We already covered Iran in our last meeting, but since then tensions have only gotten worse. So we will continue our discussion of Trump vs Iran. We will cover Iran downing our drone, Trump's aborted raid and his imposition of sanctions on the Iranian leadership. I also want to spend time on background information, the Iranian leadership structure, the IRGC and perils of the Straights of Hormuz.
Here are some of the videos for the meeting:
- Iran Says U.S. Has “Permanently Closed Path to Diplomacy”
- Government of Iran (video from 2016)
- What is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
- The Strait of Hormuz: Why is it the focus of the Iran-US tensions
Here are the other videos shown at the meeting:
- Trump seeks to make a deal with Iran
- Iran's Rouhani: US sanctions on Khamenei 'idiotic and outrageous'
- Joe Sestak on Iran
- IRGC puts on display the wreckage of the United States’ spy drone
- Netanyahu Hails Historic Meeting With Russia
- Lawmakers question why they weren't told of Shanahan's family turmoil
- 'Mom, Iran hit me!: Late-night hosts tackle Trump's reaction to Iran threats
Acc. to a recent NYTimes article, the US, by its onerous economic sanctions, is already at war with Iran. Therefore Iran should be within its rights to fight back in any way it can. It should be easy to see why Iran would hate the US, but not so much for the reverse. Some examples of US provocation: 2) the US is reneging on its agreement re nuclear power - so, why should Iran honor it; 2) the US and Israel have interfered in Iran's affairs; e.g., Stuxnet; 3) the US supported, and even promoted, Iraq's devastating war on Iran in 1980.; the US shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing all 290 people aboard in July 1988.; the US continually threatens Iran for supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, two organizations which attempt to curtail Israel's expansionism. Iran does not claim any territory for itself in this endeavor, as does Israel, which has destabilized the whole region by its incursions into neighboring countries, including annexation of the Golan heights, and threatens to annex the remaining 20% of palestine. The only reason for the US to attack Iran is at the behest of Israel, which is something the US pays an inordinate amount of attention to. A recent cartoon the the NYTimes (since pulled) shows Trump wearing a yarmulke, being pulled along by netanyahu. It does appear that the US consistently does Israel's bidding and, according to Robert Gates, former Secy of Defense: "Israel is an ungrateful ally who gives the U.S. nothing in return for the massive amount of aid and high tech intel that we give them."
ReplyDeleteWhatever one may think of the Iranian leadership, the policy of the Trump administration seems to be built on the idea that one country can bully another into giving up development of the only weapon that might protect that country from future bullying. And if many, or even most, Iranians believe their country has been the target of bullying by the West at least since the beginning of the twentieth century, the outcome of such a strategy is anything but assured. Perhaps the US can inflict enough economic pain on the Iranians to bring them back to the table to produce a new deal with Trump’s signature on it, but to imagine that such a humiliating experience will do anything in the long run but convince Iran that they still need some defense against bullying seems unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteTrump's Iran policy should be a major topic in the first Democratic Presidential debate, tonight and tomorrow night. Missing from the debates will be former Admiral Joe Sestak, who commanded a task force in the Persian Gulf area and just recently announce to run for President. His military knowledge of a conflict with Iran will be sorely missed on the debate stage.
ReplyDeleteHere is an excerpt from a recent article in magazine, The National Interest:
With an intricate knowledge that rivals any of the other contenders, Joe Sestak described in detail the difficulties the United States would have if it used a military strike against Iran. “[I]t would take us weeks if not months to destroy it [their nuclear facilities] if we go full bore to do so. Because part of it…is buried under three hundred feet of rock, hard rock.”
A war with Iran would imperil our strategic naval positioning in the area and force us out of the gulf. “We cannot survive in the Persian Gulf with our aircraft carriers. I know, I’ve operated there. There are about two places that we operate because the depth of water to do fight operations is the best right there. Our sonar doesn’t work there in the Persian Gulf and we cannot find their nineteen midget submarines at all. So, we will withdrawal our carrier groups out of the Strait of Hormuz before we even begin to think about striking and have to do it from a greater distance.” While the United States is flying air sorties and launching Tomahawk missiles on Iranian positions, they have the strength to return fire in kind. “[T]hey can rain hundreds of long-range missiles on Israel and our regional bases there.”
Sestak is not in doubt about eventual U.S. victory, but he is deeply skeptical about the costs and wisdom of such an action. “We can do it, to impair their nuclear capability. But after all those weeks are done, and they’re having mined the Straits of Hormuz where 20 percent of the world’s oil comes from, they can rebuild it in four years. Militaries can stop a problem; they don’t fix a problem.” He further doesn’t understand why such a cost has to be contemplated after the successful implementation of the Iran deal. “We had that problem fixed. And it’s inexcusable for America to break its word on a deal when Iran had kept theirs and we had fixed a problem. Now we have harmed our national security.”
As some of you know my job at the US State Department required traveling abroad and I always felt admonished if I presented the wrong perception or perspective of the US. Meaning Harry’s response publish on Zoom regarding “bulling” has merits. It’s right there in the Book “The Ugly American,” by Burdick and Lederer, an exposé of American arrogance, incompetence, and corruption in Southeast Asia. See below.
ReplyDelete“June 23, 1959, Senator John F. Kennedy took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times. The ad wasn’t to express his Vietnam War policy, nor was it to announce his intention to run for president. Instead, it was to promote a book — one that wasn’t even his own.
“Kennedy’s praise was for The Ugly American, a recent novel on The New York Times Best Sellers list by political scientist Eugene Burdick and writer and former U.S. Navy captain William Lederer. The book was becoming notorious for its devastating critique of how Americans behaved abroad. But not just average citizens backpacking through Asia or taking a whirlwind European bus tour. It was a criticism of the very people who were charged with being the public face of the United States internationally — of, as Kennedy’s ad put it, “the Americans who go overseas for the various governmental agencies, their activities abroad, and the policies they are entrusted to carry out.”