US “Iran Nuclear Deal” Ploy Coming Full Circle

July 23, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - Hopes for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) simply known as the Iran Nuclear Deal seemed to fade further during US President Joe Biden’s recent trip to Israel where the US and Israeli governments signed a pledge to use force against Iran should it pursue nuclear weapons (weapons both the US and Israel possess).

US-based ABC News in its article, “Biden left with few options on Iran as nuclear talks stall,” would claim:

President Joe Biden made a clear promise on Iran, declaring that the country would never become a nuclear power under his watch. But during his time in the White House, the path towards upholding that promise has only become murkier.

During his trip to the Middle East, the president said he would consider using force against Iran only as a “last resort,” although Israel, the US.’s most ardent ally in the region, has pushed for the administration to issue a “credible military threat” against Tehran.

The article would mention the Iran Nuclear Deal specifically, claiming:

…while the administration initially hope to cut a “longer and stronger” deal with Iran, over a year and half of indirect negotiations has produced little movement towards restoring even the original terms of the agreement.

After a monthslong stalemate, a 9th round of talks took place in Doha, Qatar, at the end of June. A State Department spokesperson did not sugarcoat the outcome, saying “no progress was made.”

The 2018 unilateral withdrawal of America from the deal by the administration of US President Donald Trump is blamed for the deal’s failure. Yet the Trump administration’s withdrawal was predicted long before President Trump took office, and in fact, long before US President Barack Obama even signed the deal in the first place. President Biden’s recent activities are only wrapping up what was always a diplomatic ploy meant to trap Iran.

The Nuclear Deal Was Always a Trap

When President Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Deal, it was celebrated as a breakthrough in US diplomacy and a departure from the previous Bush administration’s expanding wars of aggression spanning Iraq and Afghanistan while threatening Iran next.

Signed by the United States and Iran along with other participating nations (the UK, EU, Germany, Russia, China, and France) in 2015, NBC News in their article, “What is the Iran nuclear deal?” would explain:

The Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, offered Tehran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for agreeing to curb its nuclear program.

The agreement was aimed at ensuring that “Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful.” In return, it lifted UN Security Council and other sanctions, including in areas covering trade, technology, finance and energy.

At face value, the United States imposing sanctions on Iran to impede its development of nuclear weapons was problematic. The United States is the only nation in human history to use nuclear weapons against another nation, twice. Following the 2001 US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the United States had military forces to Iran’s west and east. US hostilities toward Iran stretch back decades and the US State Department, regardless of administration, has made little secret that Washington seeks regime change in Tehran just as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Worse still, US policymakers as early as 2009 had articulated a ploy by which the US would offer Iran a “deal” before deliberately sabotaging it and using its failure as a pretext for the long sought-after regime change war the US has wanted against Iran.

The Washington DC-based Brookings Institution, funded by the largest corporate-financier interests in the Western world as well as Western governments themselves including the US through the US State Department published the 2009 paper (PDF), “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran.” In it, the Brookings Institution’s policymakers explicitly articulated options the US could pursue to achieve regime change in Iran.

These options were broken down into sections and chapters within the 170-page report and ranged from “An Offer Iran Shouldn’t Refuse: Persuasion,” to “Toppling Tehran: Regime Change,” to “Going All the Way: Invasion,” and “The Velvet Revolution: Supporting a Popular Uprising.” Everything from setting diplomatic traps to arming designated terrorist organzations were not only discussed, but in the years that followed the paper’s publication, they were implemented one after the other without success. Remaining on the long list of options are military in nature involving either the US or Israel (or both) waging war directly and openly against Iran.

All that is required before doing so is a pretext, including the “offer” the US made, but Iran “refused.”

“An Offer Iran Shouldn’t Refuse”

Under “Chapter 1” titled, “An Offer Iran Shouldn’t Refuse: Persuasion,” Brookings policymakers would explain (emphasis added):

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it.

The paper then laid out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran’s betrayal of a “very good deal” as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added):

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

The Iran Nuclear Deal was doomed before it was ever signed. It was conceived wholly as a pretext for war, not as a diplomatic solution to avoid it.

False Hope Spanning Multiple US Presidencies

In many ways, Iran would be foolish not to create a sufficient military deterrence against US aggression, including the development of nuclear weapons if necessary. However, Iran nonetheless agreed to the nuclear deal’s terms and until the US unilaterally abandoned the deal in 2018, abided by it.

In fact, following the US withdrawal from the deal, Iran continued abiding by many of its conditions alongside its other signatories in the vain hope that under a new US administration it could be salvaged.

When US President Joe Biden took office, the obvious first step by Washington should have been to unconditionally rejoin the deal by removing sanctions, followed by Iran’s renewed and full compliance to the deal’s conditions. Yet the US demanded Iranian compliance first before even agreeing to negotiate Washington’s return to the deal.

It was clear long before President Obama’s signature was inked on the deal’s documents that the US would sabotage it, blame Iran, then pursue renewed and expanded aggression against Iran directly, by proxy, or both. President Trump in 2018 took advantage of America’s domestic politics and the perceived notion that US “Republicans” seek a harder line versus Iran in order to abandon the deal. Because of President Trump’s perceived trait as an “outsider” both to his own party and wider US politics, the US could shift the blame squarely on his administration. Yet the continuity of this ploy across presidential administrations is evident by the fact that upon coming into office, President Biden did not immediately and unconditionally return the US to the deal’s framework.

Instead, President Biden’s administration prevented America’s return to the deal by creating unreasonable preconditions placed entirely upon Iran. With President Biden’s statement in Israel coupled with a recent claim made by US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan that Iran is preparing to supply Russia with drones, the US is closing the door on the deal indefinitely.

Further evidence of continuity between US administrations can be seen throughout the US-led destabilization, invasion, and occupation of Syria. The campaign was meant as one of several prerequisites laid out by the Brookings Institution’s experts in 2009 before attempting regime change against Iran directly. Ironically, as the Obama administration appeared reconciliatory toward Iran by signing the Iran Nuclear Deal, the same administration presided over the devastating proxy war targeting Iran’s key ally in the region, Syria.

Support of US aggression in Syria transcended presidencies, from the Bush administration who set the stage for it, to the Obama administration who presided over the opening phases of hostilities and occupation, to the Trump and now Biden administrations who have perpetuated a US military presence in Syria along with a policy of denying Syria its key fuel and food production regions in the east to block reconstruction. US foreign policy toward Syria and Iran should not be interpreted separately. The fate of both nations is entwined and illustrates the wider agenda the US is pursuing in the region and has been for decades regardless of US administration.

Barring a fundamental reordering of both American foreign policy objectives and a reordering of the special interests driving them, the Iran Nuclear Deal’s prospects of success will only fade further in the distance. While Tehran’s patience is admirable, Iran and its allies must prepare for the inevitable hostilities that will follow US blame against Tehran for “undermining” a deal the US never had any intention of honoring in the first place.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US 'Airstrike Diplomacy' Continues in Syria-Iraq

July 3, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - On June 27, 2021 the US carried out additional strikes against targets along the Syrian-Iraqi border. The attacks were condemned by both the Syrian and Iraqi governments and represent not only a dangerous escalation by American military aggression in the region, but the continuation of US aggression in the Middle East spanning two decades regardless of who occupies the White House or Congress. 

A US Department of Defense statement dated June 27, 2021 regarding the US strikes would claim: 

At President Biden's direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region. he targets were selected because these facilities are utilized by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq.

The statement would also claim: 

We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of assisting the Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS.

And that: 

As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense. The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope. As a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq.

While "assisting Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS" is the official excuse for US forces remaining in Iraq - the truth is that US forces have occupied Iraq illegally since the US-led invasion in 2003 which was deemed very much illegal by the UN. 

 

A 2004 Guardian article titled, Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan," would note: 

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.

And despite claims that the US is in Iraq “at the invitation of the Government of Iraq” in a bid to justify its military aggression, the government of Iraq itself has unequivocally condemned the US strikes as a violation of the nation’s sovereignty. 

The New York Times in a June 28, 2021 article titled, “Iraq Condemns U.S. Airstrikes on Iran-Backed Militias,” would report: 

The Iraqi government on Monday condemned U.S. airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias near the Iraqi-Syrian border, and one of the targeted paramilitary groups vowed “open war” against American interests in Iraq.

The New York Times also notes that the militias targeted by the US and characterized as “Iranian-backed” are actually “on the [Iraqi] government payroll.” 

Not mentioned by the New York Times is that these militias played a key role in the defeat of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) in both Iraq and neighboring Syria. The New York Times mentions the US assassination of General Qassim Suleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, which - under General Suleimani’s leadership - also played a key role in the defeat of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. 

General Suleimani was also in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government when the US carried out air strikes to assassinate the Iranian military commander. 

Washington’s claims of maintaining its military occupation of Iraq to “assist” in defeating ISIS is contradicted by its campaign of violence against Iraq’s Iranian allies who are likewise assisting in the defeat of extremist forces - not only in Iraq - but also in neighboring Syria. 

Unlike the US, however, Iran is not allied with ISIS’ key state sponsors. In 2016, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a leaked e-mail would mention key US allies - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - by name as providing “clandestine financial and logistical support” to ISIS and “other radical Sunni groups in the region.” 

Of course, the US itself was also funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping extremist groups fighting alongside Al Qaeda and ISIS. 

An August 2017 New York Times article titled, “Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria,” would mention reports that:

...some of the C.I.A.-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda further sapped political support for the program. 

The same article would claim that extremist organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda “often fought alongside the C.I.A.-backed rebels” and admitted that by the end of the US program these extremist organizations dominated the so-called opposition in Syria. 

Had the US been genuinely funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping moderate rebels to the tune of billions of dollars, who was funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping extremists even more - allowing them to eventually displace US-backed rebels on Syria’s battlefields?

The answer is that there never were any moderate rebels to begin with. The US set out arming extremist forces deliberately as part of its proxy war against Damascus. 

As early as 2007, journalists like Seymour Hersh in his article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” would expose Washington’s preparations to do exactly that, warning (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. 

Thus it is clear that not only did the United States give rise to Al Qaeda and ISIS across the region  and specifically in Syria and Iraq, it did so deliberately. It is using the threat of extremism it and its regional allies sponsored to begin with as a pretext to remain in the region militarily and as a smokescreen behind which it is carrying out an escalating campaign of aggression against Iraq and Syria’s allies who actually aided in Al Qaeda and ISIS’ defeat. 

The US attempts to cite international and US domestic laws in a bid to depict its ongoing aggression as “self-defense” regarding US forces stationed thousands of miles from American shores and who are in the Middle East as a direct result of an illegal war of aggression predicated two decades ago on deliberately fabricated accusations of “weapons of mass destruction” Washington claimed the Iraqi government possessed at the time. 

Today, the US is attacking militias paid by the Iraqi government - attacks protested loudly by the Iraqi government - all while claiming the US presence within Iraqi territory is “at the invitation of the Government of Iraq.” 

This ongoing US aggression along the Iraqi-Syrian border is a dangerous illustration of how despite claiming US forces are essential for stability and security in the region, the US is in fact the primary driving force of instability and a constant threat to security across the Middle East. It also illustrates how much more work Syria, Iraq, and their actual allies have ahead of them in both eliminating extremists the US simultaneously sponsors and claims to be fighting, and pushing out the United States’ otherwise perpetual military occupation of the region without triggering a war with a nuclear-armed aggressor.. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

A Decade On: West's War on Syria Continues

June 3, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - As Syrian elections approached, the US, France, and Germany  worked together to undermine them.  This was not because they truly believed the elections weren't “free and fair,” but simply because there is no possibility for their client regime of choice to come to power. 

This is despite these same Western nations - hand-in-hand - lecturing the world about “democracy,” and using its alleged "lacking" as a pretext to interfere in the affairs of nations worldwide. 

The true irony is - even as the UN condemns pressure placed on Syrian voters by factions in Lebanon - the UN appears reluctant to condemn similar pressure or outright restrictions the West is placing on Syrians to likewise inhibit their ability to vote. 

AP in an article titled, "Lebanese attack Syrian voters in sign of growing resentment," 

UNHCR said it received reports of intimidation and pressure, according to Lisa Abou Khaled, a spokesperson for the agency, adding that the agency was looking into it “to ensure that refugees are free to decide whether or not to vote.”

The same AP article would claim: 

France and Germany banned any voting at Syrian missions in their country, with a French Foreign Ministry official saying the elections are “null and void” and there is no point in holding them.

No mention is made by AP about what the UNHCR has said - if anything - about outright restrictions on voting placed on Syrians residing in France and Germany - restrictions that surely infringe on Syrian refugees and their right to decide "whether or not to vote." 

Despite these Western nations posing as self-appointed global arbiters of what is and isn't a legitimate election - democracy is a process of self-determination and for Syrians that means a process determined by and for Syrians - not the foreign ministries of France and Germany and certainly not the US State Department. 

Ten Years On: The West's War on Syria Continues

Ten years on since the US launched its proxy regime change war against Syria - the Western media continues claiming the ongoing conflict is a "civil war." 

It is this fundamental lie that is used to not only justify the latest round of suppressing Syrian voters, but Western intervention in Syria altogether. 

AP would claim: 

Syria has been engulfed in civil war since 2011, when Arab Spring-inspired protests against the Assad family rule turned into an armed insurgency in response to a brutal military crackdown.

Yet since as early as 2011 the Western media has piecemeal admitted to the US-engineered nature of both the so-called "Arab Spring" and the fact that the war in Syria was driven by US-armed militants flooding into the country, not "rising up" from within. 

The New York Times in a 2011 article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," would admit: 

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

The same article would also admit that many of the "youth leaders" involved in the initial protests had been trained and backed by US tech firms like Google and Facebook as well as the US State Department itself since as early as 2008. 

As early as 2012, not even a year into the conflict, the Western media was regularly admitting to the scale of US support for armed militants fighting the Syrian government and the fact that militant leadership, training programs, and the shipment of arms was being done beyond Syria's borders - not within them. 

Reuters in its 2012 article, "Obama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels," would admit:

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.

The article also admitted, regarding Turkey: 

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.

This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

Thus it is abundantly clear that Syria's conflict was never an actual civil war. It was a war on Damascus, waged by the US through armed proxies including both foreign fighters and extremists based in Syria. 

A decade on, the West makes it clear that "regime change" is still on the agenda, refusing to allow peace and stability to return to the country. To this day, the US is still militarily occupying Syria's eastern territory, territory essential for wheat and oil production. The US also maintains crippling economic sanctions specifically tailored to prevent reconstruction. 

The West is still also insisting on a so-called "political solution," which means sidestepping the will of the Syrian people through elections - and simply forcing President Bashar Al-Assad from power.

For the Syrian people - and no matter how serious the situation still is in Syria itself - it is clear that President Bashar Al-Assad's leadership, his relationship with allies like Iran and Russia, and the institutions surrounding his government - the Syrian Arab Army in particular - are responsible for preventing Syria from suffering the much worse fate of other nations targeted by the US-engineered "Arab Spring" in 2011 - including Libya and Yemen.  

It is most likely this reason more than anything else that ensures President Assad's continuation in power - and this reason being precisely why the West, who seeks to divide and destroy Syria, wants President Assad removed from power. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

Israel: Empire's Apex Provocateur

May 26, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - In the wake of Israel’s latest campaign of aggression - it is important to keep an eye on the much larger picture this decades-long conflict fits into.

For a more in-depth discussion, see this long-format talk between Brian Berletic and Angelo Giuliano - which goes into the history of Israel and the wider geopolitical context its decades of regional belligerence fits into. 

Brian Berletic, formally known under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci" is a geopolitical researcher, writer, and video producer (YouTube here, Odysee here, and BitChute here) based in Bangkok, Thailand. He is a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook and more recently, 21st Century Wire. You can support his work via Patreon here.

America's Predictable Betrayal of the 'Iran Nuclear Deal'

April 10, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - Despite campaign promises made by now US President Joe Biden to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal - Washington's return to the deal has predictably stalled. 

In February 2021, AP would report in its article, "Biden repudiates Trump on Iran, ready for talks on nuke deal," that: 

The Biden administration says it’s ready to join talks with Iran and world powers to discuss a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, in a sharp repudiation of former President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” that sought to isolate the Islamic Republic.

The US had unilaterally withdrawn from the 2015-2016 deal brokered under the Obama-Biden administration in 2018 under US President Donald Trump. The deal was deemed "defective" and much more stringent conditions were demanded by the US with crushing economic sanctions under a policy of "maximum pressure" imposed until Iran capitulated. 

Despite Biden's attempts to distinguish his administration from Trump's, his promise to return to the deal was conditional, requiring Iran to recommit to the deal's conditions before the US lifts sanctions - and only after additional conditions are discussed - and until then, sanctions and other mechanisms of political pressure will be applied to Tehran. 

In other words - Biden's policy is exactly the same policy pursued by the Trump administration. 

Desire to Overturn "Trump's Policy" an Admission it was the Wrong Policy 

Biden's apparent desire to return to the table with Iran is in itself an admission that the Trump administration's decision to leave the deal was a mistake. 

The US - as self-proclaimed leader of the international community - would be expected to demonstrate good leadership by not only admitting to its mistakes, but assuming responsibility for them - returning to the Iran Nuclear Deal unconditionally and approaching additional concerns only after the original terms of the deal were back in place - with Iran in full compliance, and US sanctions lifted as promised under the original agreement. 

Iran has every motivation to come in full compliance with the original agreement should sanctions be lifted - as it had in good faith complied before the US withdrawal in 2018. And while Iran has rolled back several of its commitments - it has not taken any steps yet which are not easily reversible. It is a signal from Tehran that it still desires to engage - but not without leverage. 

It was the US - not Iran - who unilaterally withdrew from the deal, breaking its conditions and endangering the deal's future. Iran would be remiss if it returned to the negotiation table in full compliance to the deal, with no leverage, and sitting across from the US who has so far acted in bad faith at every critical juncture throughout previous negotiations. 

A Deal Meant to Be Broken... 

The disparity between Washington's words and its actions should come as no surprise however - especially considering that US foreign policy is not the product of the White House or even the Capitol - but rather corporate-funded policy think tanks chaired by special interests who transcend US elections. 

It is worth repeating that a 2009 policy paper produced by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," detailed plans to lure Iran in with a deal related to its nuclear technology, accuse Iran of rejecting it, and thus serving as a pretext for further US aggression up to and including the invasion of Iran by military force. 

The paper explicitly stated that (emphasis added): 

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 

The paper then laid out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran's betrayal of a "very good deal" as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added): 

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

In 2009 when these words were originally published it might have been difficult to imagine just how literally and overtly the US would attempt to execute this ploy against Tehran. 

Yet in hindsight it is clear that the administration of US President Barack Obama (with Biden as Vice President) disingenuously offered this deal to Iran with full knowledge it would be betrayed in the near future - and was under Trump - with attempts to sabotage the deal further clearly underway by the Biden administration. 

While the Biden administration repeatedly claims it wants to return to the deal, it has created conditions it knows Iran will never accept while simultaneously carrying out a series of provocative military strikes across the Middle East against militias backed by Iran combating dangerous extremism within the borders of Iran's closest regional allies. 

The 2009 Brookings paper also noted Israel's role as provocateur - nominating Israel to carry out strikes on Iranian targets in the hopes of provoking an Iranian retaliation the US could use as a pretext for wider war. 

We can see the US and Israel both engaged in attempts to escalate towards just such a scenario. 

While occupants in the White House have changed three times now - a singular, belligerent US policy towards Iran - as laid out by the Brookings Institution's 2009 paper - has remained unchanged and faithfully pursued for over a decade now. 

The world now teeters upon a dangerous inflection point where the US finds itself out of excuses to delay returning to the deal and the window closing to "credibly" blame Iran for the deal's failure. The political momentum of Washington's accusations will fade fast and require expedient provocations to see this policy through to its end - or risk missing an opportune pretext for war and the required international "sympathy" needed to successfully execute it. 

Iran has been and will need to continue avoiding these provocations, demonstrating its commitment to peace and stability in the region and distinguishing itself from the tactics, strategies, and agendas of the US and its regional allies. It must do all of this while also sustaining its economy under the extreme pressure of US sanctions and with the absolute necessity to ultimately address Iran's national security against obvious threats within and along its borders. 

Another important point to make when describing the negotiation table and the context it sits within - is the fact that US forces illegally occupy nations to the east and west of Iran's borders as well as one of Iran's closest regional allies - Syria. 

US expectations that Iran obediently return to the table in full compliance to the original Nuclear Deal - across from the very nation responsible for its near total collapse - and a nation whose military - thousands of miles from its own shores occupies nations on either side of Iran's borders - are not reasonable. That the Western media - a reflection of Washington's actual agenda - attempts to portray this otherwise, gives a full sense to just how broad and deep the ill-faith is the US comes to these negotiations with.

Finally - Europe - also involved in the Nuclear Deal - needs to decide between peace, stability, and the economic benefits of working with Iran into the future - or continued capitulation to its Transatlantic partner, a continuously destabilized Middle East, and the prospect of a catastrophic war between the US and its allies against Iran. 

Russia and China will play key roles in stacking the deck in favor of Europe's siding with the former over the latter - and this stacking has been ongoing. But whether it will be enough to back the US off the warpath once and for all and begin its irreversible withdrawal from hitherto perpetual war and occupation across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia - only time will tell. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

The Greater Danger of Israeli Provocations in Syria

February 19, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - Continued airstrikes carried out by Israeli warplanes in Syria presents - at face value - an obvious and persistent threat to Syria. In a wider context, the threat runs much deeper and extends to Syria's allies in Tehran. 

Israel has been an eager participant in the US-led proxy war on Syria beginning in 2011. It has provided safe-haven and support for Western-backed militants along and within its borders. It has also at various junctures carried out airstrikes in Syria in a bid to impede Damascus' ability to reestablish peace and stability within Syria's borders. 

And according to US policy papers written before and after the beginning of the 2011 proxy war against Syria - Washington had long ago slated Israel a role in undermining and aiding in the overthrow of the Syrian government - and admittedly as part of a wider strategy to isolate and eventually target Iran. 

The most likely current goal is to continue ratcheting up tensions with Iran - a nation that has committed significant resources and manpower toward the goal of stabilizing Syria and ending the highly destructive conflict. 

As tensions continue to rise across the region, Israel and its backers in Washington will likely seek a pretext for Israel to strike Iran directly - a plan US policymakers had devised as early as 2009 - in the hopes Iran would retaliate and provide a wider pretext still for the US itself to intervene. 

US policymakers had noted that an Israeli-led first strike on Iran would be complicated by its problematic relationship with all the nations its warplanes would need to fly over in order to carry out the attack. 

But recently - efforts have been underway to "repair" those relations, paving the way - or in this case - opening the skies for - the long-planned Israeli strikes. 

Articles like the New York Times', "Morocco Joins List of Arab Nations to Begin Normalizing Relations With Israel," would take note of this process and how nations like Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates have all begun this process - and how these first few nations would help make it easier for others - like Saudi Arabia - to follow suit. 

In reality - these nations have all been cooperative in abetting US foreign policy in the region - with animosity created merely for the purpose of managing public perception in each respective nation. 

Folding Israel into Washington's united front against Iran alongside Arab nations whose public rhetoric depicted Israel as a sworn enemy illustrates just how desperate Washington and its allies have become in their efforts to reassert themselves in the region. 

The Long History of Israel's Slated Role 

A 1983 document - part of a deluge of recently declassified papers released to the public - signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, "Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria" (PDF), states (their emphasis):

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf -- through closure of Iraq's pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. 

The report also states:

If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further. 

In 2009, US corporate-financier funded policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, would publish a lengthy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran" (PDF), in which, once again, the use of Israel as an apparently "unilateral aggressor" was discussed in detail.

A US policy paper describing planned Israeli aggression as part of a larger US-driven conspiracy to attack, undermine, and ultimately overthrow the Iranian state reveals there is nothing unilateral at all about Israel's regional policy or its military operations.

In 2012, the Brookings Institution would publish another paper titled, ""Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change" (PDF), which stated:

Some voices in Washington and Jerusalem are exploring whether Israel could contribute to coercing Syrian elites to remove Asad. 

The report continues by explaining:

Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. 

Once again, the use of Israel as one of several regional provocateurs executing policy as part of a larger US-orchestrated conspiracy is openly discussed.

And it was a 2009 Brookings Institution paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," that would spell out the strategy of having Israel carry out attacks first, provoking a war the US could wade in later with a broader and more "acceptable" pretext to do so. 

The paper would state specifically: 

...the [Israeli] airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion). 

Thus - in addition to the US itself trying to provoke Iran into a war - or stage a provocation themselves to do so - they have slated Israel a role in attempting to provoke Iran as well. 

The strategy has added complexity to it - providing the US additional "plausible deniability" and making its "retaliation" against Iran appear both more "reluctant" and more "justified." 

It is clear that a strategy described in the 1980's, clearly carried out over the decades (and regardless of who occupies the White House) is still very much in play. 

The US is helping open up the skies for this long-anticipated Israeli first strike through this current "normalization" of relations between Israel and nations it may potentially overfly to strike Iran or require assistance from in any resulting war.

Meanwhile, the US continues attempting to appear interested in returning to the "Iran Nuclear Deal" but is making no tangible efforts to actually do so. In fact, the US itself appears to be continuing a build-up for the above mentioned "retaliation" it hopes it or its allies can provoke in the region - and failing that - perhaps convincingly stage. 

It is very much still a dangerous time for Iran as well as for peace and stability in the region. 

Despite the superficial political change in Washington this year, this long-planned policy of aggressive regime change against Iran continues. The clearer the game the US and its allies are playing becomes to international audiences - the more difficult it will be for the US and its allies to continue playing it. 

It is incumbent upon alternative media - both independent and state-run - to raise awareness of this continued aggression and planned aggression against Iran - while nations interested in peace and stability in the region continue working to raise the costs of potential US-Israeli aggression against Iran far above any potential benefit Washington and its allies believe they will receive by continuing to pursue it. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Iran's Warning to US-funded Agitators

January 19, 2021 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - CNN would report in its article, "Iran executes dissident journalist Rouhollah Zam," Iran's swift and severe punishment for what the American media company suggested was "alleged attempts to overthrow" the Iranian government. 

CNN glosses over Iran's claims that Zam and his media operation helped incite deadly violence during protests targeting the Iranian government in 2017 and 2018 and instead cites Western government and corporate foundation-funded "rights" groups who condemned the execution. 

Near the end of the article, CNN briefly mentions Fars News Agency which detailed the security operation Iran carried out to capture Zam in France and bring him back to face justice in its article, "Riot Provocateur Rouhollah Zam Executed." 

Fars News Agency also provided details omitted in the CNN article including mention of Zam's Telegram group for "Amad News" with which he and those working with him promoted unrest including violence. Fars News Agency also noted Zam's ties to Western governments who were backing his work. 

And while the Western media portrays Iran's claims and charges against Zam as somehow embellished or disproportionate in the wake of his execution - the Western media had previously admitted as much about Zam and his activities in Iran themselves. 

In a 2018 Daily Beast article titled, "The App Powering the Uprising in Iran, Where Some Channels Pushed for Violence," it would admit that Zam ran "Amad News" and that (emphasis added): 

Two channels on the encrypted messaging app Telegram, Amad News and Restart, have become major players in Iranian political discourse in recent weeks. The best-known figure associated with Amad News is Ruhollah Zam, while Restart is run by Mohammad Hosseini. Both channels have been accused of inciting violence.

Then managers of Amad News announced that the person responsible for encouraging violence had been fired.

The Daily Beast even admits that Zam - as well as fellow agitator Hosseini - had both been involved in the US State Department's Voice of America media platform, admitting (emphasis added): 

In recent months, the Restart group has gained support from the Bayan Media Network, the director of which is Bijan Farhoodi who used to work with the Voice of America (VOA). Also, the program Last Page on VOA TV network, which is hosted by Mehdi Falahati, has frequently invited Ruhollah Zam on its broadcasts. There is no evidence that this proves a systematic connection between them, but what is clear is that Restart and Amad have succeeded in securing powerful platforms for their agendas.  

While the Daily Beast - even in 2018 - tried to downplay the significance of Zam's media operation inciting violence, undermining the Iranian government, and promoting unrest all while appearing on US government-funded media networks - US policymakers themselves have admitted in detailed policy papers that this would be precisely the plan used by the US government to overthrow the government of Iran. 

US Plans for Iranian Regime Change 

The 2009 Brookings Institution paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," would extensively lay out this plan under chapter 6 titled, "Supporting a Popular Uprising." 

Under this chapter, Brookings policymakers would explain (emphasis added): 

The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up." Beyond this, U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership.

US plans to engineer an uprising are clearly meant to be combined with military and economic pressure - two components at odds with international law and which represent a constant existential threat to Iran's leadership and population. The deaths of Iranian generals and scientists in recent months highlights how real US regime change efforts are and the life and death struggle Iran finds itself in.

Zam's Execution in Context: Iran's Existential Threat

Iran is surrounded by nations - Iraq and Afghanistan - currently occupied by US military forces who have killed tens of thousands in both nations, displaced millions, and have created enduring sociopolitical and economic hardship all along Iran's borders. The US openly aspires to do likewise within Iran's borders. 

Zam's involvement in this plan would clearly implicate him in acts of treason - treason defined by Merriam-Webster as: (noun) the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance - and treason unforgivable considering the outcomes of similar US-backed regime change operations in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Without this context - the Western media deliberately attempts not only to cover up what Zam did to Iran, its government, and its people, but is at the same time attempting to further advance US regime change efforts against Iran by portraying the nation as a brutal regime rather than a government determined to prevent its own people from suffering the same fate as Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently, Libya and Syria. 

For Iran, the message sent by Zam's execution is clear - those involved in US-backed regime change in Iran - efforts aimed at destroying Iran in the same manner the US has destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria in - will pay the ultimate price and the West's promises of protection, profits, and fame are not guarantees. 

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

References: 

CNN - Iran executes dissident journalist Rouhollah Zam:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/12/middleeast/iran-execution-journalist-rouhollah-zam-intl/index.html

Fars News Agency - Riot Provocateur Rouhollah Zam Executed: 

https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/13990922000130/Ri-Prvcaer-Rhllah-Zam-Execed

Daily Beast - The App Powering the Uprising in Iran, Where Some Channels Pushed for Violence: 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-app-powering-the-uprising-in-iran

Brookings Institution - Which Path to Persia?, Chapter 6: Supporting a Popular Uprising (page 103, PDF): https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

Iran Prepares Next Satellite Launch

January 12, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The Iranian Space Agency (ISA) is preparing the launch of another satellite into orbit, the Zafar 2, which is described by Tehran Times as being capable of "taking color photos and [surveying] oil reserves, mines, forests, and natural lands." 

This capability can be used for monitoring seasonal environmental changes as well as for creating detailed maps.

Zafar 2 has been developed entirely within Iran by the Iranian University of Science and Industry.  

Zafar 2's predecessor failed to reach orbit, but Iran has previously, successfully launched satellites to orbit including Omid in 2009, Rasad in 2011 and Navid in 2012.

Iran's current satellite launch vehicles consist of the Safir and Safir-2 rockets, the latter of which is also referred to as Simorgh. 

These are considered as small-lift orbital launch vehicles or small launch vehicles (SLVs) comparable to Rocket Lab's Electron, Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology's Start-1, Orbital Sciences Corporation's Minotaur I, China's Long March 6 and Long March 11 as well as Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's (JAXA) Epsilon and the European Space Agency's (ESA) Vega. 

Why this is Important

Iran now belongs to an exclusive club of nations capable of building and launching vehicles and payloads into orbit.  This small club includes Russia, the US, France, Japan, the UK, India, Israel, Ukraine, and North Korea. Many of these nations have previously developed the ability to send payloads into space but are not currently continuing to do so, meaning Iran belongs to a much more exclusive club still. 

Iran has achieved this despite immense economic, political and military pressure from the US and its allies. This pressure manifests itself in the form of intense and enduring economic sanctions, political subversion and even covert and semi-covert military operations. 

Iran's scientific community and military leadership are regularly targeted with assassinations and Iran's industrial infrastructure often suffers from "mysterious" accidents including fires and explosions. 

And still Iran is capable of operating a functioning and active space program able to build both launch vehicles and practical satellites for further enhancing Iran's economic, military and scientific capabilities. 

It is a reflection of a wider Iranian economy that has, because of US sanctions, become increasingly self-sufficient and resilient. 

And while Iran's space program is sometimes dismissed as merely political posturing or accused of being cover for a clandestine weapons program capable of delivering nuclear warheads at wider ranges, there is an obvious economic benefit for cultivating a space program with capable small-lift orbital launch vehicles. 

It is true that several other rockets in this category were developed from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), but it is also true that these missiles were developed into commercial launch vehicles to exploit a growing market need for putting small satellites into orbit. 

The orbital launch market is expanding in all dimensions, including small-lift orbital launch demand. 

Market Watch in a report titled, "Small-lift Launch Vehicle Market : Global Industry brief Analysis by Top Countries Data, Market Size, Future Prospects And Outlook 2021-2024 with Remarkable Growth Rate," would note: 

The small-lift launch vehicle market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 12% from 53.1 million USD in 2016 to reach 105.3 million USD by 2022 in Asia-Pacific market. The small-lift launch vehicle market is very concerted market; there are only top six players in Asia-Pacific.

With or without continued sanctions, a reliable small-lift orbital launch vehicle developed by Iran could not only allow Iran to build up its own orbital infrastructure aiding the Iranian economy in communications, navigation and imagery, but could also offer other nations without space programs launch services just as ESA, JAXA, Roscosmos and private operators like Rocket Lab do.

It is unlikely that this will happen any time soon, but developing such capabilities takes time and resources, and Iran is investing both toward what will be an eventual reality. 

It is reasonable to assume that Iran's space program, as it gains experience and develops domestic rocket and satellite technology, will move into heavier payloads both within the small-lift orbital launch category and beyond. Again, this will further enhance Iran's economy, but also offer potential partners and customers a wider variety of launch services. 

An Iran free of US sanctions, or at least an Iran in a multipolar world where US sanctions increasingly have little impact, is a nation that can convert its nascent space program into both a powerful means of enhancing its existing economic activity, as well as become a potential launch service to create new economic activity.  

As we witness the US fade globally and its ability to impose itself on nations worldwide diminishes, the day where nations can freely deal with Iran may come sooner than later. Not only will this alleviate economic pressure on Iran and make available more resources to develop its domestic space program's capabilities, but it will allow the Iranian space program to benefit from technology from other nations  as well. 

Iran currently has several unfinished space-related projects and dormant partnerships with other nations both in Europe and across Eurasia, all put in stasis because of US pressure. Were Iran and its potential partners able to move around this pressure, these projects and partnerships, and much more, could move forward once again. 

Iran is a nascent space-faring nation with the potential to join others in the near future, where the Iranian Space Agency is no longer merely demonstrating technology and launching basic payloads into orbit, but able to compete in and benefit commercially from emerging markets amid this new space race. 

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

References: 

AMN News - Iran’s 2nd satellite is ready for launch despite US criticism: 
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/irans-2nd-satellite-is-ready-for-launch-despite-us-criticism/
Tehran Times - All-Iranian environmental satellite unveiled:
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/444317/All-Iranian-environmental-satellite-unveiled
Market Watch - Small-lift Launch Vehicle Market : Global Industry brief Analysis by Top Countries Data, Market Size, Future Prospects And Outlook 2021-2024 with Remarkable Growth Rate: 
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/small-lift-launch-vehicle-market-global-industry-brief-analysis-by-top-countries-data-market-size-future-prospects-and-outlook-2021-2024-with-remarkable-growth-rate-2020-12-25

Dangerous Provocations Ahead for Iran

December 9, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The recent assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been framed by an almost gleeful Western media as an attempt to ensure incoming US President Joe Biden does not return to the so-called "Iran Nuclear Deal" signed while he was Vice President in 2015. 

The story goes that Biden had hoped to return the US back to a prominent leadership role upon the global stage and that making peace with Iran was among his priorities. 

There was a rush by the Western media to blame the Israeli government - who in turn appears to be in no rush to discount or disprove these accusations. The purpose of this is to make the US appear uninvolved in the recent escalation. The race to shape public opinion and depict the US as helpless amid growing tensions between Israel and Iran is meant to make any possible US involvement in the near future look uninvited, unplanned, and reluctant on Washington's part.  

However, the goal of undermining and overthrowing the Iranian government has been an obsession for US foreign policy for decades - spanning multiple presidencies including that of Barack Obama's. 

US policymakers have - since as early as 2009 - specifically laid out plans to use these sort of tactics to move the US and its allies further toward conflict with Iran - and to do so in a way to minimize to make Iran - not the US - look like the aggressor.  

Those holding their breath, waiting for President-elect Joe Biden to reverse the dangerous course US foreign policy is on forget who - for 8 years as Vice President - helped steer it in this direction in the first place. 

While the Obama-Biden administration did indeed sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - or the Iran Nuclear Deal - at the same time the US instigated the still-ongoing proxy war against Syria - Iran's closest regional ally - and a proxy war designed specifically to remove one of Iran's key allies from the equation before more directly confronting Iran itself. In many ways the US presence in Iraq and its role in the ongoing Saudi war with Yemen also serve this purpose. 

The "Iran Nuclear Deal" Was Doomed Years Before it was Signed

Despite the Obama-Biden administration's seemingly enthusiastic desire for peace with Iran, the JCPOA was doomed before it was ever signed.

The peace overtures made by the US government at that time were purely for show - part of a plan devised years before the deal was even publicly discussed and long before it was ever signed. 

The Brookings Institution - funded by the largest Western corporate interests on Earth - in a 2009 paper (PDF) titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," had not only called for the US to disingenuously offer Iran an opportunity to escape from under US sanctions, but admitted that the offer would be deliberately sabotaged by the US and used as a pretext toward further escalation.

The document included statements like this (emphasis added): 

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) 

The Brookings document also proposed: 

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Creating the deal, sabotaging it, and using it as a pretext to pursue military aggression against Iran was always the plan - long before the JCPOA was ever signed. 

The 2009 Brookings document - at over 200 pages long - also laid out the framework one can clearly see the US and its allies followed ever since it was published - including attempts to remove Iran's allies - Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon from the equation - before more direct action could be taken on Iran itself as well as the use of Israel to carry out aspects of the plan the US could not afford to do politically.  

In one way or another - virtually everything laid out in  the Brookings document has been implemented or at least attempted. 

This most recent escalation was predictable. Recently, articles like "“Biden’s America” Will Continue Pressure on Iran," noted that peace with Iran was never part of America's foreign policy - whether it was "Trump's" America or "Biden's" America. 

All that was required was a provocation and escalation that would appear to "drag" the US "reluctantly" away from allegedly desired "peace" the Western media had claimed Biden prioritized upon coming to office. 

With the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the dominoes have already begun to fall to that end. Dangerous times lay ahead for Iran and for the Western public who face the possibility of being dragged into another disastrous war - proxy or otherwise - in the Middle East. All that's left to move this policy forward is a provocation from Iran - a provocation real or staged - the US can cite to involve itself more directly with a compliant Western media eagerly waiting to once again play its role in supporting that involvement.   

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.