Iran Says Nuclear Talks Also Involve Pre-2015 US Sanctions


Iran Says Nuclear Talks Also Involve Pre-2015 US Sanctions

By Staff, Agencies

Iran and the US are haggling over problems with the nuclear deal that predated the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the accord, a top Iranian government official said, suggesting that negotiations to bring Washington back into the fold have become more complicated than previously known.

Mahmoud Vaezi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s chief of staff, said the US had agreed in principle to lift all of the more than 1,000 economic sanctions that were re-imposed or added by Donald Trump after he exited the deal, including those on Iran’s oil, petrochemicals, banking and steel sectors.

Broader trade penalties on Iran’s financial sector that weren’t lifted under the 2015 pact with world powers had scared off foreign investors and banks, preventing Tehran from receiving many of the economic benefits that it had expected to flow from its agreement to rein in its nuclear program.

“Right now, we’re discussing which of the remaining sanctions are related to the nuclear deal and which ones relate to before 2015,” Vaezi told reporters in Tehran, according to the Iranian Students’ News Agency.

“Also, now it’s possible some of the sanctions related to individuals and matters prior to 2015 will remain, and they are also negotiating over those.”

Previously, Iran had said it was focused on removing the Trump-era sanctions, so Vaezi’s comments may indicate that the scope of the negotiations has widened. Tehran has refused to change the agreement to address US concerns about its ballistic missile program and military activities in the region.

Revival of the deal would allow Iran to return to global oil markets in exchange for curtailing contentious nuclear work, and ease a standoff that has stoked military frictions in the energy-rich Gulf.

Trump’s withdrawal from the deal three years ago created a crisis defined by tit-for-tat attacks on shipping, oil installations and assassinations of key Iranian military and nuclear figures that almost led to another war in the Middle East.

World powers, led by the European Union, have spent the past three months in Vienna trying to bring that chapter of turmoil to an end by brokering a pathway back to the original accord that would see the US return to the deal and also re-establish previous limits on Iran’s atomic work.

On Wednesday, in a reminder of how Iran’s atomic work has often been the target of attacks widely blamed on US ally, the Zionist occupation regime, state news agencies said authorities in Iran had foiled an attempt to “sabotage” a site on the outskirts of Tehran belonging to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

Vaezi said there was an agreement with the US to lift “a number of sanctions on individuals” including people close to Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, but he didn’t give details or specify whether they included president-elect Sayyed Ebrahim Raisi.

Nuclear Deal Committee Concludes Meeting, Iran Reiterates Call for Lifting US Ban

April 9, 2021


Nuclear Agreement Joint Committee ended the second round of its 18th regular meeting Friday in the Austrian capital Vienna. After the meeting, the delegations of Iran, Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency agreed to hold the next meeting next Wednesday at the level of assistants to foreign ministers of member states.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for political affairs Abbas Araqchi says Tehran will not stop any of its nuclear-related activities until Washington lifts the whole sanctions and returns to the 2015 nuclear deal.

Emphasizing on Iran’s principle stance on lifting of sanctions, Araqchi said that Tehran will not halt or even reduce the pace of its nuclear activities in particular in uranium enrichment sector.






Source: Al-Manar English Website and IRNA

Related News

لماذا لا تملك واشنطن خياراً غير العودة للاتفاق النوويّ؟ Why does Washington have no choice but to return to the nuclear deal?


مفاوضات فيينا تنتهي بنجاح.. واتفاق على استكمال المباحثات

لماذا لا تملك واشنطن خياراً غير العودة للاتفاق النوويّ؟

ناصر قنديل

يتزامن في 22 أيار المقبل الموعد المعلن من إيران للانتقال الى مرحلة تخصيب لليورانيوم على درجة 40%، مع مرور ثلاثة شهور على دخول الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن الى البيت الأبيض، والزمن القياسي بالنسبة لمهمة بحجم الملف النووي الإيراني، من موقع إدارة أميركية تدخل للتوّ الى موقع القرار وتمسك بعشرات الملفات الدولية والداخلية الضاغطة والملحّة، وهذا يعني أن انعقاد اجتماع فيينا الذي يجري تحت عنوان وضع خريطة طريق لعودة واشنطن وطهران الى التزاماتهما بموجب الاتفاق النووي، تعبير عن سرعة استثنائية بمفهوم العلاقات الدولية، مع التزام مبدئي من الطرفين الأميركي والإيراني بالاستعداد للعودة الى التزاماتهما، وخلافهما حول كيفية هذه العودة، كما قال المبعوث الأميركي الخاص للملف النووي، روبرت مالي، مع اعترافه بأن مناقشة القضايا الخلافية من خارج الاتفاق كقضية الصواريخ البالستية الإيرانية والنزاعات الإقليمية، يجب أن تنتظر لما بعد العودة الى الاتفاق الأصلي. وهذا الاعتراف الأميركي يزيل أول عقبة من طريق العودة للاتفاق.

الواضح أن النقاش الدائر في فيينا لا يتصل بمبدأ العودة الأميركية عن العقوبات، ولا بمبدأ العودة الإيرانية عن تخفيض الالتزامات بموجبات الاتفاق، فمن الزاوية القانونية المبدئية يشكل الاتفاق مقايضة بين التزامين، أميركي برفع العقوبات، وإيراني بقبول ضوابط للملف النووي، ونحن اليوم أمام إعلان متبادل لترجمة هذا الاستعداد، تراجعت لأجله واشنطن عن دعوات سابقة للرئيس بايدن وفريقه تشترط للعودة إلى الاتفاق ورفع العقوبات باتفاق آخر، يضمن مزيداً من الضوابط التقنية، ويمتد لزمن أطول، ويطال تفاهمات أشمل نحو ملف الصواريخ البالستية الإيرانية وملفات النزاع الإقليمي، وهذا أكبر تحول يفتح الباب للعودة إلى الاتفاق النووي، لأن ما تبقى يقوم على قاعدة سياسية تتصل برغبة وقدرة الفريقين الأميركي والإيراني بتسهيل المهمة على الشريك الآخر في الاتفاق. فواشنطن تطلب من طهران، كما قال مالي، مساعدتها على تسويق العودة للاتفاق أمام الداخل الأميركي، بينما تتمسك طهران بمعادلة قانونيّة قوامها، أن طهران خفضت التزاماتها رداً على الانسحاب الأميركي من الاتفاق، ولم تنسحب من الاتفاق، بل أبقت بنداً من بنوده يجيز هذا التخفيض مقابل إخلال الأطراف الأخرى بموجباتها، ولذلك تتشدد طهران باعتبار العودة الأميركية إلى الاتفاق، وترجمتها بإلغاء كل العقوبات التي صدرت بناء على الانسحاب الأميركي، لتتم مطالبة إيران من قلب الاتفاق ووفقاً لبنوده بالعودة الى موجباتها.

في فيينا تشكلت لجان من المشاركين الدوليين مع كل من الفريقين الأميركي والإيراني نسختان من لجنتين، واحدة للالتزامات الإيرانية وواحدة للالتزامات الأميركية، لإنتاج تصوّر تفاوضيّ مع الوفد الإيراني في ملفي العودة للالتزامات والتراجع عن العقوبات، ومثله تصور تفاوضي مع الوفد الأميركي المقيم خارج قاعة الاجتماعات لملفي العودة عن العقوبات والعودة للالتزامات، والبدء بمحاولة تقريب التصورين سعياً لمنطقة وسط، والمقصود بالمنطقة الوسط هو تحديداً، ما هو حجم العقوبات الذي يمكن التفاهم مع واشنطن على رفعها قبل العودة الإيرانية إلى التزاماتها، مقابل ضمانة المشاركين الدوليين بأن إيران ستعود، وتقبله إيران للبدء بالخطوة الأولى في العودة إلى التزاماتها، وما هي المدة التي تطلبها واشنطن وتقبلها إيران لاستكمال إنهاء العقوبات، قبل أن تُقدم إيران على الخطوة الأخيرة في العودة إلى التزاماتها.

الطريق الذي فتح في فيينا محكوم أميركياً باللاعودة، وباب النهاية الوحيد له هو العودة إلى الاتفاق بأقل المخاطر والخسائر الممكنة، وفقاً لمعادلة قالها كل من وزير الخارجية الأميركية توني بلينكن ومستشار الأمن القومي جايك سوليفان، ومضمونها السباق مع الزمن للعودة إلى الاتفاق قبل أن تمتلك إيران المقدرات اللازمة لإنتاج أول سلاح نوويّ، طالما هي خارج الاتفاق، والموعد الأميركيّ المرتقب لذلك هو نهاية شهر أيار.

فيديوات متعلقة


Nasser Kandil

– Next May 22 coincides with the announced date of Iran to move to a stage of uranium enrichment at a level of 40%, with the passage of three months after the entry of US President Joe Biden to the White House, to hold dozens of international and internal files that are pressing and urgent, and this means that the Vienna meeting that is taking place under The title of laying out a road map for the return of Washington and Tehran to their obligations under the nuclear agreement is an expression of exceptional speed in the international relations, with an initial commitment on the American and Iranian parties to prepare for a return to their commitments, and their disagreement over how to do this return, as said by the US special envoy for the nuclear file, Robert Malley, admitting that outside the agreement such as Iran’s ballistic missile issue and regional conflicts, discussing issues outside the agreement, such as the Iranian ballistic missile issue and regional disputes, must wait until after the return to the original agreement. This American admission removes the first obstacle to returning to the agreement.

– It is clear that the debate in Vienna is not related to the principle of U.S. return from sanctions, nor to the principle of Iran’s return from reducing obligations under the agreement, from the initial legal point of view the agreement constitutes a trade-off between two commitments, the U.S. lifting of sanctions, and Iran accepting controls on the nuclear file, and today we are facing a mutual declaration to translate this readiness, for which Washington has retracted earlier calls for President  Biden and his team to return to the agreement and the lifting of sanctions with another agreement, guaranteeing more technical controls, extending longer, and extending broader understandings toward the Iranian ballistic missile file and regional conflict files, the biggest shift opens the door to a return to the nuclear agreement, because what remains is based on a political base related to the desire and ability of the U.S. and Iranian teams to facilitate the task over the other partner in the agreement. Washington is asking Tehran, Mali said, to help it market the return to the agreement in front of the U.S. interior, while Tehran adheres to a legal equation, that Tehran has reduced its obligations in response to the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, and has not withdrawn from the agreement, but has kept one of its provisions authorizing this reduction in exchange for other parties violating its terms.  Tehran therefore tightens its consideration of the U.S. return to the agreement, translated into the abolition of all sanctions issued based on the U.S. withdrawal, so that Iran is asked to reverse the agreement and in accordance with its terms to return to its obligations.

– In Vienna, committees of international participants were formed with both the U.S. and Iranian teams, two versions of two committees, one for Iranian commitments and one for U.S. commitments, to produce a negotiated vision with the Iranian delegation in the return of commitments and the lifting of sanctions, as well as a negotiated vision with the U.S. delegation residing outside the meeting room to lift sanctions and return to commitments, and to begin trying to bring the two scenarios closer together in an effort to find a settlement. What is meant by the settlement is specifically, what is the size of the sanctions that can be agreed upon with Washington to lift them before Iran returns to its commitments, in exchange for the international participants ’guarantee that Iran will return, and Iran accepts it to start the first step in returning to its commitments, and what is the period that Washington demands and Iran accepts to complete End the sanctions, before Iran takes the final step in returning to its commitments

– The road opened in Vienna is doomed to  return, and the only end door to it is to return to the agreement with the least possible risks and losses, according to an equation said by U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Adviser  Jake Sullivan, and its content is the race against time to return to the agreement before Iran has the capabilities to produce the first nuclear weapon, as long as it is outside the agreement, and the expected U.S. date is the end of May.

Related Videos


Breaking: Iran stands firm…US must rejoin JCPOA before talks begin

Iran’s military power continues to grow in quantity and quality so it is better able to defend itself

March 8, 2021

No negotiation will take place between Iran, US before sanctions removed: Source tells Press TV

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is VT-pictures-E1.jpg
ABOUT VT EDITORSVT EditorsVeterans Today

[ Editor’s Note: Neither Iran nor Biden are under any significant pressure to move first on fixing the JCPOA. Both know that a misstep could torpedo an effective solution, and those involved in ‘blinking first’ would be blamed for the failure.

Both the US and its EU JCPOA partners want to pretend that it is inconsequential that Iran is not reaping any trade benefits from the deal, although Iran gave up most of its nuclear program to come to the JCPO Agreement.

Iran does not want to be put into a position of accepting the breach of the deal as “no big thing,” and hence no compensation would need to be discussed. Iran would then be in a much weaker position for a new deal, with the obvious caveat that it could be broken again, making Iran twice the fool.

Imam Reza Shrine, Mashad, Iran – Jim Dean archives

Iran has nothing to lose by holding firm on the idea that it is owed its benefits from the deal, where the EU has also had a free ride, having offered nothing more than promises.

Iran’s military power continues to grow in quantity and quality, so it is better able to defend itself; and if the Western Powers squeeze it any more, it would probably dial back its nuclear commitments, like they have already started to do.

So Iran’s offer is simple, to “give us our money, remove the sanctions, and we will go back into full compliance again”. Or if the US continues to demand renegotiations, Iran could counter that it would consider that track if control and oversight of Israel’s nuclear program would go on the table at the same time. Israel would refuse, of course.

Frankly, I would have played that card already and watched the hypocritical Western world fake nuclear hypocrites deal with openly protecting Israel’s right to have them… what I call the ‘nuclear supremacist’ position. “We are Jews and we can have or do anything we want or we will call you bad names.”

Biden is not about to go to war over Iran, and Iran knows that. He would look foolish to pick up the Trump sanctions mantle, but it would be awkward for the Republicans to fry him on that.

What Biden does want is to deescalate the Persian Gulf to release US military forces to intimidate China on the sea and Russia in the Arctic. But he can’t do it all at once. Regions much be secured before new battles begun Jim W. Dean ]

Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Iran is in no hurry to surrender to Western demands. It is stronger now than ever due to the continued threats.

First published … March 08, 2021

There will be no negotiations between Iran and the United States on any matter before Washington removes illegal sanctions it has unilaterally imposed on Tehran, an informed security source tells Press TV.

The security source, which talked to Press TV on condition of anonymity on Sunday, noted that the Western countries’ interpretation of recent remarks by Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif about a new plan for negotiations with the United States are erroneous and no such plan exists.

“The idea of a step-by-step plan for starting talks between Iran and the United States has been rejected at the highest levels of the Islamic Republic and there will be no contact between Iran and the US before sanctions are removed,” the security official added.

The security source’s remarks came after Rouhani’s Thursday statements in which the Iranian chief executive slammed US for violating the 2015 nuclear deal, adding that Washington should take practical steps to rejoin the deal and lift all sanctions it has re-imposed on Tehran.

Rouhani noted that if the US took steps to that effect, Iran would reciprocate “action with action.”

“The US, as the one who violated the deal, shall lift all sanctions and take practical steps in order to be able to return to the JCPOA,” Rouhani argued, using an acronym to for the landmark nuclear accord signed between Iran and six countries in 2015.

The Iranian foreign minister also said a day later that Tehran would soon present a “constructive concrete plan of action” through proper diplomatic channels.

He made the remark in reaction to earlier statements by an Iranian politician who claimed in an interview that if the West sent “clear signals” to Iran and, for example and announced that the US sanctions would be removed within a year, Tehran would be ready to restart negotiations with Washington.

“As Iran’s FM & chief nuclear negotiator, I will shortly present our constructive concrete plan of action—through proper diplomatic channels,” Zarif tweeted

Iranian polity is vibrant & officials express diverse opinions

But those opinions should NOT be confused with state policy


— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) March 5, 2021Some Western circles had mistakenly taken Rouhani’s and Zarif’s remarks as a sign that Iran is ready for renewed talks with the US with European sources saying that Tehran is giving positive signs about opening informal talks about its nuclear program.

كيف سيخرج الأميركيّون من عنق الزجاجة؟

عقيدة بايدن وقانون العودة الى العلبة في السياسة الخارجية – الحلقة 3 من ستون دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل

ناصر قنديل

Photo of إيران تستعدّ لعمل كبير

مع بداية التزام الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن بالعودة للاتفاق النووي مع إيران، حمل خطاب بايدن كل الموروث المرافق لمرحلة سلفه الرئيس السابق دونالد ترامب، موزعاً على نوعين من العقد، فتحدث في العنوان الأول عن حتميّة العودة للاتفاق النووي مع إيران مضيفاً ثلاثة شروط، الأول البحث بمستقبل ما بعد نهاية مدة الاتفاق بعد خمس سنوات، والثاني الصواريخ البالستية الإيرانية، والثالث الأوضاع الإقليمية وما يُسمّى بالنفوذ الإيراني فيها، وفي العنوان الثاني ربط بايدن العودة الأميركية للاتفاق بالعودة الإيرانية لشروط الاتفاق أولاً ومن ثم التحقق من هذه العودة وعندها ستفعل واشنطن المثل، ودائماً كان بايدن وأركانه يتحدّثون عن إنجاز كل ذلك بالشراكة مع الحلفاء.

يعرف بادين أن الشروط التي وضعها تعني أن لا عودة الى الاتفاق، فبعض هذه العناوين كانت مطروحة على إيران كشرط لتوقيع الاتفاق عام 2015، ولاقت صداً ورفضاً إيرانيين وكانت النتيجة تخطيها وتوقيع الاتفاق، كملف الصواريخ وشراكة الحلفاء في التفاوض، وخصوصاً «إسرائيل» والسعودية، أما ما يسمّيه الأميركيون رسمياً بالنفوذ الإيراني الإقليمي، فهم في التفاصيل يتحدثون عن ملف عراقي وملف سوري وملف لبناني وملف يمني كل بصورة منفصلة ويطرحون خلاصات ومواقف بعضها يسلّم بالقراءة الإيرانية وبالفشل الأميركي للسياسات المعتمدة، وها هم يبدأون بمقاربة الملف اليمني بلغة وقف السعودية والإمارات للحرب ويمنعون عنهما السلاح، ويتحدّث رموزهم عن الحاجة لمقاربة جديدة لسورية.

خلال اليومين الأخيرين وجد الأميركيون مخرجاً من هذا المأزق عبر تصعيد اللهجة عن خطورة امتلاك إيران مقدرات إنتاج سلاح نوويّ خلال أسابيع. وقد كرّر هذا التحذير وزير الخارجية توني بلينكن ومستشار الأمن القومي جيك سوليفان، للوصول الى صيغة معلنة تتحدّث عن اتفاقين ومرحلتين، اتفاق أصلي قائم يجب العودة اليه ثنائياً من واشنطن وطهران، واتفاق ثانٍ يصفونه بالأعمق والأقوى والأمتن يضمّ باقي العناوين، أي شراكة الحلفاء وملف الصواريخ ومدة الاتفاق على طريقة الترحيل أفضل سبل التعطيل، فيصير الأخذ بهذه النقاط مشروطاً بقبول إيران بدلاً من أن يكون قبول العودة للاتفاق مع إيران مشروطاً بقبولها بهذه النقاط، والعذر أكثر من كافٍ، الوقت لا يسمح بالمناورة ويجب الإسراع بالحؤول دون بلوغ إيران مرحلة الخطر التي حدّدها بلينكن وسوليفان بأسابيع.

يبقى العنوان الثاني وهو آليّة العودة، ونظرية أنت أولاً، التي تحدّث عنها روبرت مالي قبل أن يصير مبعوثاً خاصاً للملف الإيراني. وهي هنا مهمته لتذليل تعقيداتها وفقاً لما وصفه ببناء الثقة، التي يعترف بأن فقدانها من طرف إيران بعد الانسحاب الأميركي من الاتفاق مشروع، ويقوم مقترح مالي وفقاً لما يقرأ بين سطور حواره مع مجلة لوبوان الفرنسيّة قبل تعيينه مبعوثاً خاصاً، على الخطوة خطوة، أيّ الاتفاق الضمني على جدول طلبات متبادلة، تتم تلبيتها بالتتابع والتزامن والتوازي ضمن مهلة زمنية يتفق عليها، كصعود السلم ونزوله للتلاقي في منطقة وسط، ويبدو الطلب الأميركي على لسان بلينكين أمس، بالإفراج عن معتقلين أميركيين في إيران، بينما يبدو من الجانب الإيراني، الإفراج عن أموال إيرانية مجمّدة في مصارف خارج أميركا بفعل العقوبات الأميركية، والإفراج عن مشتريات إيرانية خاصة بمواجهة وباء كورونا، ويمكن أن تكون الخطوات الخاصة باليمن بعضاً من خطوات التدرج نحو العودة إلى الاتفاق، الذي يدخل مرحلة حرجة في شهر آذار المقبل، حيث تنتهي المهلة المعلنة من إيران بتصعيد درجة تخصيب اليورانيوم، ويحل موعد الاجتماع المقرّر للجنة وزارية للموقعين على الاتفاق الذي ستحضره إيران ويترك الباب مفتوحاً لنضج ظروف حضوره من الجانب الأميركي، ليعلن من هناك إطار العودة المتزامنة.

فيديوات ذات صلة

المأزق الأميركي الداخلي استعصاء بين الخيارات – الحلقة 2 من برنامج ستون دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل
انحلال الامبراطورية الاميركية – 1 – فوز بايدن لا يلغي خيار الحرب الاهلية – العودة للتفاهم النووي
التطورات اللبنانية والإقليمية مع ناصر قنديل رئيس تحرير جريدة البناء

مقالات ذات صلة

Iran: “ball is in US court” to return to nuclear deal

Related Articles

Biden and the Middle East: Misplaced optimism

Khalil al-Anani

25 November 2020

The Arab region in general will not rank high on the list of foreign priorities for the incoming US president

US president-elect Joe Biden speaks in Wilmington, Delaware, on 19 November (AFP)

There has been a state of optimism in the Arab world since the announcement of Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s win in the US presidential election.

Even if the optimism is justified, especially in light of the disasters and political tragedies that the Arab region has witnessed and lived through over the past four years under President Donald Trump, this optimism is somewhat exaggerated. Some believe that the region under Biden will witness radical changes, breaking with Trump’s negative legacy – but I don’t think that will happen.

We need to dismantle the various issues that Biden is expected to engage with over the next four years in order to understand whether the situation will remain as it is, or undergo radical change. 

During the Biden era, the Arab region in general is not expected to rank high on the list of US foreign priorities. There are many reasons for this, including Biden’s vision, which does not stray far from the view of former US President Barack Obama on global issues and international conflicts, with Asia and the Pacific given priority over all other matters. 

The US relationship with China is an important file for any US administration, whether Republican or Democratic. As the rise of China represents an economic and security threat to the US, the Obama administration moved its foreign-policy compass towards China and the Pacific region. For Biden, China will continue to represent a top priority. 

The issue has become even more urgent in the wake of Trump’s more hostile policies towards China over the past four years. Observers will be watching as to whether Biden can put an end to what the average US citizen sees as Chinese encroachment and hegemony in global markets, at US expense. Some saw Trump’s China policies as a historic victory, due to the imposition of tariffs on US imports from China. 

The importance of accountability for China might be one of the few issues that has consensus among Americans of all orientations, but there are differences in how the issue is approached and handled. While Republicans, especially under Trump, use the confrontational method through the well-known strategy of “maximum pressure”, the Democrats prefer dialogue and cooperation with Beijing.

Iran, Israel and Arab authoritarians

In the Arab region, the three issues expected to dominate Biden’s agenda are the US relationships with Iran, Israel and the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

We may witness an important shift in US policy towards Iran, especially on the nuclear file and Trump-era sanctions, which resulted in unprecedented levels of pressure on Tehran since the unilateral US withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018.

It is expected that Biden will bring the US back to the nuclear deal, but with new conditions – unless the Trump administration, in alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, launches military strikes, as Trump has reportedly contemplated.

Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet in Jerusalem in 2010 (Reuters)

As for the US-Israel relationship, and in particular the issue of a two-state solution and normalisation with Arab countries, we can expect the status quo to continue. Despite Biden’s embrace of the two-state solution and rejection of Israeli attempts to impose a fait accompli on Palestinians, Biden is not expected to prevent Israel from annexing parts of the occupied West Bank.

US pressure on more Arab countries to normalise with Israel, as Trump pushed with the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan, may diminish. But this does not mean the Biden administration would impede any such normalisation. On the contrary, Biden welcomed the Gulf normalisation deals with Israel.

The issue of Israel’s security and qualitative superiority is a subject of agreement among Republicans and Democrats alike; none can imagine this changing under the Biden administration.

Condemnation without action

As for the US relationship with Arab authoritarian regimes, particularly with respect to support for human rights and democracy, while Biden may not support human rights violations – especially in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – he is not expected to exert great pressure on these countries if the violations continue.

A Biden administration, for example, would not likely cut off military aid to Egypt, or halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia or the UAE as an objection to the Yemen war or their miserable record on issues of democracy and human rights – despite Biden’s pledge to the contrary during his election campaign. 

Statements and condemnations may be issued from time to time, but it is unlikely that they will translate into real policies and actions. While Biden will not consider someone like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi his “favourite dictator”, as Trump did, he will not likely sever the relationship or punish Sisi seriously for his flagrant violations of human rights in Egypt.

Perhaps optimists in the Arab world should be wary of getting too hopeful about the incoming Biden administration and the potential for regional change. If it is true that the number of bad guys around the world will decrease due to Trump’s departure from power, this does not necessarily mean that the good guys will make a comeback with Biden coming to power.


Iran Seeks to Confuse the United States?

By Philip Giraldi


Another story that is more fiction than fact
John Ratcliffe c1317

Those who have been waiting for the elusive October Surprise that will upset the apple cart on election day are admittedly running out of time. The media’s unwillingness to even consider that the antics of Hunter Biden just might constitute an embarrassment of major proportions or even something worse has done much to kill that story. And the old tried and true expedient of starting a little war somewhere is also proving to be a false hope as no one appears ready to provoke the righteously wrathful Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by ponying up a casus belli. Maybe there is still time for a false flag operation, but even that would require more prior planning than the White House appears capable of.

There is, however, one area that might just be exploitable to create a crisis, though it much depends on whether a tired public is willing to go one more round over the issue of “foreign election interference.” And yes, the Russians are presumed to be involved, on this occasion, as they always are, joined by the ever-vengeful Iranians.

On Wednesday Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe held a news conference at which he laid out details of the most recent dastardly plot against American democracy. He described how Iran and Russia both obtained American voter registration data, apparently through publicly accessible databases and through purchases of email lists. Though no actual votes have been altered, they are using that information “to influence the presidential election as it enters its final two weeks.” Ratcliffe elaborated how “This data can be used by foreign actors to attempt to communicate false information to registered voters that they hope will cause confusion, sow chaos and undermine…confidence in American democracy.”

Ratcliffe focused mostly on Iran, saying that it had been identified as the source of what he described as a claimed 1,500 “spoofed emails” routed through Estonia that “seek to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump.” Iran was also blamed for other material, to include a video encouraging the casting of illegal ballots both domestically and overseas. Additional intelligence suggests that Iran is planning to take more steps to influence the election in the coming days, though what those measures could possibly be was not revealed.

Other government sources elaborated, indicating that Iranian intelligence has been credited with the sending of the email messages going out to Democratic voters in four states, including hotly disputed Pennsylvania and Florida. The emails falsely claimed to be from the alleged far-right group Proud Boys which has been much in the news.  Their message was that “we will come after you” if the recipients fail to vote for Donald Trump.

It doesn’t take much to realize that threatening messages relating to voting for Trump allegedly coming from a source described as “racist” would undoubtedly motivate most registered Democratic voters to do the opposite, but that seems to have escaped the analysts of the Directorate of National Intelligence. And one must also ask why Tehran would want the re-election of a president who has been unremittingly hostile, including imposing crippling sanctions, withdrawing from a beneficial nuclear agreement, and assassinating a leading Revolutionary Guards general. Even U.S. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer appears to have figured that one out, saying “It was clear to me that the intent of Iran in this case and Russia in many more cases is to basically undermine confidence in our elections. This action I do not believe was aimed… at discrediting President Trump.”

The anti-Trump New York Times has, of course, another, more sinister interpretation, suggesting that “…it may also play into President Trump’s hands. For weeks, he has argued, without evidence, that the vote on Nov. 3 will be ‘rigged,’ that mail-in ballots will lead to widespread fraud and that the only way he can be defeated is if his opponents cheat. Now, on the eve of the final debate, he has evidence of foreign influence campaigns designed to hurt his re-election chances, even if they did not affect the voting infrastructure.”

The Times also notes a broader conspiracy by the dreadful Persians, explaining how “Iran has tinkered at the edges of American election interference since 2012, but always as a minor actor. Last year, it stepped up its game, private cybersecurity firms have warned. They have caught Iranian operatives occasionally impersonating politicians and journalists around the world, often to spread narratives that are aimed at denigrating Israel or Saudi Arabia, its two major adversaries in the Middle East.” Again, however, the article provides no explanation of what Iran could possibly hope to gain from the minimal “tinkering” it might be able to engage in an American election in which billions of dollars will be spent by Democrats and Republicans who are viciously attacking each other without any outside help.

Ratcliffe had less to say about Russia but U.S. media coverage of the story included a referral to a recent account of how the U.S. military’s Cyber Command helped take down a network developed by Russian hackers called TrickBot that had been used in ransomware attacks directed against companies as well as cities and towns across the United States. It also reported how “In recent days, another Russian hacking group called Energetic Bear, often linked to the F.S.B. — one of the successors to the Soviet Union’s K.G.B. — appears to have focused its attention on gaining access to state and local government networks. That has caught the attention of federal investigators because, until now, the group had largely targeted energy firms, including public utilities.”

There was, however, no evidence that either hacking group was being directed against voter systems, so Russia’s inclusion in the front-page Times story headlined “Iran and Russia Seek to Influence Election in Final Days, U.S. Officials Warn” has to be considered questionable editorial judgment. Perhaps scaremongering would be a better description. In any event, the story itself is much ado about nothing. Iran’s sending out 1,500 emails if that actually occurred, would have zero impact. Likewise, the claimed existence of alleged Russian hacking groups that have done nothing directed against voters or balloting systems with only a few days left until the election would appear to be an electoral tactic rather than exposure of any genuine threat. One might even describe it as a bit of deliberate disinformation.

The censored reason why the US would torpedo the UN over Iran: Iranian strength

Tuesday, 22 September 2020 7:19 PM  [ Last Update: Tuesday, 22 September 2020 7:23 PM ]

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks during a news conference to announce the Trump administration’s restoration of sanctions on Iran, on September 21, 2020, at the US State Department in Washington, DC. (Photo by AFP)
Why would the US blow up the UN over little old Iran?

By Ramin Mazaheri and cross-posted with Press-TV

Washington has illegally snapped back illegal sanctions on Iran. No one in the world cares, but all this illegality has not gone unnoticed: The US is gutting both its international reputation and that of the United Nations all over Iran.

Risking the international order, which Washington partially controls, over China – Ok, they could be viewed as a serious enough threat by the realpolitik fanatics in the Pentagon. Over the former USSR? Ok, that unsubmissive bloc also threatened total US control.

But over Iran?

We must remind ourselves that the question seems strange only because in all the Western coverage of Iran-US relations what is never broached is the merest notion of Iranian strength.

But if Iran is so powerless then why is the US going to such unprecedented lengths? Why did the warmongering New York Times take a pause from their yellow journalism to concede that, yes, the absurd sanctions move means, “the United States has largely isolated itself from the world order”.

But they didn’t genuinely explain, much less even ask: “Why risk so much over Iran?”

Here is the never-stated reality: the US has made this desperate, sure-to-fail gambit because US policy has been defeated by superior Iranian strength.

This is not jingoistic propaganda on my part: The New York Times conceded that, “The act was born of frustration”. Iran is not some behemoth ready to steamroll the entire world, nor is it a media darling welcomed by foreign masses with strewn flowers – so how can it frustrate the superpower so very much, even as so many other countries fear to engage in the smallest acts of independence or defiance?

It can’t merely be the morally-bankrupt answer so popular in the US, “It’s the economy, stupid,” – i.e, that Iran has a lot of oil. 

No, Iranian strength rests upon the fundamental success of Iran’s unique combination of post-1917 socioeconomic political structures adapted under a genuine and modern interpretation of Islam.

This strength has even another strength on top of it – what a tremendous appeal this combination has for the huge portion of the globe known as the Muslim world.

Iran calls US attempt to ‘snapback’ sanctions ‘null and void’, urges UN to block it

Iran says the US’ claim about the return of the UN Security Council’s sanctions against Tehran as per the so-called “snapback” mechanism is “null and void”, calling on the UN and its Security Council to block any attempt to reinstate the bans.

The idea that the Iranian Islamic Revolution could be universally exported is an absurdity – forced conversion to Islam is proscribed in the Qur’an, for starters, and Islamic culture does not seem readily compatible with that of Amsterdam, Rio de Janeiro or Tokyo any more than the culture of Tokyo, Rio and Amsterdam are readily compatible with that of Iran’s. But the idea that a post-1917, Islamically-based government can not just exist but thrive – even in total and open opposition to Western imperialism – is most definitely exportable to the Muslim World.

But even allowing this option to be democratically presented within Muslim countries is something which imperialists – from any region or culture – cannot risk.

Iran’s frightening strength, and its massive threat, is thus this: it keeps democratically presenting this option. That is the true reason why the US is so very deranged over Iran that they would topple the world order just to keep Iran from succeeding.

In a sense they are right: Iran’s success really does challenge the world order, after all, given the modern importance of oil – a Muslim world not chained by arrogant imperialists would force the West to finally cooperate and not dominate, and also free up trillions of petrodollars for local use.

Washington demands that 80 million Iranians must be viciously sanctioned because they keep selecting this option; keep getting out to vote; keep democratically participating; and – in 2020 – keep on respecting the national democratic will no matter how many sanctions get levied in an effort to, as former US Secretary of State John Kerry once said by accident in Paris, “implode” Iran.

(In 2020 in the US, however, it seems like neither side will honor the national democratic will if their own candidate doesn’t win – more proof that the US is not a very democratic culture, perhaps.)

UN chief says will take no action on US 'snapback' push against Iran
UN chief says will take no action on US ‘snapback’ push against Iran

The UN chief says “uncertainty” prevents him from considering Washington

Savvy commentators know that Trump’s sanctions may have increased economic difficulties but they also know that they have only increased domestic patriotism: a country which fought for eight years to preserve 5 centimetres of Iranian land from Iraqi & Western aggressors cannot be easily cowed, nor have they come this far to stop now.

Increasing this sense of patriotism is the reality that Iranians truly feel that they deserve international respect precisely because the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 has created a novel system so very strong and egalitarian that it can face endless sanctions and still win.

These post-1917 and Islamic-inspired creations, solutions and levers are what are so treasured domestically; are what explain the success for Iran’s resistance; cannot even be objectively described, much less openly admired, in the West, which is why the West doesn’t even want to inquire about possible Iranian strengths.

It also these systems – their very success, support and how they increase sovereign Iranian strength – which explain why it is China which courted Iran for the Belt and Road Initiative and not the other way around. For over five years Iran rather rejected Beijing’s overtures, in order to give the JCPOA a chance.

The most lenient analysis in 2020 would be that the JCPOA is at least a partial failure, and it seems very historically logical to predict that even a victory by Joe Biden would not lead to the US actually honoring the treaty.

But as the JCPOA’s promises continued to go unfulfilled Iranian diplomats were also laying the groundwork for the $400 billion, 25-year strategic partnership with China that now seems certain to be finalized.

None of it adds up over Iran, to the US elite:

Why would the US blow up the UN over little old Iran? Why is China making Iran (and not, say, Russia) their make-or-break node in their Belt and Road Initiative? Why is the world standing with Iran against almighty Washington?

But it’s not possible to intelligently answer such questions if the idea of Iranian strength cannot even be openly discussed.

Fortunately for the average Iranian: strength means having the ability to disregard the ignorance, collusion and duplicity of those weaker than yourself.






Cynthia Chung May 23, 2020











Dieu et mon droit




Iran received only 16% of the royalties on the oil.




The American Relationship











Enter Mosaddegh




The British were left empty handed.





A British coup
















Mosaddegh’s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was,




Minister Lavrov’s Remarks on Conflict Between the US & China

May 18, 2020

لماذا الهدنة مع الأميركيين؟

د. وفيق إبراهيم

نجاح حكومة مصطفى الكاظمي العراقية في نيل ثقة المجلس النيابي بها، وموافقة صندوق النقد الدولي على التفاوض مع حكومة حسان دياب لوقف الانهيار الاقتصادي في لبنان، مؤشران قويّان يرمزان الى مرحلة هدنة بين القوى الداخلية والخارجية في هذين البلدين لوقف التراجع المخيف فيهما.

لجهة القوى التي تستطيع تمرير حكومة الكاظمي بعد ستة أشهر من صراعات ومناكفات وعجز متتابع لسياسيين فشلوا في تشكيل حكومة، فهي داخلياً مجموعات الحشد الشعبي والأحزاب الموالية لرئيس المجلس النيابي الحلبوسي في الغرب العراقي وآل البرازاني الأكراد في الشمال. هؤلاء هم الذين يسيطرون على المجلس النيابي ويكملون عديده بهيمنة للحشد الشعبي لأن الدستور يمنح الشيعة نحو 60 في المئة من عدد النواب تبعاً للتوازنات السكانية.

أما القوة الثانية في الداخل العراقي فهي المرجعية الدينية العليا للشيعة التي تتدخّل كلما شعرت أن خطراً يتهدد الدولة العراقية أو الكيان السياسيّ. ولها نفوذها في مجلس النواب وبالتالي بين وزراء الحكومة، بشكل يمكن فيه اعتبارها ناقوس الخطر الذي يضرب حين يتأزم العراق.

هذا عن الجانب الداخلي، وهو جزء بسيط من الصراعات الخارجية العميقة في العراق التي بدأت منذ 1990 وتعمّقت مع الاحتلال الأميركي المتواصل لأرض الرافدين منذ 2003 وازدادت التهاباً مع نجاح الحشد الشعبي في تدمير القسم الأكبر من الإرهاب الداعشي والقاعدي والسيطرة على قسم وازن من العراق السياسي.

هناك اذاً صراع أميركي – إيراني عنيف على الاراضي العراقية يرتدي لباس احتدام في التنافس السياسي في بعض الأحيان، وقتال يتسربل بتبادل للقصف بين قواعد أميركية، ومقار داخلية متحالفة مع إيران، للإشارة فإن آخر الاعمال الأميركية كانت اغتيال القائد الإيراني قاسم سليماني وقائد الحشد الشعبي أبو مهدي المهندس وهما يخرجان من مطار بغداد. وردّ الإيرانيون بقصف قاعدة عين الأسد الأميركية في العراق.

بذلك فإن القوى المؤثرة على السياسة العراقية هي بناها الداخلية من أحزاب ومراكز دينية وحشد وتنظيمات والاحتلال الأميركي المتواصل الى جانب نفوذ إيراني عميق سببه تحالفه مع الحشد الشعبي والعلاقات الدينية التاريخية التي تجمعه بغالبية العراقيين.

هناك أيضاً نفوذ تركي وسعودي على بعض التنظيمات العراقية في الوسط الغربي، لكنها غير مؤثرة إلا من خلال الاحتلال الأميركي.

فما الذي استجدّ بعد ستة أشهر من العجز عن تشكيل حكومة عراقية وتأزم الوضع العسكري بين إيران والأميركيين ورفع الحشد الشعبي لشعار الانسحاب الفوري للقوات الأميركية المحتلة من العراق؟

فجأة وافق الأميركيون على تمديد استجرار العراق للكهرباء الإيرانية لنحو 120 يوماً أي أربعة اشهر كاملة، كما نالتا حكومة الكاظمي ثقة واسعة وهي التي كانت تتهيأ لاعتذار رئيسها عن متابعة التشكيل للعراقيل الداخلية والخارجية.

والطريف أن برنامج حكومة الكاظمي اورد ضرورة مجابهة الصعوبات الاقتصادية والأمنية والتحضير لانتخابات مبكرة ووضع برنامج عمل لتنويع الاقتصاد العراقي.

فلم ينسَ شيئاً، إلا الاحتلال الأميركي، فتجاهله وكأن لا احتلال ولا مَن يحتلّون.

هناك أمور مثيرة للدهشة الى درجة الذعر، وهو أن معظم قوى الحشد الشعبي وافقت بدورها على هذا البرنامج.

الأمر الذي يكشف أن حكومة الكاظمي هي تسوية سببها التعادل في موازين القوى بين حشد شعبي قوي جداً بتركيبة أحزابه، ومدعوم من إيران وبين احتلال أميركي لديه مؤيدوه في وسط العراق وغربه عند جماعة الحلبوسي ومن كردستان العراق، أما أسرار هذا التوازن فهي موجودة بتلويح الأكراد وبعض أحزاب الوسط بالانفصال وتشكيل اقاليم مستقلة في كل مرة يحاول فيها الحشد الشعبي دفع الأميركيين الى الانسحاب وهذه واحدة من مصادر القوة الأميركية في أرض السواد وهي واحدة من مصادر عجز الحشد الشعبي في أرض السواد.

لذلك، فإن تراجع أسعار النفط وخفض إنتاجه وما تسبّبوا به من انهيار اقتصادي بالاستفادة من الكورونا والتلويح بتقسيم العراق الى كيانات سنية وكردية وشيعية دفعت باتجاه هدنة مؤقتة لتمرير هذه المرحلة بأقل قدر ممكن من الأضرار.

لجهة لبنان فموضوعه مشابه، خصوصاً لناحية انهياره الاقتصادي المريع والانقسام الحاد بين قواه السياسية التي تتمحور بين الولاء للأميركيين والسعوديين وبين التحالف مع إيران وسورية.

ولأن الأميركيّين لا يمكنهم ترك بلد بأهمية لبنان يلعب فيه حزب الله رأس حربة المقاومة في الإقليم، والسماح لفوضى لن تؤدي إلا إلى خسارة الحلفاء اللبنانيين لأميركا وتراجع دورهم السياسي، فارتأت الدولة الأميركيّة العميقة أن التعامل مع حكومة حسان دياب من خلال الصندوق والبنك الدوليين والمؤتمرات الأوروبيّة هي لفرصة لتتوازن فيها مع القوة البنيوية العمودية لحزب الله في لبنان، وذلك في محاولة للتساوي معه في المرحلة الحالية وعرقلته في آجال لاحقة.

هكذا هو دائماً حال الدول البراجماتية النفعية التي تعطي كل مرحلة ما تستحق، والهدنة الأميركية في لبنان هي محصلة جهود بذلها حزب الله في قتال «إسرائيل» والإرهاب والدفاع عن الدولة السورية ما جعله مرهوب الجانب وقوياً الى درجة أن مهادنته في لبنان هي انتصار للطرف الآخر، لذلك فإن الأميركيين هم الذين نجحوا في إرجاء انسحابهم من العراق ويحاولون الإمساك بلبنان من خلال الصندوق الدولي، أما حزب الله فيعرف من جهته أن الأميركيين لا يوزعون هبات على أعدائهم، بل يهادنون بشكل مؤقت في محاولة لتكوين ظروف سياسية أفضل، لهم بالطبع.

والحزب بدوره يهادن من بعد ملحوظ ساهراً على حماية حكومة قد تكون هي الفرصة النموذجية للدفاع عن لبنان في وجه فوضى قد تؤدي الى تدمير الدولة وتفجير الكيان السياسي.



via Fact check – US Governmental Lies About Iran and The Sanction Regime — Rebel Voice

Trump – You Are Awesome, Nice, and Naughty

By Heba Mourad


Donald J Trump 835c3

President Donald Trump,

I grew up on an American School campus, all I sang was “coming ‘round the mountain.” I played Basketball and being short and swift made me a good three pointer, playing most of the time as a pivot. When I learned American football I became quickly good at tackling but I always unintentionally hurt my friends so I stopped playing. My favorite food was McDonalds and Wendy’s and I was obsessed about cinnamon rolls and apple pies. As Cliché as it sounds, it’s what it was. We had classes on American Culture and others on World History; mainly from an “American” perspective. I was more American than Americans themselves. The Ideal place for me to live was on that spot of Earth, America. I loved English so much that I finally decided to major in translation studies. And as much as we were taught about the land of the free, I loved the idea of having this sort of ‘Utopian’ place be my home someday. But of course I grew up later to know there is no such American dream just like I realized there was no Santa Clause. Living in a neighboring country in West Asia, or what you insist to call the Middle East, we were always told that Iran was the bad guy. We heard all about the Iran-Iraq war and how dangerous Iran and its leaders are.

Then one day I grew up, and traveled across the world to learn more and have my worldview reshaped, or better say reborn. Leaving romanticism behind, I wanted to venture and get acquainted with different cultures and peoples. It was not until I decided to live in Iran in 2014, the Islamic Republic that I could understand what a marvelous country it is. And it was not until you came to power that I saw your lies on Iran firsthand. No one told me stories this time.

To spice things up a bit, I will contextualize some word and their semantics the way that fits you. Your empty threats and silly tweets are so “awesome”.  Of course I mean “awesome” as interpreted before the 19th century; when originally awful and awesome were synonymous. You are also naughty in the sense adopted during the 1300s. In the 1300s, naughty people had naught (nothing); they were poor or needy and indeed you are poor; you lack so much information and intelligence to be recognized as a president of some state. Of course the semantics of it during the 1400s also fits you, during the time, the meaning shifted from having nothing to being worth nothing, being morally bad or wicked. You are also nice, in the context of the 1300s through 1600s when it meant silly, foolish, or ignorant. In Old English, “pretty” meant crafty and cunning, typically you. Today, during the 21st century, they call a person who sort of has all these traits a ‘Sly’ and this defines your ‘mental’ morphology. Of course American media has been describing you with a variety of adjectives and words, both simple and complex. Politico is one example describing you as: Real estate mogul, billionaire, reality show host, late-night show punch line, populist rabble rouser, norm-busting leader — impeached president.

In language, like everything else, change can be hard to accept, just like it is really hard for you to digest and accept that Iran has changed since 1979 and has chosen to be independent, sovereign and different.

You use the same old US rhetoric on freedom and human rights and dictate whom you see as subaltern. Before I begin though, let me tell you that of course most of the American people are not happy with what you do, people across the globe understand that. We all know now you would sell your own mother for oil and fortune. You have been milking your Saudi minions and you threaten Iraq that if it does not pay you the billions of dollars you want, you will not leave their country. You have military bases and constitute a threat to the entire region. I will not discuss your Trumpain policies of plundering the riches of the world now, or your issues with the Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims. From North Korea to the Middle East to Venezuela, you are out of favor in almost all parts of the world, except Israel and Saudi Arabia.

I will stick to giving you some advice on the current matter of concern; Iran.

  • During the holidays at your Mar-a-Lago resort, you decided to assassinate Iran’s General of the Quds Brigades Qassem Suleimani thinking that would make you get away with impeachment and give you a better chance of becoming elected again as president. All that mattered to you was your image, but you got it tainted badly. You gave a chance to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has never launched war against one single state since 1979, to show you how invincible your army actually is. Iran had the right to retaliate to your act of war. Iran’s move was in self-defense. It is not the 19th or 20th century anymore. There is no room for your dictates and policies of supremacy at least with regional players like Iran, if not an international player within the new world context. Accept the new world order.
  • The military and anti-craft missile system in Iran being on a state of alert after the Ain al-Assad military base was hit, and American jets hovering around Iran, a human error caused the Ukraine flight 752 to crash. 176 people were killed. You rushed into mobilizing the Iranian people and the world against the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian government. You said they denied responsibility. It took them only 3 days to bravely say the truth and apologize, despite the fact that we know now that the transponder for some mysterious reason was not working for 30 seconds before the missile struck. Today, January 14, New York Times analysis of flight path information and video of the missile strike determined that the plane stopped transmitting its signal for between 20 seconds and 30 seconds before it was hit.

I think people on Twitter have already reminded you enough that in 1988, the US shot down Iran Air 655 and killed 290 Iranians. The Vice President of the United States at the time George Bush not only refused to apologize but also honored the people who carried out the act. You, like many other of your forerunners, hardly ever take the blame for anything — especially the things that are your fault. Today, Iran shows how a government can admit a mistake and take responsibility. Iran could have denied and you know well it has allies who could have supported it but honesty is the best policy, and that is something you know nothing about.

  • You threaten Iranians to hit their cultural sites, you upsurge sanctions, vow to crush the economy, and then call on the ‘brave’ people of Iran to revolt. Sarcastically, if Iran wanted to retaliate and hit cultural sites in the US it would not find any or maybe it would be Wendy’s they can target. Unlike your America, Iran is a country of successive ancient civilizations and a long history. Of course Iran would not hit anything other than military sites when at war. Iran could have killed many of the 5 thousand American soldiers in Ain al-Assad military base. Iran, despite having the capability to build nuclear warheads refuses to do so, it is forbidden in their religion which is Islam by the way. The basic teachings of Islam are based on ethics; and war ethics are part of that. This is why Iran, which you keep accusing of domination schemes has not attacked one single country for 40 years since the victory of the Islamic Revolution. By contextualizing sovereignty and intervention in the world system, you try to annihilate any sort of attempt of independence, in West Asia at least. This is not news. One variable in particular has changed a lot though, and that is Iran, it has become stronger, more independent and more resolute.
  • You create terrorist groups like ISIS (Daesh), support them along with your Israeli and regional allies, and then tell Iran that you have common interests in fighting terrorism in the region. Stop your orientalist and double-standard approach. Your Islamophobic interventionist policies in the West Asia are not acceptable anymore. Bernard Lewis, the notorious Islamophobe who spent a long life studying Islam in order to demonise Muslims and mobilise the mighty military of what he called “the West” against the Muslims, “the other”, represents you well. Go get some decent education on the region, its religions, and people to know better how to deal with things. Even when it comes to Soleimani you made a fool out of yourself, thinking he was chief of the Kurds rather than the Head of the Quds Brigades.
  • An advice to you as President of the US moving towards isolation; some say you are a pathological liar, others say you are a fantasist. Well, neither option is good. One day you want to start war with Iran, another day you want to put immense pressure to see what you call “regime change”, then you want unconditioned talks with the Iranians. You denied any injuries or deaths among US troops in Ain al-Assad military base. You said the damage was not of a great deal. Reports surfacing gradually reveal there are a ‘few’ injuries among US soldiers and more dimensions of the tremendous damage are surfacing. Oh and please don’t tweet later to say you need Middle East oil again, be a man and bear the consequences of your speech and decisions when you say “We do not need Middle East oil anymore”. Learn how to stick to your word. Fluctuations in the American administration have been also providing the world a favor: unilateralism and lies will not work in the future.
  • Social media is becoming an increasingly important force in society. A lot of news is driven by online communication, you hit the tweet button more than normal and your tweets are inconsistent. Your twitter threads and page have become a topic of interest to linguists. Geoffrey Pullum, a linguist at University of Edinburgh, argues that there’s more going on than just a conversational, I’ll-let-you-fill-in-the-gaps-style in your linguistic skills. He says your speech suggests a man with scattered thoughts, a short span of attention, and a lack of intellectual discipline and analytical skills. What also amazes many is not the form or the meaning of your language; it is rather the big fat lies. Of course the lies I mentioned on Iran is just a bit of the 13,435 “falsehoods” you have told between January 20, 2017, and October 9, 2019. Another linguist who analyzed Trumpian rhetoric says “taking the meaning of ‘Believe me’ literally, you skeptically think that Trump can’t be believable if he has to tell his listeners to believe him all the time.”
  • Iran has a population of roughly 85 million people if not more than that. I will discuss this using your democratic values. We may admit that 3 thousand people are taking part in the protests; majority wins. 77 million do not want to topple the government. Get over that. The discursive strategy that you like is exaggeration, and words and phrases such as ‘bigly’ ‘huuuuge’, ‘millions and millions’, and ‘a lot’ to impress people or have an impact on them.
  • For two years, you have exerted “maximum pressure” through sanctions and isolation, to force new concessions from Tehran. All my Iranian professors, classmates, friends, acquaintances, and colleagues are firm on the fact that Iran will no longer make concessions. This time you have to understand that your only way out is to withdraw your troops and save face before it is too late and you see the ‘horizontal’ or ‘vertical’ shipments of your troops going back home.

The crisis of the United States’ post–Cold War foreign policy has been a long time in the making. After all the mess you have created for your country, it is time to think of a new concept. The United States should accept a more modest role in world affairs and understand that the era of colonialism and post-colonialism has reached zero hour at least for Iran and its allies. Whether you like it or not, your troops will be forced out of West Asia. Until then, you can either keep playing golf for long hours to distract yourself or you can freeze in fear every time a rocket hits a US military base.

Trump’s Mass Deception on Iran

By Stephen Lendman


Virtually all politicians lie, none in memory more repeatedly and egregiously than Trump.

It’s so excessively over the top it begs the question. Is he unable to distinguish between facts and fiction or is he inherently deceptive by nature?

His Big Lies fool no one informed on what’s going on at home and abroad. 

The problem is they comprise a minority, not a majority of the public — and serial lying is a moral and ethical issue, not a criminal offense unless under oath.

Make no mistake. DJT’s ordered airstrikes in Iraq, killing around 30 paramilitary fighters connected to its military, followed by the assassinations of Iranian General Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Muhandis were US acts of war on both countries.

According to US law, an act of war means any hostile act occurring in the course of:

1. a declared war;

2. an armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

3. an armed conflict between military forces of any origin.

Under international law it’s much the same, notably a preemptive attack by one nation on the territory of the other. 

It’s strictly prohibited by the UN Charter except in self-defense if attacked, clearly not the case in all US wars post-WW II, waged preemptively on nonbelligerent states — unjustifiably justified by Big Lies and deception.

According to UN General Assembly Res. 3314, aggression is defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations” — which prohibits a nation attacking another state preemptively.

Included in the UN definition is “(b)ombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.”

On Friday, Trump tweeted the following:

“General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more…but got caught (sic)!” 

“He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people (sic).”

The above remarks apply to decades of US aggression — raping and destroying one country after another, polar opposite how Iran and its military operate.

Nearly the entire US political establishment and dominant media vilified Soleimani — most Dems criticizing Pentagon terror-bombing strikes on Iraq for political reasons, most Republicans expressing support.

Even anti-war presidential aspirant Tulsi Gabbard said there’s “no question about (Soleimani’s) evil” — while criticizing airstrikes on Iraqi territory, saying:


Elizabeth Warren tweeted:

“Soleimani was a murderer (sic), responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans (sic)” — while opposing involvement in “another costly war.”

She and Joe Biden said that “no American will mourn Soleimani’s death.”

They were wrong. By email Friday to an Iranian friend in Tehran, I said the following:

My deepest condolences to General Soleimani’s family, Iran, and the Iranian people

for the Trump regime’s state-sponsored terrorism.

The only thing positive about its high crimes is they hasten the US decline. 

Today I mourn with the people of Iran for what happened.

Bernie Sanders said the following in response to Soleimani’s assassination:


“Trump’s promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.”

While steering clear of demonizing or otherwise criticizing Soleimani, last spring Sanders falsely accused Iran of “support(ing) terrorism (sic).”

He called “prevent(ing) Iran from getting a nuclear weapon…an absolute imperative” – ignoring the Islamic Republic’s abhorrence of these weapons, wanting them eliminated everywhere, while failing to condemn nuclear armed and dangerous Israel.

He opposes establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, showing hostility toward the region’s leading proponent of peace and stability.

From his Mar-a-Lago Florida resort Friday, Trump recited a litany of Big Lies about Soleimani’s assassination he authorized, saying:

“(M)y highest and most solemn duty is the defense of our nation and its citizens” — at a time when the only US foreign threats are invented. No real ones exist, he failed to explain.

He turned truth on its head, calling Soleimani “the number-one terrorist anywhere in the world (sic).”

As US commander-in-chief, the dubious distinction applies to him. His regime and congressional accomplices share blame for endless preemptive wars on nonthreatening nations — a flagrant UN Charter violation.

Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries! The Islamic Republic seeks regional peace and cooperation with other nations.

Trump: “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel (sic), but we caught him in the act (sic) and terminated him.”

No evidence was cited because none exists, no “imminent…sinister attacks” on US civilian and military personnel planned. Trump lied claiming otherwise.

He falsely accused Iran’s IRGC and Quds Force Soleimani led of “target(ing), injur(ing), and murder(ing) hundreds of American civilians and servicemen.”

Nothing of the kind occurred by him or Iran in the Middle East or elsewhere — a US, NATO, Israeli specialty, not how the Islamic Republic operates.

Trump twisted reality, falsely claiming “Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion, contributing to terrorist plots as far away as New Delhi and London” — again no evidence cited because none exists. Trump lied, adding:

“Soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years (sic).”  

“What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago. A lot of lives would have been saved (sic).”

Trump falsely claimed a US act of war as defined under international and US statute law was undertaken “to stop a war…not…start” one.

While assassinating Iranians and Iraqis, he falsely expressed support for their people the US  waged war on for decades — directly and by other means.

He falsely claimed credit for destroying “the ISIS…caliphate” the US created and supports — that Soleimani, Russian and Syrian forces smashed.

He turned truth on its head, claiming serial aggressor USA “seek(s) peace, harmony, and friendship with all of the nations of the world.”

His remarks came as the US war machine continues mass slaughter and destruction in multiple theaters — risking war with nonbelligerent Iran at the same time.

Baseball star Yogi Berra and movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn long ago commented on the hazards of making predictions — “especially about the future,” they said.

How the Trump regime intends dealing with Iran ahead is guesswork, war clearly an option — what hopefully cooler heads in Washington will prevent.


صراع لبنانيّ برعاية خارجية بين مصالح الدولة وأمان الناس

سبتمبر 28, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

الدولة في لبنان فقط هي النظام الحاكم وطبقته السياسية، وليست التعبير عن الاتفاق بين الجغرافيا التاريخية وتعبيراتها السياسية والوطنية والرمزية.

ضمن هذا الإطار يبدو الوطن ومعه الدولة في خدمة النظام السياسي الطائفي. قد يتغيّر سياسيون ويأتي آخرون لكنهم من الطينة المذهبية الطائفية نفسها. فيحدث الاندماج الكبير بين قادة الطوائف والدولة، فارضاً على الناس العمل في خدمة هذه المعادلة المدعومة من الدين والإقليم والخارج. إلا أن ما اصاب هذه المعادلة باهتزاز خطير هو اندلاع صراعات بين قوى الاقليم الراعية للبنان استتبع ولادة تناقضات وتباينات قوية بين المحاور الطائفية اللبنانية التي انقسمت حسب ارتباطاتها الإقليمية. فالصراع الأميركي الإيراني والسوري السعودي والدوران الفرنسي والروسي الصاعدان، انعكسوا على شكل خلافات عميقة بين القوى اللبنانية، ما أدّى الى تعطل نسبي في الإدارة الطائفية للبلاد.

كان بالإمكان معالجة الوضع لو اقتصر على هذا الحدّ.

لكنه ارتبط بوقف كامل للمساعدات الاقليمية والدولية التي كانت تموّل سيطرة قوى الطوائف على جمهورها كما تقاطع مع انحسار اكبر في تحويلات المغتربين والعمالة في الخارج، بالإضافة الى ظهور معوقات خارجية أصبحت تكبح إمكانية الدين من الخارج كما كان يحدث سابقاً بتلك السهولة الغريبة المشبوهة.

بالمحصلة هناك مصادر تمويل متوقفة وحركة تصدير واستيراد منحسرة بشكل درامتيكي وحدود لا نستعملها اقتصادياً، ما أدّى الى إقفال خطير للشركات ومواقع الإنتاج وصرف عمال وموظفين. يكفي انّ رئيس الوزراء سعد الحريري الذي ينتمي الى عائلة سياسية ثرية جداً تموّلها السعودية تجد نفسها مضطرة الى إقفال إذاعة المستقبل الناطقة بسياساتها وتلاها إقفال تلفزيون المستقبل وهذا خطير في بلد كلبنان يلعب فيه الإعلام دور المروّج لسياسات المموّلين، لكنه ينحصر عادة بالقوى التي تمتلك مشاريع للسيطرة على لبنان بكامله انطلاقاً من قوتها في طوائفها الأساسية.

هناك محطات تلفزة أخرى قلصت برامجها الى مجرد استمرار شكلي للزوم متابعة أخبار اصحابها السياسيين وزوجاتهم بالحد الأدنى، ونشاطات قواهم الحزبية.

هناك اذاً انسداد في الحد الأدنى الاقتصادي الذي كان يوفر الحد الادنى من أمان الناس ضمن أعمال ضعيفة، لكنها تمنع الجوع، فأصبحت البلاد من دون أمان وظيفي وكهرباء ومياه والنفايات منتشرة عند ابواب المنازل وابواب الهجرة مقفلة واسعار المواد الغذائية بدأت ترتفع وسط عجز المجتمع عن الدفاع عن نفسه.

في المقابل سارعت الطبقة الحاكمة للدفاع عن امتيازاتها فلم تتراجع عن السيطرة على الأملاك البحرية والبرية فرفعت قيمة استئجارها بنسب تافهة جداً لاستيعاب الغضب الاجتماعي، وتابعت فسادها داخل المؤسسات بالتعيينات والصفقات ولا تزال تمسك بالجمارك والمرافئ والمطارات، إلا أنها لم تكتف بهذه الامور التي تعتبرها جزءاً من حقها التاريخي، فذهبت نحو السماح للبنك المركزي بتحديد حركة استعمال الدولار لمنع صعود اسعار الليرة ما ادى الى وجود سعرين لليرة: رسمي لا يصرف الدولار إلا ب 1500 ليرة وحقيقي من نتاج العرض والطلب في الاسواق يتجاوز 1600 ليرة. فارتفعت اسعار السلع والبضائع التي اصبحت تتعامل بالسعر الشعبي للدولار وهذا استتبع على الفور انقطاعاً لمادة الوقود من محطات البنزين لأن مستورديه يشترون الدولار بـ 600 ليرة، فيما الأسعار منسقة على 1500 ليرة، ولما طالبوا الدولة بتمويلهم بالدولار الرسمي، امتنع المصرف المركزي مُتسبباً بإضراب المحطات وهذا ما يجري على مستوى معظم قطاعات الاستيراد والتصدير في البلاد، ما كشف عن وجود خطة للنظام السياسي الاقتصادي يعتبر فيها ان الاحيتاطات المالية للدولة في المصرف المركزي هي مصدر إمان للطبقة السياسية ولا يجوز استخدامها في معالجة الضائقة الاقتصادية التي يمر بها لبنان حالياً.

هذا هو مفهوم أمن الدولة المصطلح اللغوي الذي يُخفي مصالح النظام الطائفي. وهذا لا يعمل من اجل امان الناس بل لصالح استمراره الذي يتطلب امتزاج قوته في الطوائف بالاحتياطات المالية وتأييد الاقليم والجانب الدولي.

وهذا النظام الطائفي لا يتجرأ على عرض سياساته المالية بشكل علني فيكلف أجهزته الاقتصادية اطلاق تصريحات تزعم ان الدولار موجود في الاسواق بشكل طبيعي، واسعار البضائع مستقرة، وليس هناك تدهور اقتصادي ملموس، فيما العكس هو الصحيح.

هناك إذاً صراع بين دولة لا تعمل الا من اجل امنها، وبين امان الناس المفقود والمتدهور. ولعل الرئيس ميشال عون اصاب عندما طالب الامم المتحدة في خطابه الأخير من منبرها بضرورة رعاية العودة الآمنة للنازحين السوريين الى بلادهم ملوّحاً بإمكانية عقد قمة له مع الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد لإعادة النازحين من جهة، وإعادة العلاقات الاقتصادية المزدهرة بين البلدين الى سابق عهدها، فالرئيس يعلم انّ قسماً هاماً من أمان اللبنانيين في المراحل السابقة كان يأتي من الاستخدام الاقتصادي للحدود اللبنانية السورية حتى الأردن والعراق والخليج ويعرف أيضاً انّ ازدهار السياحة على علاقة أيضاً بهذه الحدود. وهذه أمور تحتاج الى ترميم المتصدّع من علاقات لبنان مع سورية والتحلي بحيادية في الصراعات الإقليمية لا تسمح لبلد كلبنان من الاحتفال باليوم الوطني السعودي مرة من المتحف الوطني اللبناني الرسمي، وثانية في قصر الأمير أمين في بيت الدين التابع أيضاً للدولة اللبنانية، وكان من الأولى لو احتفل لبنان في متحفه وفي واحد من قصوره بالقضاء على الإرهاب في سورية ولبنان.

فهل ينفجر الصراع بين أمن الدولة و أمان الناس منتقلاً الى الشارع؟ هذه هي النهاية الطبيعية لمثل هذه الصراعات. فالجوع ينفجر في نهاية المطاف متجاوزاً نصائح رجال الدين والاصطفافات الإقليمية والقمع والنصائح الأميركية ووعود السعودية، متحوّلاً أداة منشودة لتدمير نظام طائفي لم يعد لديه ايّ شيء لا للبنان ولا للبنانيين من مختلف الطوائف والمناطق والانتماءات.

Related Articles


Global Research, August 03, 2019
Global Research 8 July 2019

Updated, July 21, 2019








1. Iran’s Military



2. Evolving Structure of Military Alliances


Several of America’s staunchest allies are sleeping with the enemy.





Moreover, several NATO member states have taken a firm stance against Washington’s Iran policy:  “European allies are grappling with mounting disagreements over foreign policy and growing irritated with Washington’s arrogant leadership style.”

“The most important manifestation of growing European discontent with U.S. leadership is the move by France and other powers to create an independent, “Europeans only” defense capability” (See National Interest, May 24, 2019)





Visibly, the policy of strategic encirclement against Iran formulated in the wake of the Iraq war (2003) is no longer functional. Iran has friendly relations with neighbouring countries, which previously were within the US sphere of influence.

The US is increasingly isolated in the Middle East and does not have the support of its NATO allies

Under these conditions, a major conventional theater war by the US involving the deployment of ground forces would be suicide.

This does not mean, however, that war will not take place. In some regards, with the advances in military technologies, an Iraq-style war is obsolete.

We are nonetheless at a dangerous crossroads. Other diabolical forms of military intervention directed against Iran are currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon. These include:

  • various forms of “limited warfare”, ie. targeted missile attacks,
  • US and Allied support of terrorist paramilitary groups
  • acts of political destabilization and color revolutions
  • false flag attacks and military threats,
  • sabotage, confiscation of financial assets, extensive economic sanctions,
  • electromagnetic and climatic warfare, environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)
  • cyberwarfare
  • chemical and biological warfare.

US Central Command Forward Headquarters Located in Enemy Territory

Another consideration has to do with the crisis within the US Command structure.

USCENTCOM is the theater-level Combatant Command for all operations in the broader Middle East region extending from Afghanistan to North Africa. It is the most important Combat Command of the Unified Command structure. It has led and coordinated several major Middle East war theaters including Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003). It is also involved in Syria.

In the case of a war with Iran, operations in the Middle East would be coordinated by US Central Command with headquarters in Tampa, Florida in permanent liaison with its forward command headquarters in Qatar.

In late June 2019, after Iran shot down a U.S. drone President Trump “called off the swiftly planned military strikes on Iran” while intimating in his tweet that “any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force.”

US Central Command (CENTCOM), confirmed the deployment of the US Air Force F-22 stealth fighters to the al-Udeid airbase in Qatar, intended to “defend American forces and interests” in the region against Iran. (See Michael Welch, Persian Peril, Global Research, June 30, 2019). Sounds scary?

“The base is technically Qatari property playing host to the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command.” With 11,000 US military personnel, it is described as “one of the U.S. military’s most enduring and most strategically positioned operations on the planet”   (Washington Times). Al-Udeid also hosts the US Air Force’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, considered to be “America’s most vital overseas air command”.

What both the media and military analysts fail to acknowledge is that US CENTCOM’s forward Middle East headquarters at the al-Udeid military base close to Doha de facto “lies in enemy territory”

Since the May 2017 split of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Qatar has become a staunch ally of both Iran and Turkey (which is also an ally of Iran). While they have no “official” military cooperation agreement with Iran, they share in joint ownership with Iran the largest Worldwide maritime gas fields (see map below).

The split of the GCC has led to a shift in military alliances: In May 2017 Saudi Arabia blocked Qatar’s only land border. In turn Saudi Arabia as well as the UAE have blocked air transportation as well as commercial maritime shipments to Doha.

What is unfolding since May 2017 is a shift in Qatar’s trade routes with the establishment of bilateral agreements with Iran, Turkey as well as Pakistan. In this regard, Russia, Iran, and Qatar provide over half of the world’s known gas reserves.

The Al-Udeid base near Doha is America’s largest military base in the Middle East. In turn, Turkey has now established its own military facility in Qatar. Turkey is no longer an ally of the US. Turkish proxy forces in Syria are fighting US supported militia.

Turkey is now aligned with Russia and Iran. Ankara has now confirmed that it will be acquiring Russia’s S-400 missile air defense system which requires military cooperation with Moscow.

Qatar is swarming with Iranian businessmen, security personnel and experts in the oil and gas industry (with possible links to Iran intelligence?), not to mention the presence of Russian and Chinese personnel.

Question. How on earth can you launch a war on Iran from the territory of a close ally of Iran?


Notwithstanding the rhetoric underlying the official US-Qatar military relationship, The Atlantic Council, a think tank with close ties to both the Pentagon and NATO, confirms that Qatar is now a firm ally of both Iran and Turkey:

Put simply, for Qatar to maintain its independence, Doha will have essentially no choice but to maintain its strong partnership with Turkey, which has been an important ally from the perspective of military support and food security, as well as Iran. The odds are good that Iranian-Qatari ties will continue to strengthen even if Tehran and Doha agree to disagree on certain issues … On June 15 [2019], President Hassan Rouhani emphasizedthat improving relations with Qatar is a high priority for Iranian policymakers. … Rouhani told the Qatari emir that “stability and security of regional countries are intertwined” and Qatar’s head of state, in turn, stressed that Doha seeks a stronger partnership with the Islamic Republic. (Atlantic Council, June 2019, emphasis added)

What this latest statement by the Atlantic Council suggests is while Qatar hosts USCENTCOM’s forward headquarters, Iran and Qatar are (unofficially) collaborating in the area of “security” (i e. intelligence and military cooperation).

Sloppy military planning, sloppy US foreign policy? sloppy intelligence?

Trump’s statement confirms that they are planning to launch the war against Iran from their forward US Centcom headquarters at the Al Udeid military base, located in enemy territory. Is it rhetoric or sheer stupidity?

The Split of the GCC

The split of the GCC has resulted in the creation of a so-called Iran-Turkey-Qatar axis which has contributed to weakening US hegemony in the Middle East. While Turkey has entered into a military cooperation with Russia, Pakistan is allied with China. And Pakistan has become a major partner of Qatar.

Following the rift between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in disarray with Qatar siding with Iran and Turkey against Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Qatar is of utmost strategic significance because it shares with Iran the world’s largest maritime gas fields in the Persian Gulf. (see map above). Moreover, since the GCC split-up Kuwait is no longer aligned Saudi Arabia. It nonetheless maintains a close relationship with Washington. Kuwait hosts seven active US military facilities, the most important of which is Camp Doha.

Needless to say, the May 2017 split of the GCC has undermined Trump’s resolve to create an “Arab NATO” (overseen by Saudi Arabia) directed against Iran. This project is virtually defunct, following Egypt’s withdrawal in April 2019.

The Gulf of Oman 

With the 2017 split up of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Oman appears to be aligned with Iran. Under these circumstances, the transit of US war ships to the headquarters of the US Fifth fleet in Bahrain not to mention the conduct of naval operations in the Persian Gulf are potentially in jeopardy.

The Fifth Fleet is under the command of US Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT). (NAVCENT’s area of responsibility consists of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea).

With the split up of the GCC, Oman is now aligned with Iran. Under these circumstances, the transit of US war ships to the headquarters of the US Fifth fleet in Bahrain not to mention the conduct of naval operations in the Persian Gulf would potentially be in jeopardy.

The strait of Hormuz which constitutes the entry point to the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman is controlled by Iran and the Sultanate of Oman (see map, Oman territory at the tip of the Strait).

The width of the strait at one point is of the order of 39 km. All major vessels must transit through Iran and/or Oman territorial waters, under so-called customary transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

More generally, the structure of alliances is in jeopardy. The US cannot reasonably wage a full-fledged conventional theatre war on Iran without the support of its longstanding allies which are now “sleeping with the enemy”.

Trump’s Fractured “Arab NATO”. History of the Split up of the GCC. 

Amidst the collapse of  America’s sphere of influence in the Middle East, Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) consisted at the outset of his presidency in an improvised attempt to rebuild the structure of military alliances. What the Trump administration had in mind was the formation of a Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), or  “Arab NATO”. This US-sponsored blueprint was slated to include Egypt and Jordan together with the six member states of the GCC.

The draft of the MESA Alliance had been prepared in Washington prior to Trump’s historic May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia, meeting up with King Salman, leaders of the GCC as well as “more than 50 high-ranking officials from the Arab and Islamic worlds in an unprecedented US-Islamic summit.”

The Riyadh Declaration, issued at the conclusion of the summit on May 21, 2017, announced the intention to establish MESA in Riyadh.” (Arab News, February 19, 2019). The stated mandate of the “Arab NATO”  was to “to combat Iranian hegemony” in the Middle East.

Two days later on May 23, 2017 following this historic meeting, Saudi Arabia ordered the blockade of Qatar, called for an embargo and suspension of diplomatic relations with Doha, on the grounds that The Emir of Qatar was allegedly collaborating with Tehran.

What was the hidden agenda? No doubt it had already been decided upon in Riyadh on May 21, 2017  with the tacit approval of US officials.

The  plan was to exclude Qatar from the proposed MESA Alliance and the GCC, while maintaining the GCC intact.

What happened was a Saudi embargo on Qatar (with the unofficial approval of Washington) which resulted in the   fracture of the GCC with Oman and Kuwait siding with Qatar. In other words,  the GCC was split down the middle. Saudi Arabia was weakened and the “Arab NATO” blueprint was defunct from the very outset.

May 21, 2017: US-Islamic Summit in Riyadh

May 23, 2017: The blockade and embargo of Qatar following alleged statements by the Emir of Qatar. Was this event staged?

June 5, 2019: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt sever diplomatic relations, cut off land, air and sea transportation with Qatar  accusing it of  supporting Iran.

June 7, 2017, Turkey’s parliament pass legislation allowing Turkish troops to be deployed to a Turkish military base in Qatar

January 2018, Qatar initiates talks with Russia with a view to acquiring Russia’s  S-400 air defense system.

Flash forward to mid-April 2019: Trump is back in Riyadh: This time the Saudi Monarchy was entrusted by Washington to formally launching the failed Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA) (first formulated in 2017) despite the fact that three of the invited GCC member states, namely Kuwait, Oman and Qatar were committed to the normalization of relations with Iran. In turn, the Egyptian government of President Sisi decided to boycott the Riyadh summit and withdraw from the “Arab NATO” proposal. Cairo also clarified its position vis a vis Tehran.  Egypt firmly objected to Trump’s plan because it “would increase tensions with Iran”.

Trump’s objective was to create an “Arab Block”. What he got in return was a truncated MESA “Arab Block” made up of a fractured GCC with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Jordan.

Egypt withdraws.

Kuwait and Oman officially took a neutral stance.

Qatar sided with the enemy, thereby further jeopardizing America’s sphere of influence in the Persian Gulf.

An utter geopolitical failure. What kind of alliance is that.



Trump and the Emir of Qatar, UN General Assembly, October 2017, White House photo

The rest is history, the Pentagon decided to maintain US Central Command’s forward headquarters in Qatar, which happens to be Iran’s closest ally and partner.

A foreign policy blunder? Establishing your “official” headquarters in enemy territory, while “unofficially” redeploying part of the war planes, military personnel and command functions to other locations (e.g. in Saudi Arabia)?

No press reports, no questions in the US Congress. Nobody seemed to have noticed that Trump’s war on Iran, if it were to be carried out, would be conducted from the territory of Iran’s closest ally.

An impossibility?


Part II of this essay focuses on the history and contradictions of US war preparations directed against Iran starting in 1995 as well as the evolution of military alliances.



PEPE ESCOBAR: US and Iran Stuck on Negotiation Ground Zero

July 27, 2019

by Pepe Escobar (cross-posted with Consortium News – by special agreement with the author)

PEPE ESCOBAR: US and Iran Stuck on Negotiation Ground Zero







Okay With ‘OK Either Way’












Chokepoint: The Strait of Hormuz. (Flickr)




And Now for Something Completely Different












أميركا في مواجهة إيران: ماذا بعد الفشل الأوّلي؟

مايو 21, 2019

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

يكاد العالم يحبس أنفاسه وهو ينتظر أحد صوتين: صوت جرس هاتف ترامب يرنّ ويكون المتصل من المسؤولين الإيرانيين ليسجل ترامب انتصاراً في استراتيجية الضغط التصاعدي المرغِم للخصم على الخضوع والإذعان، أو صوت القذائف الأميركية المتعددة الأنواع والعيارات والأحجام تنهار على إيران لتدمير إرادتها قبل تدمير حجرها وقتل بشرها. فأميركا التي منّت النفس بإرغام إيران على الإذعان نتيجة الحرب الاقتصادية الظالمة والخانقة التي بدأتها ضدّها منذ سنة تقريباً تشعر الآن بالضيق لأنّ إيران استمرّت صامدة متمسكة بحقوقها وكرامتها الوطنية لا يرهبها تهويل أو أكثر منه.

لقد باتت أميركا بحاجة لأحد هذين الصوتين هاتف او مدفع وما سيترتب عليهما من سلوك إيراني يصبّ في مصلحتها في معرض سعيها إلى تهيئة البيئة الاستراتيجية والعملانية والسياسية في المنطقة للإعلان عن تصفية القرن التي تتحضّر أميركا لإطلاقها والإعلان عن مضمونها في النصف الثاني من حزيران/ يونيو المقبل، والتي ترى أميركا أنّ سكوت إيران أو تعطيل معارضتها لها شرط لا بدّ منه لنجاحها. وفضلاً عن ذلك فإنّ أميركا تحمّل إيران ومحور المقاومة مسؤولية مساندة سورية للصمود وهزيمة العدوان الكوني الذي استهدفها، والذي كانت أميركا تعوّل عليه لاستباحة غربي آسيا وشمالي أفريقيا والسيطرة بعد ذلك على العالم كله في إطار نظام أحادي القطبيّة تسعى إليه.

إذن… خضوع إيران واستسلامها للإرادة الأميركية بات مهمّاً للغاية في الحساب الأميركي خاصة بعد أن توصلت أميركا في الحقبة الأخيرة الى حصر أعدائها الأساسيين بثلاثة وتشكلت لديها قناعة نهائية انّ هؤلاء الثلاثة يعتمدون سياسات ومواقف تعطّل عليها سعيها الى قيادة العالم والتحكم بثرواته، وصنفتهم بالترتيب التالي: الصين أولاً ثم روسيا وإيران، وترى أميركا انّ البدء في مواجهة إيران وإخضاعها سيشكل قفزة نوعية لها في مواجهتها لكلّ من روسيا والصين، وترى أنّ سقوط إيران سيُغنيها عن مواجهة روسيا لأنّ هذا الأمر سيمكّنها من إكمال حلقة الحصار على روسيا وعزلها وجعلها واهنة استراتيجياً. من هنا تأتي أهمية حرب أميركا على إيران، الحرب التي تتمنّى أميركا أن تبقى في الإطار الاقتصادي على حدّ ما قال ترامب مؤخراً، وأن تحقق لها ما تريد دون الحاجة الى الحديد والنار.

فالمواجهة الحالية بين أميركا وإيران ليست شأناً عابراً، أو خلافاً نشأ عفواً أو صدفة، بل هو صراع تمتدّ جذوره إلى يوم نجاح الثورة الإسلامية في إيران وتتصاعد أهميته ربطاً بالمتغيّرات الدولية وتصنيف دول العالم بين عدوّ او تابع لأميركا، ونكاد نقول إنّ المواجهة مع إيران باتت في ذهن غلاة الصقور الأميركيين اليوم مسألة استراتيجية عليا لا تعلوها مسألة، وإنها قضية يترتب على نتائجها تحديد وجهة العلاقات الدولية وموقع أميركا فيها مستقبلاً.

لكن المأزق الأميركي يبدو اليوم أكبر مما توقعت أو ظنّت الفئة المسؤولة التي دفعت بالأمور الى هذا الحدّ، مأزق يتمثل بأمرين اثنين:

ـ الأول فشل الحرب الاقتصادية حتى الآن في اقتياد إيران الى طاولة الإذعان لأميركا والاستسلام لمشيئتها، وبالتالي فإنّ صوت جرس الهاتف كما يبدو ويؤكد المسؤولون الإيرانيون، لم ولن يأتي مهما طال انتظار ترامب ومعاونيه، فإيران تملك من العنفوان والكرامة الوطنية والثقة بالحق وبالنفس وبقوّتها ما يمنعها من الاتصال والذهاب الى تفاوض الإذعان.

ـ أما الثاني فيتمثل في خشية أميركا من الدخول في حرب مع إيران لا تحقق النتائج المرجوّة في مهلة معقولة، خاصة أنّ هناك عناصر رئيسية تبرّر هذه الخشية وتلزم أميركا بالحدّ من الاندفاع في الحرب النفسية التي بدأتها وجعلت الأمور عبرها تتحرك على حافة الهاوية، دون أن تكون هناك ضمانات أكيدة لإبقاء الوضع تحت السيطرة ومنع الانزلاق الى الحرب الحقيقة الواسعة.

فأميركا رغم كلّ ما تملك من قدرات عسكرية هائلة، ورغم ما يظنّ أنها قادرة على زجّه في الميدان ضدّ إيران في أيّ حرب تشنّها عليها، أميركا هذه تعلم حقائق مرعبة عن القدرات الإيرانية العسكرية الذاتية والتحالفية، كما أنها تعلم أنّ مسألة حسم الحرب وفرض الاستسلام على إيران أمر ليس سهلاً او مؤكداً، لا بل قد يكون المؤكد غرق أميركا وأتباعها في المنطقة في وحول حرب استنزاف لا تتوقف ولا تنتهي إلا باقتلاع المصالح الغربية من المنطقة.

وإضافة الى ذلك فإنّ أميركا تعلم أنّ احتمال تساقط أتباعها في المنطقة إذا لم تحسم الحرب في مهلة قصيرة، هو احتمال مرجّح حيث سيكون أشبه بتساقط أحجار الدومينو، ثم أنّ أميركا تعلم أنّ صيغة التحالفات الدولية القوية التي استندت اليها في حروبها الأخيرة في الخليج وأفغانستان والى حدّ ما في العراق، انّ هذه الصيغة ليست في متناول يدها بعد أن أبدت أوروبا رفضها للسياسة الأميركية حيال إيران وعدم استعدادها لحرب مع إيران، وانسحبت مصر من الناتو العربي ووهن مَن تبقى معها جاهز للحرب.

لكلّ ما تقدّم، باتت فكرة الحرب كابوساً لأميركا وليس كما يروّج البعض ممن يشتهونها ويقولون بأنها باتت الحلّ الوحيد والسريع الذي ستلجأ إليه أميركا للسيطرة على المنطقة برمّتها.

وعليه… نرى انّ أميركا التي تهدّد وتزبد وترعد هي في الحقيقة تخشى الحرب أكثر من أيّ وقت مضى، لأنها غير واثقة من تحقيق المطلوب فيها، لا بل إنها قد تذهب هيبتها وتوقع فيها خسائر لا تقدّر الآن أحجامها، وتعطل مفاعيل الحرب الاقتصادية التي تشنها على أعدائها دون هوادة خاصة الصين وروسيا ومحور المقاومة حرباً لا يمكن التكهّن بنهايتها نظراً لعجز أميركا عن حسمها مهما امتلكت من قوة لأنها حرب من أجيال مركبة بين الثالث والخامس مروراً بالرابع وهي تعلم أنّ التأخر في حسمها سيفاقم من خسائرها الى الحدّ الذي يجعلنا نقول إنّ حجمها سيكون في حجم أكبر من أيّ حرب سبقت، ثم لا ننسى انّ هذه الحرب اذا وقعت فستكون متزامنة مع مواجهات أخرى تنخرط فيها أميركا مع كلّ من الصين وروسيا وكوريا الشمالية، مواجهات لم تستطع أميركا أن تحقق في أيّ منها شيئاً مما تطلبه ما يمكن من القول بأنها حتى الآن فاشلة على تلك الجبهات.

ومن جهة أخرى ستجد أميركا أنّ التراجع عن الحرب سيكون فيه خسارة أيضاً خاصة أنه يكشف الثغرات في الوضع الأميركي ما يمكّن الأعداء من استغلال هذه الثغرات والتشدد في مواجهتها مستقبلاً، ما يعني أنّ قرار التراجع عن الحرب هو كقرار مؤلم لا يخلو من خسائر. وهنا يطرح السؤال أيّ السبل ستسلك أميركا؟

لقد أدركت أميركا الآن انّ إخضاع إيران ليس بالأمر السهل وأنه غير ممكن الآن وعلى أيّ من السبيلين حرب اقتصادية او حرب نارية ، وعليها أن لا تراهن او تنتظر سماع أيّ من الصوتين اللذين تنتظر!؟ وأنها ليست في موقع تختار فيه أيّاً من الأرباح تحقق، بل هي في موقع ونقولها بكلّ ثقة، باتت في موقع يفرض عليها اعتماد سياسة تحديد الخسائر وهي السياسة التي يلجأ اليها كلّ من فاته سوق الربح الأكيد ودخل في مرحلة العجز والكساد وتشتّت الحلفاء والأصدقاء عنه، والحرب تفاقم الخسارة طبعاً لذا فإنها في المنطق السليم تعتبر حتى اللحظة مستبعدة رغم قرع طبولها والصخب والقمم والتحشيدات التي تجري من أجلها.

وهكذا نجد أنّ إيران ببراعتها في إدارة المواجهة مع أميركا منذ أن انسحب ترامب من الاتفاق النووي معها، ربحت حتى الآن بما اظهرته من قوة وعنفوان وجنّبت المنطقة والعالم حتى الان حرباً تدميرية كبرى فكان أداؤها مصداقاً للقاعدة الشهيرة «اذا أردت السلام فاستعدّ للحرب»، أما دعاة الضعف والارتهان كما والذين لا زالوا يلهثون وراء حروبهم الفاشلة فإنهم لن يجنوا من الأمر إلا الخسائر المادية والمعنوية وعلى شتى الصعد والأشكال ولن تسعفهم قمم تعقد للتحشيد للحروب فهم وقممهم أعجز من أن يدخلوا حرباً ينتصرون فيها.

أستاذ جامعي وباحث استراتيجي.

مقالات مشابهة


South Front


Rocket Hits Near Empty US Embassy in Baghdad, US Blames Iran

On May 19th, a Katyusha rocket hit near the US Embassy in Baghdad, in the fortified “Green Zone” within the Iraqi capital, the Iraqi military said in a statement.

Joyce Karam


BREAKING: Katyusha shelling on Green Zone in Baghdad + blast in area near foreign embassies.

Comes 4 days after US pulled non-essential staff, amid tension w

سكاي نيوز عربية-عاجل


مراسلنا: سقوط قذيفة كاتيوشا على المنطقة الخضراء وفقا لمصدر أمني عراقي

261 people are talking about this

Steven nabil


🛑This a major escalation, at 8:29 PM a rocket was launched toward the Green Zone and the vicinity of the U.S Embassy from (Jisr al Amana ) neighborhood in Baghdad.

106 people are talking about this
There were no casualties or losses as a result of the presumed attack.
Rocket Hits Near Empty US Embassy in Baghdad, US Blames Iran

Click to see full-size image


A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, Bill Urban, said in a statement that Iraqi Security Forces are investigating the incident.

The rocket conveniently hit after all but critical staff were evacuated from Iraq just days earlier, due to expectations of an attack of some sort by Iran.

The US State Department was in close contact with Iraqi officials about the incident and investigations into its circumstances, the official said, adding that the “low-grade rocket” did not cause significant damage or impact any US-inhabited facilities.

Reuters cited an unnamed State Department official who said that no responsibility had been claimed, but Iran was blamed.

“But, we take this incident very seriously,” the State Department official said. “We will hold Iran responsible if any such attacks are conducted by its proxy militia forces or elements of such forces, and will respond to Iran accordingly.”

US President Donald Trump tweeted with an open threat to Iran, just hours after the alleged attack in Baghdad.

Donald J. Trump



103K people are talking about this
In addition to US personnel being evacuated from Iran, on May 18th, Exxon Mobil also began evacuating from the southern Iraqi province of Basra.



The alleged rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad is a rather obvious attempt at justifying recent US actions and reinforcing the narrative of Iran’s “evil plans.”

And if Iran did, in fact, want to carry out a dangerous attack, why would it do so on almost completely empty premises, days after discovering that the US had withdrawn its personnel?


%d bloggers like this: