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”.

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”.  

West's Information War Continues

April 8, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - YouTube has recently deleted the latest channel used by Iranian state media's PressTV. The move follows attacks on the Iranian media outlet by US-based social media giant Facebook earlier this year. 

PressTV's own take on the deletion in its article, "Google renews attack on YouTube account of Iran’s Press TV," would note: 

Google has for the seventh time targeted Iranian broadcaster Press TV, blocking the English-language news network’s access to its official YouTube account without any prior notice.

The US tech giant shut YouTube accounts of Press TV late on Tuesday, citing "violations of community guidelines."

Iranian state media is only the most recent target of US censorship and information warfare, with YouTube, Facebook and Twitter having also recently de-platformed government accounts in Myanmar as well as a concerted effort by these same networks to either de-platform or undermine the credibility of Russian and Chinese state media.  

The use of ambiguous justifications like "violations of community guidelines" which themselves can be ambiguous and open to interpretation, helps demonstrate the political nature of what is clearly a campaign of censorship. 

YouTube and other US-based social media platforms, still dominating the global social media industry, attempt to portray targets of what is clearly politically-motivated censorship as "fake news" or somehow engaged in dangerous "disinformation," while the accounts of Western-based media organizations actually involved in very real disinformation, often times in promotion of sanctions and warfare having a direct impact on millions of lives, remain online and in good standing. 

Western Monopoly Challenged 

Beyond social media, the UK had recently ousted Chinese state media, CGTN, which was met by Beijing in turn shutting down BBC broadcasts in China. 

More recently, China-based BBC reporter John Sudworth would flee to Taiwan, fearing legal actions for his outrageous, one-sided propaganda regarding Xinjiang.

The BBC's own article, "BBC China correspondent John Sudworth moves to Taiwan after threats," deliberately attempts to portray Sudworth as a victim of "threats" rather than a foreign agent involved in political interference under the guise of journalism finally facing legitimate legal actions. 

The BBC article laments: 

The number of international media organisations reporting from China is shrinking. Last year China expelled correspondents for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, among others.

And in September 2020, the last two reporters working in China for Australian media flew home after a five-day diplomatic standoff.

The Foreign Correspondents' Club (FCC) of China says foreign journalists are "being caught up in diplomatic rows out of their control".

In reality, these foreign "journalists" aren't being "caught up in diplomatic rows," they are the primary actors helping drive these rows. 

It's worth mentioning leaked documents revealing the BBC, among others including Reuters, signing secret contracts with the British Foreign Office to carry out influence operations both inside Russia and along Russia's peripheries in Eastern Europe. 

It is without doubt that the BBC engages in similar activities inside and along China's borders as well, with Sudworth's own work clearly aimed at advancing Western foreign policy, not investigating or reporting actual news. 

Years ago, the notion of Western nations fearing alternative media enough to engage in sweeping, transparent censorship against outlets like PressTV or CGTN, or the Western media fleeing or backpedalling in countries they've maintained offices in for years, would seem unthinkable. 

The information war waged by Western nations is indeed heating up, but it is not the one-sided exercise of monopoly it used to be. 

Today, alternative media, both state-sponsored and independent, poses a serious challenge to the West's monopoly over the creation and flow of global information. Only through the West's control over a relatively new form of media, social media, is the West's edge maintained. 

For Iranian, Chinese, Russian and the media of many other nations seeking to introduce balance to the global conversation, the West's hitherto control over social media remains a serious hurdle. 

US-based social media networks have been key to advancing Western foreign policy objectives, and perhaps especially in the realm of promoting and executing so-called "color revolutions." 

Russia and China's recent pledge to work closer together to counter Western-sponsored "color revolution" and "disinformation" might benefit from a multipolar alternative to US-based social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. 

While Russia and China both have their own domestic alternatives which have proved an effective measure to protect their own respective information space, the creation of a wider-appealing platform for nations along their peripheries, targeted by Western disinformation, could help give state-sponsored and independent alternative media the space it needs to finally balance out the lopsided advantage the West artificially maintains through censorship across its own networks.

The creation of both sovereign information space within nations and shared space between nations but outside of the control of Western censorship would be infinitely useful. When long-standing media organizations like PressTV struggle to reach audiences for a lack of alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the utility of such space becomes clearer still. 

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst 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”. 

Assassination of Iranian Scientist brings US-Israel Closer to War with Iran

November 29, 2020 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Reports on the death of senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh signals another dangerous turn in Washington's systematic attempts to undermine and overthrow the current government of Iran.  

The Western media is framing the assassination as a unilateral operation carried out by Israel with the New York Times in an article titled, "Assassination in Iran Could Limit Biden’s Options. Was That the Goal?," claiming: 

Intelligence officials say there is little doubt that Israel was behind the killing — it had all the hallmarks of a precisely timed operation by Mossad, the country’s spy agency. And the Israelis have done nothing to dispel that view. 

The article also claimed: 

But Mr. Netanyahu also has a second agenda.

“There must be no return to the previous nuclear agreement,” he declared shortly after it became clear that Mr. Biden — who has proposed exactly that — would be the next president.

The New York Times assumes that Biden genuinely wanted to return to the 2015 nuclear agreement - officially known as the The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - and insists that it is up to Iran whether or not that possibility still remains. 

The article claims: 

If Iran holds off on significant retaliation, then the bold move to take out the chief of the nuclear program will have paid off, even if the assassination drives the program further underground.

And if the Iranians retaliate, giving Mr. Trump a pretext to launch a return strike before he leaves office in January, Mr. Biden will be inheriting bigger problems than just the wreckage of a five-year-old diplomatic document.

But there is a third option - if the US or Israel - or both - stage an event meant to look like an Iranian retaliation to help ensure the nuclear deal is permanently buried and only a path toward escalation lies ahead for Washington. 

And this third option is the most likely. More than mere speculation - this conclusion is drawn from US policy papers produced by corporate-funded policy think tank - the Brookings Institution. 

Their 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. 

Thus the JCPOA was doomed before it was even signed in 2015 - with US policymakers fully determined to scrap it at the most opportune time and then incrementally ratchet up pressure on Iran.

And while the US posed as "peacemaker" with Iran in 2015 - at the same time it waged proxy war on Iran's closest ally in the region - Syria - aiming to overthrow the Syrian government and thus further isolating and encircling Iran itself. 

Two quotes in particular from the 2009 Brookings document are revealing in regards to the ill-fated JCPOA and what is most likely to follow this most recent assassination as well as the prospects for Biden's "desire" to restart the deal after taking office next year. 

First the document claims (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.) 

Next, the document claims: 

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.  

With prospects of the plan being revived already unlikely - and more so with this recent escalation - the only path left and just as Brookings in their 2009 paper planned years ago, is toward wider conflict between the US and Iran. 

Whether this conflict unfolds as American policymakers envisioned over a decade ago or US power in the Middle East evaporates before this plan is fully realized - only time will tell - and depends widely on not only Iran's patience and skill - but also on that of its allies in Moscow and even Beijing.  

For the US who still clings to the illusion of leading a "rules based international order" - assassinating scientists half-way across the planet either directly or through its Israeli proxies - is only further evidence of just how desperately the world needs to move on with such an order left far behind. 

Brian Berletic is an independent geopolitical analyst based in Bangkok, Thailand and a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook. You can support him and his work at Land Destroyer via Patreon here. 

"Biden's America" Will Continue Pressure on Iran

November 19, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US President Donald Trump famously took a hardline approach against Iran - withdrawing the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - or the "Nuclear Deal" - and opting instead for a policy of "maximum pressure" against Iran diplomatically and economically. 

But there is a major misconception that the previous administration of former US President Barack Obama and then Vice President Joe Biden - had somehow sought to resolve US-Iranian tensions and offer Iran an opportunity to escape out from under decades of economic sanctions imposed by one US administration after another. 

In fact - the US strategy regarding Iran required by necessity a feigned rapprochement - via the "Nuclear Deal" - followed by a sharp and hostile pivot aimed to make Iran appear unreasonable in the face of attempted peace offered by Washington. 

This two-part strategy was planned during the administration of US President George Bush and executed by the Obama and Trump administrations respectively. 

Far from mere speculation - this strategy was laid out in an extensive 2009 policy paper published by the Brookings Institution - a prominent US-based think tank funded by the largest, most powerful corporate-financier interests in the West. 

The paper titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF)," stated explicitly (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 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.

For the policy to be executed within the current political environment in the United States - it required one administration operating under liberal left cover - and another under a more hardline right-leaning cover.  

The paper having been published in 2009 and the policy laid out in it executed over the course of the following decade illustrates the continuity of agenda in Washington regardless of who is elected into office - and how corporate interests - not the American people or even the rhetoric of their elected representatives - drive US foreign policy.  

And even when the Obama administration extended its feigned "Nuclear Deal" to Iran - it had deliberately engineered proxy war in Syria aimed directly at one of Iran's closest regional allies. 

Thus - at the same time the US posed officially as seeking peace with Iran - its proxy war funded, armed, and provided military support for militant groups killing both Syrian forces allied to Iran and Iranian forces attempting to aid in the protection and restoration of order in Syria. 

In essence - US war in Syria was defacto war by proxy against Iran. The same could be said of US support for Saudi Arabia and its unrelenting destruction of neighboring Yemen - a war the US provides Saudi Arabia weapons, training, logistics, intelligence, and even its own special forces to aid and abet Saudi forces inside Yemen. 

These conflicts aimed at Iran - and Russia and China in a much wider scope - were engineered beginning under the administration of US President George Bush, executed under the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration. 

Unless the weapon manufacturers, banks, oil companies, and other interests driving US foreign policy particularly in regards to Iran have for some reason changed their motivations and objectives regarding the Middle East - this agenda will continue uninterrupted under a Biden administration. And it's quite clear the prevailing foreign policy circles in Washington still desire containment and even regime change in Iran. 

For Iran - who surely has "noticed" this pattern of enduring American belligerence from one administration to the next - it will most likely continue operating under the assumption that genuine peace will not be offered to it by Washington and is instead a condition Iran and its own policies must impose upon Washington and its presence in the Middle East and Central Asia regions by leaving the United States no other viable option. 

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

US Envoy for Iran Brian Hook Steps Down, Replaced by Elliott Abrams

What new plans does Washington have for Iran?

August 9, 2020 (21st Century Wire) - This week, one of President Trump’s longest serving foreign officers, Brian Hook, announced his departure from the State Department position as special envoy for Iran.



This move is not particularly encouraging for Iran, considering that his replacement will be rabid neoconservative relic and Iran hard-liner from the Bush Administration, Elliott Abrams.

Previously, Abrams was the State Department’s special representative for Venezuela, and presided over a series of failed coups which were supposed to depose Venezuela’s President Nicholas Maduro.

Based on his past exploits in South America and unabashed support for Israel, one can only surmise that Washington is planning to raise tensions with Iran, which would surely raise them in the Middle East in general. Certainly, Abrams is unlikely to want to pursue anything nearing detente with Iran, and certainly not a diplomatic solution to the collapse of the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal set in place by the Obama Administration in 2015.

Presently, the Iran policy pursued by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been one of “maximum pressure” in the former of crippling economic sanctions in the hopes of bringing Iranian leadership back to the nuclear negotiation table, and but really its goal is achieving regime change in Tehran.

It goes without saying that any renewed aggressive stance towards Iran will also amplify US pressure already in place on Syria, Lebanon and any Shia elements in Iraq.

Hook, 52, leaves after 4 years of service to the Trump Administration, and has been the face of US sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although Hook gave the outward appearance of diplomacy towards Iran, the policy was harsh and effectively immobile.


READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files

BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

US Policy Vs. Iran: Apex Desperation

February 5, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US policy versus Iran has reached new heights of desperation and new lows in terms of undermining international law and norms.

In Washington's losing battle to maintain hegemony in the Middle East at the expense of the actual people and nations that exist there - it has resorted to high-level assassinations, unilateral strikes against targets within sovereign nations against the expressed will of the governments presiding over them, all while exposing what appears to be growing American military, political, and economic impotence.

In sharp contrast, nations like Russia and China have made gains as Washington's flagging fortunes create a power vacuum in the region. Rather than replacing the US as regional hegemons themselves - Moscow and Beijing are extending their multipolar concept into the Middle East - assisting nations in rebuilding themselves after years of US-engineered and led conflict, warding off additional conflict the US is attempting to use to reassert itself in the region, and allowing nations to stand on their own and pursue their own interests independently of the traditional spheres of power established during the age of empires.

US Think Tanks Out of Ideas   

Corporate-funded US policy think tank - the Brookings Institution - and one of its senior fellows Daniel Byman - recently published an article titled, "Is deterrence restored with Iran?," in which several good points are made - but many more revealing aspects of America's increasingly sick and out of touch foreign policy are exposed particularly in regards to Iran.

Byman's writings are important to consider since Byman signed his name alongside several other prominent Brookings fellows upon the institution's 2009 paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), in which the groundwork for everything that unfolded before and since 2009 regarding US policy toward Iran was laid out in great detail.

The 2009 paper included US plans to undermine Iranian political and social stability through targeting its economy and funding opposition groups and protests - which the US subsequently did. It included plans to fund and arm militants to carry out violence aimed at coercing or overthrowing the Iranian government - which the US also did. It also included plans to covertly provoke war with Iran to serve as a pretext for US-led regime change - which the US is clearly and repeatedly attempting to do.

More interesting still is that the paper also included plans to lure Iran into a peace deal specifically for the US to make claims Tehran failed to honor it and to serve as a pretext for war. It is interesting because not only did the subsequent "Iran Nuclear Deal" fulfill the paper's requirements, the machination unfolded over the terms of two US presidents - Barrack Obama and Donald Trump - serving as a reminder that special interests drive US foreign policy, not America's elected leaders, and that the agendas of these special interests transcend US presidential administrations rather than find themselves subjected to them.

Byman's recent article - one might expect - would be full of revisions and fresh ideas regarding US foreign policy in the Middle East and policy regarding Iran - considering the plans laid out in the 2009 paper have dramatically failed.

Instead it is filled with tired narratives including unfounded accusations that Iran seeks nuclear weapons or is funding "terrorism" across the region rather than reacting to real US-sponsored terrorism in the form of Al Qaeda, its affiliates and the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

It is now common knowledge that these terrorist organizations have been openly armed and backed by the US and its allies in their failed bid to overthrow the government of Syria, pressure the government of Iraq, and defeat Houthi fighters in Yemen.

Other tired narratives laid out by Byman include feigning knowledge of Israel's role as a US proxy and that Israeli aggression is used as an intermediary for Washington's regional designs.

If US policymakers are this detached from reality - or at least their explanations to unwitting audiences they are attempting to sell policy to are this detached - the policies they are attempting to sell will be entirely unsustainable. The growing public backlash and increasing lack of cooperation from opposing nations, neutral states, and even long-time US allies is testament to this.


Time is on Iran's Side 

Byman's article attempts to argue that recent US aggression was aimed at restoring "deterrence." Since the US is in the Middle East, oceans and continents away from its own shores, occupying nations surrounding Iran illegally, coercing others to accept perpetually hosting US troops and suffer US interference, the term "deterrence" is entirely inappropriate.

The recent US aggression was meant instead as an attempt to reassert US primacy in the region by beating back Iranian gains toward uprooting it. But US aggression at this level doesn't signal strength or resovle - it signals recklessness and desperation - recklessness and desperation Tehran most certainly has taken note of.

Byman does make important admissions. At one point he admits (emphasis added):

Resolve may also favor the Iranians. Even ignoring President Trump’s vacillations on the use of force in the Middle East and on whether or not to negotiate with Iran, Americans are increasingly weary of deploying troops in the Middle East and skeptical of war with Iran. Iran, for its part, sees a friendly regime in Iraq as a vital interest and otherwise is playing a long game in the Middle East. Even more important, the United States has threatened the Iranian regime’s survival, its ultimate vital interest.

And indeed, this is entirely true - time is on Iran's side. It is a nation that resides in the Middle East, neighbors Iraq, is in close proximity to Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, possesses extensive historical, cultural, religious, economic, and military ties across the region, and seeks self-preservation alongside its allies - all factors that are likely to survive even the most extreme forms of aggression and interference by Washington.

Washington on the other hand indeed faces growing discontent at home, limits placed on its military adventurism by both improved military technology possessed by nations it is targeting and the reality of a global economy in transformation.

The US is still capable of inflicting immense damage against Iran and its allies in the region. Iran - while noting US recklessness and desperation - will continue to pursue a policy of patient persistence. Iran's strategy is augmented by support from Russia and China who are likewise patiently waiting out the terminal decline of America's unipolar world order.

Apex Desperation

Continuing a policy that is entirely unsustainable is a mixture of desperation and delusion. Byman and others serving US special interests within the halls of America's corporate-funded policy think tanks are unable to openly discuss the need to pivot away from policies predicated on global hegemony and toward the more sustainable multipolar policies pursued by nations like Russia and China now displacing American power and influence around the globle.

But because of this, US policymakers will continue to sell increasingly unattractive narratives a growing number of people both in policy circles and even in the general public will turn away from.

Like any enterprise - US hegemony has over the decades attracted many investors and shareholders. And like any enterprise - when times change and the business model used to sustain that enterprise is no longer viable, significant reforms must be made or investors and shareholders should begin to divest and look elsewhere for better fortunes. Considering US policy toward Iran and many other nations appears hopelessly mired and increasingly desperate with no signs of legitimate reforms in the works, investors and shareholders most certainly should begin divesting and looking elsewhere.

Only time will tell what will take the place of the current interests driving US foreign policy, but what is certain is that US foreign policy in its current form is in terminal decline. Its designs toward Iran in particular will complicate the lives of and inflict suffering upon the Iranian people, but the designs laid out in 2009 by US policymakers and pursued ever since have failed to reap the desired results. Little the US can do now can change this.

Apex desperation is often followed by calamitous defeat and decline. An example of this in US history was clearly demonstrated throughout the Vietnam War until its conclusion. Very rarely do individuals, enterprises, or nations that reach the desperation US foreign policy versus Iran has reached make their way successfully through it - and nothing being said, written, or done in Washington suggests that the US will fare any differently this time.

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