U.S. toughens stance on Iran, lists sweeping demands

[webfact]

U.S. toughens stance on Iran, lists sweeping demands

By Lesley Wroughton and Parisa Hafezi

 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers remarks on the Trump administration's Iran policy at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, U.S. May 21, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON/ANKARA (Reuters) - The United States on Monday demanded Iran make sweeping changes -- from dropping its nuclear programme to pulling out of the Syrian civil war -- or face severe economic sanctions as the Trump administration hardened its approach to Tehran.

 

Iran dismissed Washington's ultimatum and one senior Iranian official said it showed the United States is seeking "regime change" in Iran.

Weeks after President Donald Trump pulled out of an international nuclear deal with Iran, his administration threatened to impose "the strongest sanctions in history," and vowed to "crush" Iranian operatives abroad, setting Washington and Tehran further on a course of confrontation.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded sweeping changes that would force Iran effectively to reverse the recent spread of its military and political influence through the Middle East to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

 

The speech added to the tension between the two countries, which grew notably when Trump this month withdrew from the 2015 international agreement aimed at preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

 

If Washington sees tangible shifts in Iran's policies, it is prepared to lift sanctions, Pompeo said.

 

"The sting of sanctions will only grow more painful if the regime does not change course from the unacceptable and unproductive path it has chosen for itself and the people of Iran," Pompeo said in his first major speech since becoming secretary of state.

 

"These will be the strongest sanctions in history by the time we are done," he added.

 

The European Union largely dismissed Pompeo's speech and said it remained committed to the full implementation of the nuclear deal.

Pompeo took aim at Iran's policy of expansion in the Middle East through support for armed groups in countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

 

He warned that the United States would "crush" Iranian operatives and proxies abroad and told Tehran to pull out forces under its command from the Syrian civil war where they have helped President Bashar al-Assad gain the upper hand.

 

Iran's president summarily dismissed Pompeo's demands.

 

"Who are you to decide for Iran and the world?," the semi-official ILNA news agency quoted Hassan Rouhani as saying.

 

"The world today does not accept America to decide for the world, as countries are independent ... that era is over ... We will continue our path with the support of our nation."

 

A senior Iranian official said Pompeo's remarks showed that the United States was pushing for "regime change," a charged phrase often associated with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.

 

Pompeo warned that if Iran fully resumed its nuclear programme Washington would be ready to respond and said the administration would hold companies doing prohibited business in Iran to account.

 

"Our demands on Iran are not unreasonable: give up your programme," Pompeo said, "Should they choose to go back, should they begin to enrich, we are fully prepared to respond to that as well," he said, declining to elaborate.

 

Pompeo said Washington would work with the Defense Department and allies to counter Iran in the cyberspace and maritime areas.

 

The Pentagon said it would take all necessary steps to confront Iranian behaviour in the region and was assessing whether that could include new actions or doubling down on current ones.

 

Pompeo will have an uphill battle convincing European allies to sign on to the administration's "Plan B" onIran after its withdrawal from the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

 

"Secretary Pompeo’s speech has not demonstrated how walking away from the JCPOA has made or will make the region safer from the threat of nuclear proliferation or how it puts us in a better position to influence Iran’s conduct in areas outside the scope of JCPOA. There is no alternative to the JCPOA," the EU said in a statement.

 

NAMING NAMES

Pompeo said if Iran made major changes, the United States was prepared to ease sanctions, re-establish full diplomatic and commercial relations and support the country's re-integration into the international economic system.

 

Any new U.S. sanctions will raise the cost of trade for Iran and are expected to further deter Western companies from investing there, giving hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an opportunity to cement their grip on power.

 

Iran's ruling elite are mindful of recent protests sparked by economic hardship, which is, in part, their calculation for working with the Europeans on ways to salvage the nuclear deal.

 

Pompeo's speech did not explicitly call for regime change but he repeatedly urged the Iranian people not to put up with their leaders, specifically naming Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

 

"At the end of the day the Iranian people will get to make a choice about their leadership," Pompeo said.

 

Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the Brooking Institution think tank's foreign policy programme, said Pompeo's speech did indeed amount to a strategy of regime change.

 

"There is only one way to read it and that is that Trump administration has wedded itself to a regime-change strategy to Iran, one that is likely to alienate our allies. One with dubious prospects for success," she said.

 

The administration's approach "explicitly puts the onus on the Iranian people to change their leadership or face cataclysmic financial pressure," said Maloney who has advised the State Department on Iran in the Bush administration between 2005-2007.

 

Lebanese analyst Ghaleb Kandil, who has close ties to the pro-Iran Hezbollah group, said Washington's demands have previously not worked.

 

"These are conditions that were tested in previous phases of American pressures, before the nuclear deal, when Iran was in more difficult circumstances than it is in these days, and it did not surrender to these conditions or accept them," said Kandil.

 

Pompeo outlined 12 U.S. demands for Iran including to stop uranium enrichment, never to pursue plutonium reprocessing and to close its heavy water reactor.

 

It also had to declare all previous military dimensions of its nuclear programme and to permanently and verifiably abandon such work, he said.

 

Pompeo's demand that Tehran stop uranium enrichment goes even further than the nuclear deal. Iran says its nuclear work has medical uses and will produce energy to meet domestic demand and complement its oil reserves.

 

Washington's regional allies, the Gulf Arabs and Israel, who were strong critics of the deal, praised the administration's position on Monday.

 

European parties to the nuclear deal - France, Britain and Germany - are working to find a way to keep the nuclear pact in effect after Washington's exit.

 

(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton and Parisa Hafezi; Writing by Lesley Wroughton and Yara Bayoumy; Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Ankara, Jonathan Landay and Idrees Ali in Washington, Laila Bassam in Beirut, Ari Rabinovitch in Jerusalem, Dubai newsroom, Francois Murphy and Alastair Macdonald in Brussels; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-22

[Samui Bodoh]

Few, if any, politicians from just about anywhere in the world have gotten into trouble running on a platform or governing under a philosophy of "I will stand up to the arrogant Americans!".

 

I really do not like the Iranian regime and/or the Mullahs, but this new American policy will likely only make things worse, not better.

 

My response to this new American policy would consist of one finger held up proudly; I can't really blame the Iranians if that is their response as well. 

 

It would be soooooo nice to see a more nuanced, more effective policy in the Middle East; too many wars and too much conflict have already occurred there and I fail to see how this policy would lead to less...

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[Grouse]

The rest of the world need to pull together and find a way to protect their companies against Trump

 

I can see Iran taking a leaf out of Mr Kim's book and racing to build nuclear war heads to protect themselves

 

Astonishingly foolhardy move by the USA 

[Kiwiken]

The rumour abounds that the US$ will collapse this year. A catastrophe for the Global Financial Sector but like all catastrophe's People and Institutions adapt. The Trump Administration has paved a path to war. Is this What the American people voted for.

I would expect the Iranians to show the finger in response.

In 1984 New Zealand declared itself nuclear free. Renouncing both nuclear energy and Weapons. What followed were sanctions by the US and its Allies.

This own hardened our resolve.

I expect the current list of 12 demands will strengthen Irans.

Even moderate Iranians would not buckle to the demands of a Bully united States.

I too hope the rest of the World does not buckle to American Bullying and fronts up to face down the American Bully boys

[ezzra]

Iran is a terror purveyor and supporter of aggression and war mongering all around the world, its proxy army with rockets and missiles occupy Syria in order to attack Israel, Iran have been calling for the destruction and annihilation of Israel time and time again, Iran has to be brought to realize that it is not in it's best interests to continue  enriching nukes for war purposes and be a threats to other countries al-la N. Korea, and with 75,000 Iran Rial to 1 US$ the sooner they will learn that, the sooner Iran economy will be better....

Edited May 22, 2018 by ezzra

[nobodysfriend]

Even the trump administration will know that Iran will not accept the new " deal " proposed .

The consequences are clear , a new war will arise in the middle east , and that seems to be exactly what the US and Israel want .

[dexterm]

Iran is no threat to the USA 7,000 miles away, yet USA has been itching for a fight with Iran since Trump took office.

 

It's not even about nuclear weapons, that's just a pretext. This is all about defending the apartheid state Israel, which of course has got an illegal nuclear weapons program, or legal if one claims it never signed up to the safeguards agreement that Iran has (NPT), and its other buddies Saudi Arabia and the UAE  that it sells $billions of arms to.

 

US hypocrisy is mindblowing.

 

If it does start a war with Iran, the USA will be on its own this time. The allies will see what a hypocritical warmonger it is.

[dexterm]

13 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Iran is a terror purveyor and supporter of aggression and war mongering all around the world, its proxy army with rockets and missiles occupy Syria in order to attack Israel, Iran have been calling for the destruction and annihilation of Israel time and time again, Iran has to be brought to realize that it is not in it's best interests to continue  enriching nukes for war purposes and be a threats to other countries al-la N. Korea, and with 75,000 Iran Rial to 1 US$ the sooner they will learn that, the sooner Iran economy will be better....

>>all around the world

...name a country outside the Middle East that Iran has attacked. All the attacks in Europe and USA were carried out by Sunni Muslims financed by countries that are now mysteriously regarded as Trump's friends.

 

Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of the  racist supremacist ideology of Zionism, not Israel,... and so do I!

[Lungstib]

15 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Iran is a terror purveyor and supporter of aggression and war mongering all around the world,

Do a quick search on the internet for a country with military bases all over the world and guess what......

"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad."

There is only one country deeply involved in military aggression across the globe.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Kiwiken said:

The rumour abounds that the US$ will collapse this year. A catastrophe for the Global Financial Sector but like all catastrophe's People and Institutions adapt. The Trump Administration has paved a path to war. Is this What the American people voted for.

I would expect the Iranians to show the finger in response.

In 1984 New Zealand declared itself nuclear free. Renouncing both nuclear energy and Weapons. What followed were sanctions by the US and its Allies.

This own hardened our resolve.

I expect the current list of 12 demands will strengthen Irans.

Even moderate Iranians would not buckle to the demands of a Bully united States.

I too hope the rest of the World does not buckle to American Bullying and fronts up to face down the American Bully boys

If there's one thing rumors do, it's abound. Especially prophecies concerning disasters for empires. Eventually, some day, some of them will be proven right. Don't see whats going to bring it on in the next year, though.

[Credo]

This may be far fetched, but there have always been rumors of a connection between NK and Iran on nuclear (and other issues) development.   I wonder if the current canceling of the Iran deal has influenced NK, who may find Iran to be leaning their direction again.   

[kamahele]

Apparently we didn't learn that this type of go it alone pressure doesn't work in making regime changes as the communist party is still in power in Cuba after over 50 years of sanctions...... 

[phantomfiddler]

49 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Iran is no threat to the USA 7,000 miles away, yet USA has been itching for a fight with Iran since Trump took office.

 

It's not even about nuclear weapons, that's just a pretext. This is all about defending the apartheid state Israel, which of course has got an illegal nuclear weapons program, or legal if one claims it never signed up to the safeguards agreement that Iran has (NPT), and its other buddies Saudi Arabia and the UAE  that it sells $billions of arms to.

 

US hypocrisy is mindblowing.

 

If it does start a war with Iran, the USA will be on its own this time. The allies will see what a hypocritical warmonger it is.

For "since Trump took office" read "since iran illegally took over a hundred American hostages and blatantly abused international law" !

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

For "since Trump took office" read "since iran illegally took over a hundred American hostages and blatantly abused international law" !

That incident ended over 37 years ago. And as for abuse of international law, has anything Iran done been on the scale of the illegal pre-emptive war that the USA waged on Iraq? And threatened to extend to Iranr? Get over it already.

[dexterm]

21 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

For "since Trump took office" read "since iran illegally took over a hundred American hostages and blatantly abused international law" !

What international law is Iran abusing? Pray do tell.

 

So you are suggesting that the US ought to go to war over an incident resolved 40 years ago ...that's some pretext! No mention of course of US interference in Iranian affairs going back decades before the Iran hostage crisis.

 

I don't recall any of the previous incumbents in the White House threatening war with  Iran. In fact the nuclear JCPOA deal was working if all you want is Iran not to be able to produce a bomb in the next few years, then renegotiate the deal as its expiry approaches.

 

But of course it's not about nuclear weapons...that's just a pretext because that deal was working; it's about USA shamelessly interfering in Iranian, religious and Middles East affairs to effect regime change and to protect Israel and American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

 

The full text of Pompeo's 12 points in OP includes

 

"Mr Pompeo also demanded that Iran cease from a range of activities throughout the Middle East that have long drawn the ire of the US and its allies. He said Iran must end support for Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, "withdraw all forces" from Syria, halt support for its ally Hezbollah and stop threatening Israel."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pompeo-us-iran-sanctions-latest-trump-nuclear-deal-a8361791.html

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by dexterm

[Anak Nakal]

Make love not war.

Relax America!

[AsiaCheese]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Iran is a terror purveyor and supporter of aggression and war mongering all around the world, its proxy army with rockets and missiles occupy Syria in order to attack Israel, Iran have been calling for the destruction and annihilation of Israel time and time again, Iran has to be brought to realize that it is not in it's best interests to continue  enriching nukes for war purposes and be a threats to other countries al-la N. Korea, and with 75,000 Iran Rial to 1 US$ the sooner they will learn that, the sooner Iran economy will be better....

So you have personally found out (and are contradicting the international inspectors' compliance findings) that Iran is "continuing to enrich nukes" (whatever the sic you're trying to say there) and needs regime-changed back to stone age? Or are you just advocating for Israel to take more bites out of surrounding countries, more or less unhindred, seeing as they have nuke-heavy US in their pocket?

[Krataiboy]

The US finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place in seeking to sustain and broaden its geopolitical and economic interests across the Middle East in the face of rising tension between Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies and Shia Iran. 

 

Throw an increasingly-militant nuclear-armed Israel into this explosive mix and it looks like a perfect sand-storm brewing for the embattled POTUS and his motley crew of assorted war-mongers.

 

Any time now, Syria could start to look like just an audience warm-up for the long-awaited and dreaded main event.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Krataiboy

[The Theory]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

"The world today does not accept America to decide for the world, as countries are independent ... that era is over ... We will continue our path with the support of our nation."

Iran currency is falling. It has fallen more than %50 in last few months. 

???

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

Iran is a terror purveyor and supporter of aggression and war mongering all around the world, its proxy army with rockets and missiles occupy Syria in order to attack Israel, Iran have been calling for the destruction and annihilation of Israel time and time again, Iran has to be brought to realize that it is not in it's best interests to continue  enriching nukes for war purposes and be a threats to other countries al-la N. Korea, and with 75,000 Iran Rial to 1 US$ the sooner they will learn that, the sooner Iran economy will be better....

And this is the mentality that leads us to World War Three. I hope it doesn't happen, and if it does, I don't want my nation involved in fighting a war against Iran. This war will be a war crime, we've seen it before in Iraq, we don't want to see it again in Iran.

Theresa May, whatever happens, don't have us getting involved in this _____.  Thanks.

[dexterm]

I don't think it is worth threatening physical war involving 1000s (possibly millions) of casualties and a trade war involving job losses in US and EU to defend such regimes as Israel and Saudi Arabia , who seriously need to put their houses in order first before the free world leap to their defense.

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

This may be far fetched, but there have always been rumors of a connection between NK and Iran on nuclear (and other issues) development.   I wonder if the current canceling of the Iran deal has influenced NK, who may find Iran to be leaning their direction again.   

I don’t think it’s far fetched at all... throw China in too, (thanks to dons trade sanctions) and with a blind eye from Pakistan, and you can go overland between the two.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Iran is no threat to the USA 7,000 miles away, yet USA has been itching for a fight with Iran since Trump took office.

 

It's not even about nuclear weapons, that's just a pretext. This is all about defending the apartheid state Israel, which of course has got an illegal nuclear weapons program, or legal if one claims it never signed up to the safeguards agreement that Iran has (NPT), and its other buddies Saudi Arabia and the UAE  that it sells $billions of arms to.

 

US hypocrisy is mindblowing.

 

If it does start a war with Iran, the USA will be on its own this time. The allies will see what a hypocritical warmonger it is.

 

TBH I don't think that the USA has been itching for a fight/war with Iran.

 

IMHO Cadet Bonespur is the one who is itching for a fight/war somewhere to show the world how tough he is. He doesn't care what happens as he will be safe and sound in his bunkers, well guarded while others go out to fight and die for his overinflated ego.

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

 

 

Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of the  racist supremacist ideology of Zionism, not Israel,... and so do I!

Understandable, as you have demonstrated that, much like Iran, (who refuse to recognise “isreal” as a state despite the fact that it has been a UN member since 1949, but rather refers to it as a Zionist entity,) you are an antisemetic racist.

[dexterm]

27 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

TBH I don't think that the USA has been itching for a fight/war with Iran.

 

IMHO Cadet Bonespur is the one who is itching for a fight/war somewhere to show the world how tough he is. He doesn't care what happens as he will be safe and sound in his bunkers, well guarded while others go out to fight and die for his overinflated ego.

I stand corrected. I wrote "USA has been itching for a fight with Iran since Trump took office."

I am sure the American people don't want to get involved in another unnecessary foreign war 7,000 miles from home. It's Trump himself and the neocon hawk advisers he has surrounded himself with who are itching for a fight. A war would also be a useful distraction from domestic issues plaguing Trump.

[farcanell]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

The world today does not accept America to decide for the world, as countries are independent ... that era is over ... We will continue our path with the support of our nation."

Indeed... that “era” ended about 18 months ago.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

The rest of the world need to pull together and find a way to protect their companies against Trump

 

I can see Iran taking a leaf out of Mr Kim's book and racing to build nuclear war heads to protect themselves

 

Astonishingly foolhardy move by the USA 

 

While references to "the rest of the World" are dramatic, there isn't a whole lot by way of a well coordinate international effort to counter Trump's move. Relations between other relevant parties plagued by animosity, disagreements ,distrust and divisions. Competing economic and political interests, or differing goals play their part as well. 

 

Companies (especially European-based) involved are not necessarily as subservient to government (or EU) foreign policy in this case. I doubt many will be thrilled with the the proposition of choosing doing business with Iran, while going on some US black list - government compensation or not. And that's without getting to how such a compensation will be handled and who'll foot the bill.

 

You might see Iran emulating Kim, but IMO, that boat kinda sailed. The other signatories to the Iran Deal remain committed just so long as Iran does. If Iran quits or breaks the agreement, international sanctions will come back again, one way or the other. In essence, it would be a boon to Trump, validating his policy.

 

I think the move is rash, stupid and unlikely to result in anything that couldn't have been managed more diplomatically. On the other hand, most parties involved are in a bind, one way or another - thus limiting their options relative to the US. So despite all the hot air and fiery statements, I think the Europeans (and the Russians) are busy finding ways to produce something which could be marketed to both Trump and Iran. If bearing Kim in mind - we just went through months of baiting, dire warnings of war, and got....well, not a soapy happy ending, but not the Armageddon prophesied.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The rumour abounds that the US$ will collapse this year. A catastrophe for the Global Financial Sector but like all catastrophe's People and Institutions adapt. The Trump Administration has paved a path to war. Is this What the American people voted for.

I would expect the Iranians to show the finger in response.

In 1984 New Zealand declared itself nuclear free. Renouncing both nuclear energy and Weapons. What followed were sanctions by the US and its Allies.

This own hardened our resolve.

I expect the current list of 12 demands will strengthen Irans.

Even moderate Iranians would not buckle to the demands of a Bully united States.

I too hope the rest of the World does not buckle to American Bullying and fronts up to face down the American Bully boys

 

Drawing parallels between New Zealand and Iran is not even comparing apples and oranges. The circumstances and motivations are totally different.

 

As said on many a past topic, wish I had a dollar for each time its collapse (and/or the the US economy with it) was predicted. Getting back to the real world, though, where facts matter more the rumors - perhaps you'd like to take a hard look at the state of the Iranian economy, or its currency.

 

Assuming that the Iranian government policies are widely popular and supported is all very fine. Other then that they are not. There was yet another spate of violent protests (background - failing economy and corruption) last week. And while many Iranian may resent the US, this doesn't imply wholesale support for their own hardliners. The IRGC and affiliated apparatus are not universally popular, and the same goes for military or regional ambitions at the expense of the ordinary citizens economic situation.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Even the trump administration will know that Iran will not accept the new " deal " proposed .

The consequences are clear , a new war will arise in the middle east , and that seems to be exactly what the US and Israel want .

 

How are the "consequences clear", or how do they indicate war? If anything, it is even unclear how the new/renewed US sanctions will be applied/tackled, or what effect they will have. The Trump administration's list of demands is unlikely to be fully accepted by Iran, even if it was presented in a more diplomatic way. But doubt there's a direct implication rejection would result in full scale hostilities. 

 

Generally speaking, getting involved in yet another ME war is not a very popular proposition in the US. Trump may want to be perceived as a "winner", and it might be seen as a way to divert attention from domestic issues - but IMO, he's not bold enough to commit into a full scale war. Not even surrounded as he is by his advisors (notice how Bolton was put in place after the "Libya Model" comment).

 

In Israel, most of the intelligence and military leadership (past and present) seems to consider the Iran Deal the best available solution. Netanyahu's position on this is out of sync with such assessments. While there's a broader consensus that Iran's presence in Syria needs to be decidedly addressed, this doesn't imply motivation for a  full scale war either. While Netanyahu does have his own domestic issues, and diversions welcomed - a full scale war is risking way too much, results and returns unclear.

 

If one accepts a crude take of Iranian leadership as divided between hardliners and moderates (more complex than that, but good enough for now) - the latter have no interest in moves which will further hurt the economy, and weaken their position relative to hardliners. The former won't be keen risking a full scale confrontation they can't win, and an aftermath in which their position is sure to take a hit.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

Iran is no threat to the USA 7,000 miles away, yet USA has been itching for a fight with Iran since Trump took office.

 

It's not even about nuclear weapons, that's just a pretext. This is all about defending the apartheid state Israel, which of course has got an illegal nuclear weapons program, or legal if one claims it never signed up to the safeguards agreement that Iran has (NPT), and its other buddies Saudi Arabia and the UAE  that it sells $billions of arms to.

 

US hypocrisy is mindblowing.

 

If it does start a war with Iran, the USA will be on its own this time. The allies will see what a hypocritical warmonger it is.

 

Iran-US relations been hostile for decades, hardly something which came about in conjunction with Trump. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, there's a history of bad blood between the two countries. That Iran may not present an existential threat to the US, does not imply that it is not a threat to US interests. Whether you oppose or support these interests is irrelevant.

 

And while it is hardly surprising you will use any ME related topic to push your "crusade", announcing this is "not about nuclear weapons" is out of sync with facts. The facts being that Iran did violate the NPT, and the sanctions applied as a result were an international effort. You may see this as a minor issue, but then you are not expected to present an even remotely balanced position.

 

Israel can certainly be called out regarding its nuclear activities. But the fact stands that while Israel did not sign the NPT, it obviously didn't violate it either, as Iran did. That you call Israel's nuclear weapons program "illegal" is pretty much meaningless.

 

The US having interests in the ME, and those interests shaping its policies and actions is just how international relations are. If you wish to call that hypocritical, by all means - as long as you apply it all around. It's not as if any other ME player or involved party are bereft of these, or are particularly righteous.

 

I'll take a safe bet that's the first of many upcoming deflections along the same lines.