.

Trump’s Iran obsession is not just geopolitical, it is civilizational. “Make America Great Again” is more than a campaign slogan – it is the 21st-century echo of Manifest Destiny. The world, in this vision, is a series of territories – some compliant, others defiant. For Trump, Iran is the latter: not a sovereign nation, but a strategic blemish.

The US president’s rhetoric draws on even older ideas – mirroring the 14th-century European colonial belief that lands beyond the continent were up for grabs, void of agency or sovereignty. Gaza, Panama, Greenland, Canada – Trump’s language reflects a mindset that the world is divided into zones of control, and everything beyond US borders is negotiable, if not already claimable.

An imaginary country

In his bid for legacy, Trump plays the role of conqueror, not administrator. He does not merely seek to defeat Iran, but to rewrite the story of American decline – with himself as the force of its reversal. What frustrates Trump is not just that Iran contests US hegemony – as many other Global South and major power states have begun to do – but that this defiance enables other nations across the region and beyond. Iran’s sovereignty is intolerable not because of its weapons or ideology, but because it dares to reject the US-imposed order.

As long as Iran maintains its sovereignty and supports regional resistance groups and nations that defy Washington’s agenda, it becomes a symbol of disobedience – a target not only for sanctions, but potentially for war.

Yet history warns against underestimating Iran. It is an ancient, deeply nationalistic, civilizational society where even opponents of the ruling elite rally when foreign threats emerge. Soleimani’s assassination proved this. Millions poured into the streets to mourn him – not only government loyalists, but critics, dissidents, and diaspora communities as well. His death united the country in rage and grief.

The outrage only deepened when Trump threatened to bomb Iran’s cultural sites. Any future military strike would likely have the same effect, uniting even critics of Iran’s government behind national defense. This national unity, combined with Tehran’s anti-imperialist posture and support for regional resistance movements, places it in direct opposition to the Trumpian worldview.

What makes this scenario even more volatile is Trump’s misleading belief that coercive pressure to force regional behavior shifts is guaranteed to succeed. While Persian Gulf monarchies and some European powers may have buckled under Trump-era coercion, Iran is built to resist such tactics. The “maximum pressure” campaign may have coaxed normalization out of some Arab states, but Iran is neither Bahrain nor the UAE.

Trump treats Iran as if it were a fictional entry on a map, like the “Gulf of Mexico” – an object rather than an actor. But Iran is home to 85 million people, with a resilient military and a sophisticated political system. The mistake is fatal: you cannot intimidate a country you do not understand.

Devastation in Trump’s image

Should the US and Israel launch a large-scale strike, Iran’s response could be shattering. It might include closing the Strait of Hormuz, striking US bases in the Persian Gulf, and leveling critical Israeli infrastructure.

In an existential scenario, Tel Aviv could even consider nuclear retaliation. Western military analysts have long warned against underestimating Iran’s reach – from drone swarms to high-precision missiles.

Every US base in the region would be a target. From Qatar to Kuwait, American assets are hosted in countries ill-equipped for prolonged war. Iran has already warned that those who facilitate aggression will not be spared. Remember that the Iranians survived the eight-year western/Gulf-backed war with Iraq, despite the fact that the nascent Islamic Revolution had barely found its feet and oil was at $8 a barrel.

A regional war would put enormous pressure on Persian Gulf states to rein in Washington, or risk political, economic, and military destabilization on their own soil.

In the Signalgate exchange, Vance reminded colleagues that while only three percent of US trade flows through the Suez Canal, “40 percent of European trade does,” adding that Trump may not grasp this contradiction. Escalation with Iran would upend not only US objectives, but global supply chains and energy markets that directly impact its main allies.

Already, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has warned that Iran may now be less than a week away from producing weapons-grade uranium – down from the previous 10 to 15-day estimate.

Hastening imperial collapse

A military strike would likely fast-track, not prevent, Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Under existential threat, the Islamic Republic could announce itself as a nuclear power – breaking from a decades-long policy and permanently shifting regional deterrence dynamics.

The consequence? Regional war morphing into global crisis; oil surges to $300–$500; markets collapse; supply chains fracture; nuclear postures harden worldwide. This is not fiction. It is pattern recognition.

The man who might launch a “legacy” strike to “restore greatness” could end up delivering the final act of imperial overreach – not through triumph, but catastrophe.

In the end, Trump’s decisions – fueled by narcissism, historical delusions, and imperial nostalgia – may not reverse US decline, but accelerate it. If remembered at all, Trump’s legacy could be one not of victory, but of global collapse, ushered in by the US.

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/03/ ... -strategy/

******

How a war with Iran (for Israel) could crash the US economy

As Trump eyes war with Iran to bolster his legacy and appease his pro-Israel backers, Tehran’s likely retaliation could crash global markets, spike oil prices, and bring economic pain directly to the American public – turning support for apocalyptic politics into a crisis at the checkout line.


Shivan Mahendrarajah

MAR 21, 2025


Photo Credit: The Cradle

The “winds of war” are blowing toward Iran. This is the war for which Israeli donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, along with pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL, paid US President Donald Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over two election cycles.

But it’s not only the Israeli lobby banging the war drums; American Evangelicals – especially groups like “Christians United for Israel” – also support war, believing it will “save Israel” from the “Iranian menace.” Evangelical membership in the 119th Congress (2025–27) is high. War with Iran is not (yet) popular in the US, but – just as with Iraq – consent will be manufactured by Washington elites and the media.

Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the Ukraine war partly aims to shift the Pentagon’s attention back to West Asia. He assumes that an early 2025 war with Iran will “save Israel” and secure his legacy, letting him focus on “America First” for the rest of his term.

But war with Iran could also backfire disastrously, sink his presidency, and derail the ambitions of 2028 Republican hopefuls like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance. For starters, should the military campaign encounter any unforeseen backlash – which is highly likely, and the reason the Pentagon has assiduously avoided direct confrontation with Iran – the Democratic Party could retake both chambers of Congress after a US stock market crash and recession triggered by the war.

Iran’s military responses

Iranian leaders have vowed “devastating” retaliation for any attack on their soil. This would likely involve missile strikes against Israeli and US military targets – and possibly infrastructure and economic targets within the occupation state. If Israel uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran will escalate further.

Whether or not nukes are used, war would shock the global economy, send oil prices soaring, and halt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The greatest impact will fall on countries most dependent on West Asian oil.

The US economy may be less affected in the short term. Its stock markets, already down 10 percent since Trump’s return to the White House, would decline further – but Trump is gambling that households will not feel the pain. But if the Islamic Republic launches economic warfare that “brings the war home,” political dynamics will change.

Economic warfare

Most Americans are detached from the notion and consequences of war because, since the Civil War, US wars have been fought far from its borders. Even during the World Wars, though American families faced personal loss, the nation did not endure widespread suffering – unlike Britain, which imposed food rationing from 1939 to 1954.

The “Global War on Terror” impacted some communities, but not the country. US troops often joked in Iraq: “We’re at war; America’s at the mall.” Americans kept spending and enjoying life, while Iraqis and US occupation soldiers endured the brutal costs.

Iranian leadership understands this disconnect. The US stock market is a tempting target. In 1929, at the start of the Great Depression, just 2.5 percent of Americans owned stock. Today, about 61 percent of US adults – roughly 160 million people – own shares through private accounts, pension schemes, or retirement plans.

Factoring in children in such households, roughly 200 million Americans are exposed to market fluctuations. Trillions more dollars are invested by corporations, universities, and foreign institutions. The exposure is deep.

The US economy is fragile. Mark Zandi, Moody’s chief economist, warned that the risk of recession is “uncomfortably high and rising.” On 19 March, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell kept interest rates steady, citing slowing consumer spending and growing uncertainty. Trump, fearing economic fallout, raged on Truth Social over the Fed’s refusal to cut rates. He announced retaliatory tariffs set to take effect on 2 April.

Household debt is rising – $18.04 trillion as of Q4 2024 – with increasing defaults on auto loans and credit cards. Americans, like the federal government, spend on credit. Investors borrow against their portfolios with margin loans. If stock values fall, forced selloffs to cover debts could intensify market collapse. “Margin calls” – demands for loan repayments – played a greater role in the ensuing economic turmoil than the 13 percent market drop on 28 October 1929.

The US economy is already strained, and consumers are over-leveraged. A large external shock could push it into a deep recession. Stock markets would plunge, wiping out pension savings and private wealth.

How far markets fall would depend on the force of Iran’s blow. The current 10 percent drop has already hurt. A deeper decline – say, 25 to 50 percent – would cripple the economy, spark layoffs and bankruptcies, and tighten credit. That would suppress consumer spending and crash the housing market, as in 2008.

Tehran’s targets

As Iranian leaders have often repeated, “If Iran cannot sell oil, no one will.” If US or Israeli forces strike Iranian tankers or infrastructure, Tehran is likely to target US economic interests and the oil sectors of any Persian Gulf Arab state that supports the attacks by allowing fighter jets, drones, or missiles to launch from their territories.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may choose to strike Bahrain, which is an obvious military target since it hosts the US Naval Forces Central Command. In addition to military sites, Iran could target the Bahrain Petroleum Company’s refinery, which processes 270,000 barrels per day, along with its marine terminal and oil storage facilities.

The oil farm holds 14 million barrels – ample fuel for a dramatic strike. Iran could also destroy the King Fahd Causeway connecting Bahrain to Saudi Arabia to prevent Riyadh from sending ground troops to suppress unrest among Bahrain’s majority Shia population, as it did during the 2011 uprising.

In Iraq, too, US military bases will almost certainly come under fire. Beyond that, Iran-aligned factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) may attempt to capture the 2,500 US troops still stationed there – not to kill them, but to take them as hostages.

Living captives would be far more valuable, creating a nightmare scenario for Trump and serving as a sharp reminder to Americans – who often forget the wars they once supported – that US troops remain in Iraq more than two decades after the 2003 invasion. These POWs would likely be scattered across the country, making coordinated rescue missions difficult and turning them into bargaining chips in any future negotiations.

Jordan, having allowed Israeli overflights last year in October during Iran’s retaliatory strikes and before that in April, is likely to do so again and could face significant retaliation. In addition to the Zarqa oil refinery, Iranian forces might strike political, military, and intelligence targets. Such attacks would certainly provoke unrest among Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are of Palestinian descent and already harbor grievances against their leadership for its collusion with Tel Aviv.

The UAE, if complicit in the attacks, could face military strikes on its energy infrastructure and power plants, as it experienced during its war with Yemen. The Emirates is particularly vulnerable due to its demographic makeup – about 88 percent of its population consists of foreign workers. If those workers flee following targeted attacks, the country’s economy would be brought to its knees.

Qatar and Oman are likely to be treated differently. Muscat, with its long-standing neutral foreign policy in the region, has maintained warm relations with Iran, and will not likely participate in a US military aggression. Doha also enjoys relatively good relations with Tehran, though it hosts the US Central Command's (CENTCOM) Al-Udeid Air Base and worked to thwart Iranian interests in Syria. Iran might strike CENTCOM's headquarters in West Asia, but is unlikely to target other Qatari assets.

Saudi Arabia presents a more complex scenario. Although both Russia and China have encouraged reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the kingdom may not remain on the sidelines. If it does participate in hostilities, it would become a high-priority target.

Even if Riyadh stays neutral, Iran might still strike its East–West oil pipeline, which terminates at the port of Yanbu. That pipeline – built in 1982 to bypass the Persian Gulf – delivers over three million barrels per day to Europe.

Yanbu’s port, refinery, and export terminals, some of which are operated in partnership with western firms, would be natural targets. A simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruption of Red Sea traffic would block the export of roughly five million barrels per day. While former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicted oil prices could surge to $120 per barrel, Iran might be capable of pushing them as high as $200.

China, when retaliating against Trump’s tariffs, acted strategically. It imports just 7 percent of its pork from the US, but most pork producers are in Republican “red states.” Targeting that sector hurt Trump’s base directly.

While spiking oil prices and global economic turmoil would harm Iran’s allies and the Global South, Iran’s adversaries in the US, UK, Israel, and EU stand to lose the most. If Iran wages a smart economic war, even Evangelicals may start caring more about their grocery bills than hastening the reconstruction of the “Third Temple” and other end-times prophecies.

https://thecradle.co/articles/how-a-war ... us-economy