By Theodore Shoebat
After pulling out of the Iran Deal, aggravating the situation with Iran and giving the Iranians the green light to intensify its uranium production, the United States has decided that it will be reissuing waivers from the extremely mocked Iran Deal. The waivers will allow Iran to produce nuclear material for civil purposes while making sure that they are not developed for military purposes. A report from Politico states:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is expected to reissue waivers this week allowing continued international work on nuclear projects inside Iran, according to two sources familiar with the deliberations. Some lawmakers have been pressing the administration to eliminate the waivers since Iran announced earlier this month that it had breached the limits on uranium enrichment set by the nuclear deal.
The State Department announced in May that it would revive the waivers for 90 days as opposed to 180 days stating that they “constrain Iran’s nuclear activities” and “help maintain the nuclear status quo in Iran.”
So… there are actually aspects of the Iran Deal that are actually helpful? And the Obama administration, and the rest of the governments that worked together to determine the deal actually had an idea that was helpful and not exasperating? For years the neocons, the Republicans and the Israel Lobby mocked, scoffed and bickered to no end about the Iran Deal. They made it out to be that Iran was the next Third Reich and that the US was appeasing the Nazis of our time. But the reality is, Iran as it right now is no Third Reich, not having the technological or military capacity to be anything like Nazi Germany.
The zio-frenzy Republicans and their Evangelical acolytes are expressing rage at the reissuing of the waivers. Ted Cruz just recently said that the reviving of the waivers is a return to Obama’s Iran Deal:
“If these reports are indeed accurate, then it is a temporary victory for the deep state staffers at Treasury and State who continue working tirelessly to preserve the Obama Iran deal rather than implementing the president’s directive”
What is aggravating the situation more than anything are the measures being pushed to isolate Iran and thus exasperate the Iranians to the point that they will such use American propaganda as a pretext to go full out on their aggressiveness.
The US government has been quite ambiguous, or so it seems. At first it helps create an Iran Deal, Iran follows the restrictions and then the US pulls out. Now the US is saying that it wants to reissue the waivers. Not too long ago — according to a US official close to the administration — Trump told senior administration officials to get rid of the waivers. And then in a later meeting, Trump demanded that the waivers be extended.
What is the purpose in canceling these waivers and then resuming them? We don’t have all of the details but I do have a thought: What if the real purpose in all of this apparent capriciousness is to push Iran to becoming more nationalistic and more militarist?
The Iran Deal was able, to a great extent, to contain Iran through regulations. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, confirmed that: “Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments. It is essential that Iran continues to do so. If the JCPOA were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and for multilateralism.”
So, if the Iran Deal was keeping Iran in check, then what is the purpose of shattering the system and encouraging Iran to break the rules and pursue more possession of nuclear material? To quote the political analyst, Emil Avdaliani: “Washington abandoned the nuclear agreement the world powers reached in 2015 and Iran recently announced it has reached a high level of uranium production.” This line may contain the answer to our question: the US pulled out because it wants a militarist Iran.
Cancel waivers, push Iran to reach its uranium production limit, and then reissue waivers to add some control, only to then rescind and provide further justification of the Iranian people to get more frustrated with the United States and even their own government. This may just be the plan. A people enraged with their government is a people more willing to accept despotism and more willing to revere militarism. With an Iranian economy that is free falling (thanks to heavy US sanctions) the prospects for the masses of Iran to embrace hardliners — be they fanatic Islamists or ultra-nationalists, or both — are much higher.
The average Iranian makes about $450 a month. How could a country where the people make such little money become the next Third Reich? And spare me the talk about how post WW1 Germany rose from poverty and became a powerful empire. Iran is not Germany. Germany is a country with ancestors who squashed Rome, was the center of a major empire that lasted centuries, and needed several major superpowers to defeat it in two world wars. Iran, on the other hand, is a country whose ancestors were defeated by the Greeks, the Arabs, the Turks and the Mongols. Could Iran become a superpower within the Islamic world? Absolutely. But nothing like the Third Reich. Persia had its empire, but it couldn’t get passed the lowest parts of the Balkans and some of the edges of eastern Europe.
Iran right now is suffering from a level of poverty that would push any people into political disarray. Everything from staples to basic consumer goods have become more expensive because of US sanctions, and on top of this, Iran is cut off from international banking. And the Trump administration has declared that it is aiming to bring Iran’s oil revenue down to zero.
How could you expect a country, so economically diminished, to abide by the US’ demands and honor a deal that the Americans withdrew from? I think the higher ups within the United States government understand this, and the objective behind economically depressing Iran could be the exact effect that it brings about: spark nationalism and militarism to stoke war between Muslims in the Near East. The conspiracy is brewing, all while the ‘proud Jews’ within the think-tanks, the conservative media and Capital Hill, alongside their Evangelical and neoconservative allies, scream and holler about a rising Iran. The effect of the sanctions and isolation is the desired effect.
Its not as though upper echelons of American power really believe that Iran is an evil country that must be stopped by the forces of good. The United States has worked with Iran-backed militias and installed a pro-Iran government in Iraq through its 2003 invasion. For example, when the US was fighting ISIS, American soldiers cooperated with the Iran backed Shiite militias. As the Atlantic reports:
The global fight against ISIS created strange alliances—and the de facto one between the U.S. military and Iraq’s Shiite militias, some of whom are backed by Iran, was among the most striking.
Iraq is a Shiite majority country. It was a Shiite majority country when Saddam was in power. Iran is a Shiite Muslim country. It is obvious that when the US decided to remove Saddam that they would be giving the Shiites power over the country thus making Iraq into an ally of Iran. By removing Saddam, the US helped Iran who was a major enemy of Saddam’s regime. Now Iran has a major influence in Iraq through the its proxy militias. There are an estimated 100,000 Shiite militiamen in Iraq, all of whom are under the umbrella of Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), most of which belong to Iran-backed groups. In 2016 a law was passed requiring all militias to integrate themselves into the national military command structure. This did not happen and militias still maintain their independence, but nonetheless are tools of Iran to leverage politics in the Iraqi government. Even the current president of Iraq, Barham Salih, is pro-Iran and has been seeking closer ties to Iran, stating, “this is something that the nations of the two countries and the nations in the region are entitled to”. This is the Iraqi government that the US installed after its 2003 invasion of the country.
So truly, what is the US doing with Iran? Is it really believing that Iran is this evil country that must be defeated by a righteous, Israel supporting nation? Or, is Iran simply another tool that the US can use for its own geopolitical reasons?
–Could it be that the US wants a nuclear Iran that will then nuke its biggest enemy, Saudi Arabia? Is the US merely acting like an enemy of Iran to push its buttons and manipulate the country into becoming a militarist superpower in the Middle East? The Iraq War empowered Iran (and it also left a vacuum for Turkey to fill), and it would not be far-fetched to say that this was the desired effect.
Comments are closed.