Connect with us


Is the U.S. selling another war?



Lately, Iran is being discussed by certain members of the Trump administration in the same manner Iraq was mentioned by the Bush administration back in 2002 and recently, some unanticipated events in the Strait of Hormuz have provided the US with casus belli. The US is going to sell Iran war this time. Here’s how it will go. Trump administration has a real and an official reason to attack another country in a different gulf. Real reason is something hardheaded, logical and covetous and that is resources; primarily oil, geo-strategic location and political benefit; sometimes to win the election at home.  However, the official reasons would target prevalent and popular emotion, seemingly noble but actually indispensable: retaliation, integrity, fear and the rogue behavior. It’s not really needed that people believe the official reason but it should be rational enough for them to pretend to accept it. Because underneath both the logical and emotional reasons, lies a primeval reason: People like war. Humans are violent animals who rejoice in killing. Human sacrifice is still being practiced, only with modern justifications.

The US citizens will hear stories about Iran’s atrocities, its oppressive regime, its torture, and how it’s harboring terrorism. The World will hear about Iran’s aims of attacking US, its (secret) nuclear weapons and its preparation for war, almost ready now. A sense of appalling urgency will prevail that every day’s reluctance is dangerous. To invade Iraq, the Bush administration made hue and cry of the threat possessed by Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Turned out, there weren’t any. Same is the case with Iran now. Americans dread for nuclear weapons usually goes far beyond the logic, which as suspected is the projection of guilt at being the only country to use these catastrophic weapons. The talking point: ‘We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud’ was narrated by a Bush official to invoke fear in Americans to garner their support. The current administration will definitely use the same narrative to invoke the same threat, of Iran using nuclear weapons against America, or against Israel, or any of its allies.

Obviously, the typical gung-hos will extend their support for war- the usual percentage from population who will support any war the government wants to wage against people who aren’t Americans. But what is disturbingly surprising here is how the apparently well-educated lot will support this notion of government. Editorialists, columnists, commentators, anchors and academics will try to sound reasonable in making arguments for supporting this heinous act. Some of them will be eloquent enough to convince the masses. Turns out smart people can be just as stupid as stupid peopleif scared enough. Hermann Göring, who was once the designated successor to Hitler, after the gig was up, game over, quite candidly described how to get ordinary people go to war for you. “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” So it’s already established that those publicly opposing war will be accused of cowardice, of supporting oppression, totalitarianism, and terrorism. Whereas, war mongers will posture as practical, rational, calculating specialists of realpolitik, as they offer up sacrificial children to the god of death.

Eventually, there happens a triggering incident, perceived as a kind of attack on America or its allies. The incident can be real or made-up but that does not matter. Consider Vietnam War. The Gulf of Tonkin (also known as USS Maddox) incident provided Lyndon Johnson, the then President of the US, the congressional authority to escalate the conflict. By the time facts came up, which showed that the incident caused no causalities and was just a bullet in the hull in one, millions of Vietnamese lives and approx. fifty thousand American lives had already been sacrificed. Just last week, John Bolton, national security advisor of the US, accused Iran of targeting its oil tankers and pipelines in the Persian Gulf. Well, different gulf, same story, Neither Johnson nor Bolton happened to have any solid evidence regarding the incidents in the gulf but they both appeared rather confident because they, despite the fact that their claims may or may not be true, know that people would not be able to refute or challenge them until it’s too late.

The government’s spokesperson will assure the citizens that it will be a swift victory with few causalities and a very limited cost. All of this was said and assured by the Bush administration but the aftermath of Iraq war was sectarian violence, civil war, collapse throughout the Middle Eastern region, birth of the militant organization; ISIS, loss of as many as 4000 American soldiers and nearly half a million Iraqi civilians and the cost was more than a trillion dollars. However, years later, it will become obvious that, in remembrance, that those opposing war were right all along about everything and that war mongers were liars. But it will be subjected to debate by then because the war will be lost, money wasted, and the dead forgotten.

Humanity, as a class, is a slow learner, partly because every new generation is starting over from total ignorance. Writing and history can, in theory, improve the learning curve. And there are some indications that Americans might be haltingly learning some lessons. A recent poll by the Hill shows that very few Americans would support a preemptive invasion of Iran. However, nine out of ten would support a military response only if Iran attacks first, and as evident from Gulf of Tonkin incident, such an attack can be easily arranged.  It is pretty obvious that some people in the Trump administration very much favor a war with Iran for different motives but interestingly and surprisingly, among them is not Donald Trump.  Trump seems to have gotten tired of the wars by the US and he has a very little stomach for a new war. But, of course, his views on new war by the US might change if his poll numbers are worrisome or impeachment seems likely as he does like setting records.

A very popular slogan by Carl Sandburg was used in the Vietnam War: “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”Let’s just hope that the Americans inch their way toward a momentous point where the governments and leaders keep on repeating the same narrative—the propaganda campaign, fake casus belli, the threat of a foreign enemy and doubting of war opponents, the forced triggering event — but the populace doesn’t buy it.


Hardened US and Iranian positions question efficacy of parties’ negotiating tactics



The United States and Iran seem to be hardening their positions in advance of a resumption of negotiations to revive a 2015 international nuclear agreement once Iranian President-elect Ebrahim Raisi takes office in early August.

Concern among supporters of the agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program which former US President Donald J. Trump abandoned in 2018 may be premature but do raise questions about the efficacy of the negotiating tactics of both parties.

These tactics include the Biden administration’s framing of the negotiations exclusively in terms of the concerns of the West and its Middle Eastern allies rather than also as they relate to Iranian fears, a failure by both the United States and Iran to acknowledge that lifting sanctions is a complex process that needs to be taken into account in negotiations, and an Iranian refusal to clarify on what terms the Islamic republic may be willing to discuss non-nuclear issues once the nuclear agreement has been revived.

The differences in the negotiations between the United States and Iran are likely to be accentuated if and when the talks resume, particularly concerning the mechanics of lifting sanctions.

“The challenges facing the JCPOA negotiations are a really important example of how a failed experience of sanctions relief, as we had in Iran between the Obama and Trump admins, can cast a shadow over diplomacy for years to come, making it harder to secure US interests,” said Iran analyst Esfandyar Batmanghelidj referring to the nuclear accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, by its initials.

The Biden administration may be heeding Mr. Batmangheldij’s notion that crafting sanctions needs to take into account the fact that lifting them can be as difficult as imposing them as it considers more targeted additional punitive measures against Iran. Those measures would aim to hamper Iran’s evolving capabilities for precision strikes using drones and guided missiles by focusing on the providers of parts for those weapon systems, particularly engines and microelectronics.

To be sure, there is no discernable appetite in either Washington or Tehran to adjust negotiation tactics and amend their underlying assumptions. It would constitute a gargantuan, if not impossible challenge given the political environment in both capitals. That was reflected in recent days in Iranian and US statements.

Iranian Spiritual Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggested that agreement on the revival of the nuclear accord was stumbling over a US demand that it goes beyond the terms of the original accord by linking it to an Iranian willingness to discuss its ballistic missiles program and support for Arab proxies.

In a speech to the cabinet of outgoing President Hassan Rouhani, he asserted that the West “will try to hit us everywhere they can and if they don’t hit us in some place, it’s because they can’t… On paper and in their promises, they say they’ll remove sanctions. But they haven’t lifted them and won’t lift them. They impose conditions…to say in future Iran violated the agreement and there is no agreement” if Iran refuses to discuss regional issues or ballistic missiles.

Iranian officials insist that nothing can be discussed at this stage but a return by both countries to the nuclear accord as is. Officials, distrustful of US intentions, have hinted that an unconditional and verified return to the status quo ante may help open the door to talks on missiles and proxies provided this would involve not only Iranian actions and programs but also those of America’s allies.

Mr. Khamenei’s remarks seemed to bolster suggestions that once in office Mr. Raisi would seek to turn the table on the Biden administration by insisting on stricter verification and US implementation of its part of a revived agreement.

To achieve this, Iran is expected to demand the lifting of all rather than some sanctions imposed or extended by the Trump administration; verification of the lifting;  guarantees that the lifting of sanctions is irreversible, possibly by making any future American withdrawal from the deal contingent on approval by the United Nations Security Council; and iron-clad provisions to ensure that obstacles to Iranian trade are removed, including the country’s unfettered access to the international financial system and the country’s overseas accounts.

Mr. Khamenei’s remarks and Mr. Raisi’s anticipated harder line was echoed in warnings by US officials that the ascendancy of the new president would not get Iran a better deal. The officials cautioned further that there could be a point soon at which it would no longer be worth returning to because Iran’s nuclear program would have advanced to the point where the limitations imposed by the agreement wouldn’t produce the intended minimum one year ‘breakout time’ to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

“We are committed to diplomacy, but this process cannot go on indefinitely. At some point, the gains achieved by the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) cannot be fully recovered by a return to the JCPOA if Iran continues the activities that it’s undertaken with regard to its nuclear program…The ball remains in Iran’s court, and we will see if they’re prepared to make the decisions necessary to come back into compliance,” US Secretary Antony Blinken said this week on a visit to Kuwait.

Another US official suggested that the United States and Iran could descend into a tug-of-war on who has the longer breath and who blinks first. It’s a war that so far has not produced expected results for the United States and in which Iran has paid a heavy price for standing its ground.

The official said that a breakdown in talks could “look a lot like the dual-track strategy of the past—sanctions pressure, other forms of pressure, and a persistent offer of negotiations. It will be a question of how long it takes the Iranians to come to the idea they will not wait us out.”

Continue Reading


Wendy Sherman’s China visit takes a terrible for the US turn



Photo: Miller Center/ flickr

US Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, had high hopes for the meeting in China. At first, the Chinese side did not agree to hold the meeting at all. The reaction had obvious reasons: Antony Blinken’s fiasco in Alaska left the Chinese disrespected and visibly irritated. This is not why they travelled all the way.

So then the State Department had the idea of sending Wendy Sherman instead. The US government actually needs China more than China needs the US. Sherman was in China to actually prepare the ground for Biden and a meeting between the two presidents, expecting a red carpet roll for Biden as if it’s still the 2000s — the time when it didn’t matter how the US behaved. Things did not go as expected.

Instead of red carpet talk, Sherman heard Dua Lipa’s “I got new rules”. 

That’s right — the Chinese side outlined three bottom lines warning the US to respect its system, development and sovereignty and territorial integrity. In other words, China wants to be left alone.

The bottom lines were not phrased as red lines. This was not a military conflict warning. This was China’s message that if any future dialogue was to take place, China needs to be left alone. China accused the US of creating an “imaginary enemy”. I have written about it before — the US is looking for a new Cold War but it doesn’t know how to start and the problem is that the other side actually holds all the cards

That’s why the US relies on good old militarism with an expansion into the Indo-Pacific, while aligning everyone against China but expecting the red carpet and wanting all else in the financial and economic domains to stay the same. The problem is that the US can no longer sell this because there are no buyers. Europeans also don’t want to play along.

The headlines on the meeting in the US press are less flattering than usual. If the US is serious about China policy it has to be prepared to listen to much more of that in the future. And perhaps to, yes, sit down and be humble.

Continue Reading


Why Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer



When Sarah Huckabee Sanders showed up on the scene as White House Press Secretary, the reaction was that of relief. Finally — someone civil, normal, friendly. Jen Psaki’s entry this year was something similar. People were ready for someone well-spoken, well-mannered, even friendly as a much welcome change from the string of liars, brutes or simply disoriented people that the Trump Administration seemed to be lining up the press and communications team with on a rolling basis. After all, if the face of the White House couldn’t keep it together for at least five minutes in public, what did that say about the overall state of the White House behind the scenes?

But Psaki’s style is not what the American media and public perceive it to be. Her style is almost undetectable to the general American public to the point that it could look friendly and honest to the untrained eye or ear. Diplomatic or international organization circles are perhaps better suited to catch what’s behind the general mannerism. Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer, but a Sean Spicer nevertheless. I actually think she will do much better than him in Dancing With The Stars. No, in fact, she will be fabulous at Dancing With The Stars once she gets replaced as White House Press Secretary.

So let’s take a closer look. I think what remains undetected by the general American media is veiled aggression and can easily pass as friendliness. Psaki recently asked a reporter who was inquiring about the Covid statistics at the White House why the reporter needed that information because Psaki simply didn’t have that. Behind the brisk tone was another undertone: the White House can’t be questioned, we are off limits. But it is not and that’s the point. 

Earlier, right at the beginning in January, Psaki initially gave a pass to a member of her team when the Politico stunner reporter story broke out. The reporter was questioning conflict of interest matters, while the White House “stud” was convinced it was because he just didn’t chose her, cursing her and threatening her. Psaki sent him on holidays. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Psaki has a level of aggression that’s above average, yet she comes across as one of the most measured and reasonable White House Press Secretaries of the decade. And that’s under pressure. But being able to mask that level of deflection is actually not good for the media because the media wants answers. Style shouldn’t (excuse the pun) trump answers. And being able to get away smoothly with it doesn’t actually serve the public well. Like that time she just walked away like it’s not a big deal. It’s the style of “as long as I say thank you or excuse me politely anything goes”. But it doesn’t. And the American public will need answers to some questions very soon. Psaki won’t be able to deliver that and it would be a shame to give her a pass just because of style.

I think it’s time that we start seeing Psaki as a veiled Sean Spicer. And that Dancing with the Stars show — I hope that will still run despite Covid.

Continue Reading