This is pretty far down in the weeds, but it may help you to understand what is going on with the Trump administration and Iran.
Julian Borger summarizes Nikki Haley’s visit to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. The article is a good jumping-off place for what I’m going to say.
The first part of the article discusses US government intelligence analysts’ unease at the demands being put on them to find violations by Iran of the nuclear agreement (JCPOA). It’s déjà vu of what was done to justify the 2003 Iraq war. The reality is that Iran is complying with the agreement, to the satisfaction of the IAEA inspectors and, apparently, the US intelligence community.
So, for the opponents of the deal, it’s necessary to find another way to wreck the agreement. One approach is to demand more than the agreement allows, or to do it in such a way as to make the Iranians irritated enough to withdraw. According to the head of the Iranian atomic energy agency, that isn’t going to happen.
#Breaking #Iran‘s AEO head, Salehi: If US withdraws Nuclear Deal but 5 other parties remain committed, Tehran will remain committed to deal
— Alireza Karimi (@AlirezaKarimi12) August 27, 2017
There is something of a game of chicken in progress: neither the US nor Iran wants to be the one to spoil the deal, but Trump wants it ended. The other parties have said they will stick with the deal.
But the search for an irritant continues, and the opponents have gotten to Haley. That’s what her questions are about.
“Having said that, as good as the IAEA is, it can only be as good as what they are permitted to see,” Haley told reporters on her return to New York. “Iran has publicly declared that it will not allow access to military sites but the JCPOA makes no distinction between military and non-military sites. There are also numerous undeclared sites that have not been inspected yet. That’s a problem.”
Getting into the weeds, the argument by opponents is that Iran carried out experiments in the past that are now prohibited by the JCPOA. Therefore, one known site, Parchin, a military reservation, must be inspected. There is a process for this, if there is evidence that Iran is now violating the agreement. But the opponents have none. Their argument is that we must know all about Iran’s past activities in order to be sure they are complying now.
It is true that Iran and the IAEA are working toward what the IAEA calls a Broader Conclusion, that all Iran’s fissile material is under control and not being used for weapons, and that for that Broader Conclusion, it is possible that Iran will have to provide more information on Parchin’s history. It does look like they did nuclear-weapons-related tests in a building there back in the 2000s. But nobody expects a Broader Conclusion for maybe ten years. We don’t have to have that inspection right now. And by establishing trust with Iran that the IAEA inspectors are not looking to frame them, it becomes more likely that Iran will come clean on this. It is that trust that the opponents hope to break.
In any case, unless there is evidence that Iran is now doing those sorts of tests, it’s not an imminent danger. And there is no evidence that I’m aware of.
A subsidiary approach that the opponents are working on is to claim that one part of the JCPOA, Section T, mandates these inspections. So far they have made only a sketchy argument on Twitter which has mostly holes in it. But talk influences politicians.
Those of you who follow me on Twitter may see some of my skirmishes with those generating the arguments.
Borger is a good reporter to follow on these issues. But news articles can present only so much detail.
Cross-posted at Nuclear Diner.
schrodingers_cat
The person put in charge by the Russians is destroying America’s reputation by breaking promises and going back on deals whether it be to people or to other institutions or nations. Once the reputation is destroyed it is very hard to get it back. We will be the T of nations, a blustering unreliable bully.
1. NATO
2. Dreamers
3. Paris Accord
4. Iran accord
5. Veterans promised a fast track to permanent residency and citizenship
6. Transgender military personnel.
Making America Renege Again and Again
ETA: Now playing footsie with the debt ceiling.
schrodingers_cat
@schrodingers_cat: I forgot TPS.
cmorenc
What end-game is the Trump Admin hoping for by breaking the Iran agreement? Are they itching to add a war against Iran to the war in Afghanistan, and if so, what is the contemplated military weaponry / manpower / siting of the war? A cruise missile attack against all sites in Iran suspected of harboring nuclear-related activity? A land invasion?
Or is the end-game simply Russian-inspired sabotage of US standing in the world and willingness of other nations to trust making any agreements, treaties, etc with us?
nightranger
@cmorenc: You’re thinking chess when cheeto benito is struggling to play checkers. It’s about hating on Iran for hates sake just because that’s what racists do.
clay
@schrodingers_cat: And the granddaddy of them all, NAFTA, aka, the “worst deal of all time”… so bad that it helped usher in an entire decade of economic growth!
Tuna
Tin foil hat time. Did ya know Iran has lots of natural gas. There was a plan to sell to the EU thru a pipeline that went thru Syria. But then there was this Syrian war so on the plan B. Take the pipeline thru Turkey and oops there is a Coop. Plan C seems to be war.
catclub
@cmorenc:
trashing something with Barack Obama’s fingerprints on it. Cleek’s Law.
The Thin Black Duke
@cmorenc: All of them, Katie. (the classics never get old, unfortunately)
catclub
@schrodingers_cat:
TPP?
Timurid
Backing out of the Iran deal also ends any chance of meaningful negotiations with North Korea. They won’t bother if any agreement can be reneged on without warning.
schrodingers_cat
@catclub: Yes that’s what I meant to write. Thanks for the correction.
catclub
@Tuna:
so, was the plan to route it through Iraq, Turkey AND Saudi Arabia, before it gets to Syria? Or Just Iraq – which still seems pretty hard to do.
Timurid
@schrodingers_cat:
That’s too bad, because your reports are due today.
eclare
@Timurid: Hahaha…
randy khan
@catclub:
That seems like the obvious answer. And Republicans pretty uniformly hated it from the start.
Another Scott
I’ve posted this link before, but Mattis has sounded like he’s itching to go after Iran for a bunch of stupid reasons.
It’s not just the RWNJs, it’s also (if you believe the above) the supposedly “serious” and “qualified” people in Trump’s administration.
They’re dangerous, and they’re not going to give up in trying to do whatever they want even if it make things much worse for the USA and the world.
:-(
Cheers,
Scott.
Sloane Ranger
@cmorenc: DOLTUS isn’t thinking of anything beyond the fact that Obama negotiated this so it must be destroyed.
Others around him still haven’t gotten over the humiliation of the Embassy hostages during the Revolution and want to humiliate Iran in turn.
I suspect only a small number of people (hello Lindsey Graham and John McCain) actually want a war.
Cheryl Rofer
@cmorenc: This is one of my big questions. I think, for Trump, it’s just one more thing that Obama did that he feels he has to destroy. Those pushing more intrusive inspections on the basis of no evidence, I just don’t know. Their argument is that the IAEA must enforce the agreement strictly, but their definition of “strictly” goes beyond what most people think is “strictly.” Do they have an unspoken agenda of war? I’d like not to believe that, but the likely outcome of breaking the agreement is indeed war. Their response to that, back when the agreement was being negotiated, was that it would not, but if you want to make sure Iran doesn’t get a weapon and you’ve taken away the agreement, I don’t see much alternative. There is no way a level of sanctions equivalent to what was in place pre-agreement could be imposed.
I don’t yet see evidence that Russia is directing any moves of the US government.
Cheryl Rofer
@nightranger: But there are others involved who are capable of chess and have been playing it since the agreement was negotiated.
Dmbeaster
We are no longer the leader of the free world. Whether we can regain lost leadership post Trump is uncertain. Trashing this deal, after the lying Iraq debacle, would require other nations to find their own arrangements. Their self interest requires that they not trust us. That is the consequence of deceit.
cmorenc
@Timurid:
If the goal is to destroy any possibility of future diplomatic solutions – the only end-game possible with that is seeking to use naked forceful intimidation with military assets against those countries, while also supposing neither Iran nor N Korea have means to successfully resist or retaliate against the US. In the case of N Korea, this supposition is spectacularly wrong on its face, unless we’re willing to blithely write off S Korea as collateral damage. And that we’re going to be able to sustain the necessary escalation of military action in the Middle East long enough to force sufficiently favorable, durable success (maybe thinking along the lines that Israel is still standing despite being surrounded by regional hostiles for decades) – while learning absolutely nothing from our extended, expensive misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jay C
@cmorenc:
WTH knows if there even IS any “end-game” in this awful botch of an Administration? So far, it just seems like Trump (and the Iran-hawks in the Admin) are “merely” about ramping up anti-Iranian rhetoric and (so-far limited) sanction actions in order to boost the Iran-as-Designated-World-Boogeyman narrative which The Yam has made part of his stock speechifying since he started. Hideously wrongheaded and/or counterproductive as this approach might seem, it does have (from the Administration’s viewpoint) a few points in its favor:
1. It pleases the Israelis
2. It pleases the Saudis
(the above having differing, though converging interests in limiting Iranian influence)
3. It feeds fundamental Muslim-bashing for that sector of the “Trump base” for whom that is an important factor
4. It unravels a (probably THE) major Obama-Administration foreign policy achievement: mainly just because Obama
5. It lets Trump and his toadies vilify any critics of the policy as (at the least) terrorist-sympathizers
I’m not sure actual military action is, at the moment, seriously contemplated, though. Even if for no other reason than (IIRC, Adam will probably know better) war-gaming scenarios for an Iran invasion have generally returned fairly negative outcomes for the invaders….
low-tech cyclist
@catclub:
That, and also the notion that we’re ‘appeasing’ Iran into allowing inspections, rather than bending them to our will by sheer force, or the threat of same. (IOW, same reason the Bushies pulled us out of the Agreed Framework that kept NK nuke-free for most of a decade.)
This is how the wingnuts (and Trump, of course) see the world: in terms of domination and being dominated. If we’re not taking away Iran’s and NK’s nukes by threatening to blow them off the map, then we’re wimps. It drives them nuts that we might be giving NK food aid (as we did under the Agreed Framework) or giving Iran access to money we’d frozen, in order to keep nukes out of their hands.
The fact that we can’t dominate everybody, that we might have to make some concessions to keep nukes out of the wrong hands, doesn’t seem to cross their minds.
Another Scott
@low-tech cyclist: Yup. It’s an incredibly insular view of the planet.
We have around 4.4% of the world’s population, yet they think that we can and should force everyone else to do “our” bidding for ever and ever amen.
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
schrodingers_cat
@Another Scott: Reality and T universe are not speaking terms.
montanareddog
Astonishing, isn’t it, how the Republicans are unable to deviate from the same catastrophic, ideological playbook.
Mike in NC
Trump and his dimwit followers think America must go around the world grabbing inferiors by the pussy. Lizard brained fascists.
gene108
@schrodingers_cat:
Other than pissing all over NATO, any Republican President would have fucked with the rest of your list.
The thing is, policy wise, Trump is following the standard Republican policy manual. Obamacare repeal “on day one” was something all 17 of the candidates promised. Massive tax cuts was something they all promised. Trump just proposed more obscenely massive tax cuts for the wealthy than the other Republicans thought was decent to try and to in public.
The list goes on.
How to get people to equate Trump policies as being something any Republican will do, once in office, is the real issue we are up against.
schrodingers_cat
@gene108: Neither Bush II nor any other R president in the recent past as been so reflexively anti-immigrant.
gene108
@montanareddog:
There’s that quote that goes something like don’t expect someone to report something, when they are paid not to report it.
Republicans are paid by their billionaire backers to keep doing the same thing over and over again. And are handsomely rewarded for obedience.
Mnemosyne
@low-tech cyclist:
@Another Scott:
It’s not just insular, it’s the authoritarian mindset at work: Iran and NK must do our bidding, and do it cheerfully and with no resistance, because we are the Big Daddy in charge and we demand obedience.
But Iran and NK are sovereign nations, not our goddamned children, so they’re never going to give in that way.
catclub
@Cheryl Rofer:
I distinctly remember that in contrast to the other 17 GOP dwarves, Trump was NOT saying he would revoke the agreement on day one of his admin.
All the rest were saying just that. Instead, he said he was a master of contracts and of holding opposite parties strictly to their agreement – in order to break them, naturally. This is generally what he is doing – finding excuses via excessive interpretations of the inspection clauses – in order to break the agreement.
gene108
@schrodingers_cat:
Bush II was not anti-immigrant. Bush, Jr. had some good ideas on immigration and made some reasonable changes to immigration policy, in terms of streamlining the process, within what he could do without Congressional rewrites of the law.
But the rest of the Republican Party turned on him for it.
I don’t see another Republican President trying to buck their Party and their base on immigration. Trump won, in large part, because he channeled Republican voters hatred of immigrants into votes for himself. I think that sent a message.
SiubhanDuinne
@schrodingers_cat:
And NAFTA.
Jay C
@Cheryl Rofer:
I
I hate to say it, but it sounds/reads like the “no evidence” part of the Trump Admin’s hardline Iran-bashing policy is pretty much an irrelevance. Articles like this (unfortunately) make it sound like the “policy” is already pre-determined, and that “evidence” or “facts” are either going to be twisted, falsified or simply invented to suit whatever “justification” the Administration feels it has to offer (not much, IMO).
Hopefully, this will end up short of actual war…..
Betty
I believe Netanyahu has also been stirring up the anti-Iran pot.
Ladyraxterinok
@Another Scott: Per religious right/Evangelicals US and Israel are the only nations chosen, founded, and protected by God. See John Hagee’s Israel support group, his talks/sermons and those by Jonathan Cahn, David Barton, Hal Lindsey, Jack van Impe, and guests on the Jim Bakker show.
Many have been absorbing this view of Israel for decades…AND THEY VOTE. 81% of white Evangelicals and 40% of white Catholics put Trump in WH. Your/my opinion of these views is irrelevant. It is not heard/valued in the present GOP.
J R in WV
These military geniuses have pandered to contractors for crappy equipment, and cut the budget for expert military staff to maintain and operate said crappy equipment. They still operate on the assumption that we can’t really lose a war. Iran is a big powerful country, compared to Iraq (which was unable to conquer Iran!) and especially compared to N Korea, which is so puny an economy that it’s hard for the international economics organizations to rate how small it’s output is.
But North Korea has a gun pointed at millions of innocent victims. Iran has it’s own economy, a powerful one, and may well be closer to possession of nuclear weapons than we would expect. They may “borrow” a few from their next door neighbor nuclear state, Pakistan, for example. May have already, actually.
If we attempt to conquer Iran with naval air power, I’m not convinced that Iran wouldn’t sink a fleet, or two, long before we approached defeating them. Unconventional warfare seems always to be unprepared for by our military strategists, no matter how much school of strategy they have under their hats. I have no idea what off the wall tactics the Iranians have planned, and neither does anyone else, in the emplloy of the US government or not.
But I do know they will have several strange and unexpected tactics, and that they expect one or more of them to work out well for them.
Doomed to repeat a huge snafu after only 14 years? Hell even little kids remember that history. And we still haven’t won Bush’s Second Iraqi War !! Trump will go down in history, no questions about that. For what giant Cluster Fq we don’t yet know, but we do know it’s out there.