Iran's Khamenei demands 'action' from Biden to revive nuclear deal

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think it's that simple. If, for example, Iran was left to its own designs (as far as nuclear weapons go), they would have had one by now. Understanding the way other countries do things also means that there's a place for threats and strong-arming in some instances. For example, had Biden simply cancelled all sanctions and went straight back into the fold, it would certainly be seen as being weak by many regional players, including Iran.

Lifting sanctions worked the previous time in 2015 between Iran and a consortium of countries which include US, European, Russia and China. Tehran agreed to limit uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors to access their sites and facilities in exchange for lifting of sanctions. Then came Trump and wrecked the agreement and increase the tension. 

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Lifting sanctions worked the previous time in 2015 between Iran and a consortium of countries which include US, European, Russia and China. Tehran agreed to limit uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors to access their sites and facilities in exchange for lifting of sanctions. Then came Trump and wrecked the agreement and increase the tension. 

 

 

You're missing a step there.

 

The only reason Iran agreed to negotiate the JCPOA was sanctions applied after it was found out failing to comply with the NPT.

 

The sanctions were lifted after a long series of negotiations, which ended up with Iran being placed under an invasive and strict inspections regime. Not all sanctions and restrictions were removed, and there is a mechanism in place for re-introducing them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pilotman]

44 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Those "mad mullahs" as you call them, may talk threateningly, but their actions show that they have exercised great restraint. What's truly threatening was the decision of the Trump administrartion move to let Saudi Arabia and that hothead, MBS,  have reactors that can create nuclear fuel.

They have been supporting terrorism world wide for decades. 

[Eric Loh]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You're missing a step there.

 

The only reason Iran agreed to negotiate the JCPOA was sanctions applied after it was found out failing to comply with the NPT.

 

The sanctions were lifted after a long series of negotiations, which ended up with Iran being placed under an invasive and strict inspections regime. Not all sanctions and restrictions were removed, and there is a mechanism in place for re-introducing them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You repeating what I said. 

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

They have been supporting terrorism world wide for decades. 

The vast majority of Islamist terrorist incidents was the work of Sunni Muslims. Very few verified cases of Shiite inspired terrorism.  Of course, you may be confusing terrorism with supporting military actions in the region. Like the attacks on US troops in Iraq. That's an entirely different matter. And do keep in mind that when it came time to drive Isil from Iraq, the Iranians were invaluable allies. So when it comes to interests shared with the US, Iran can be a very valuable ally. Isil and similar Sunni factions were actually receiving support from Qatar and the UAE. You know, our allies.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think it's that simple. If, for example, Iran was left to its own designs (as far as nuclear weapons go), they would have had one by now. Understanding the way other countries do things also means that there's a place for threats and strong-arming in some instances. For example, had Biden simply cancelled all sanctions and went straight back into the fold, it would certainly be seen as being weak by many regional players, including Iran.

Yeah I understand exactly what and how it's played but it doesn't work anymore, there's need of clever tactics but also better understanding , no one likes be threaten.

 If you put yourself honestly in Iran's position what would you do. 

That is the question.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

You repeating what I said. 

 

No, I'm not.

Your account of things starts at 2015. It ignores what came before this, why and how.

Iran did not negotiate the JCPOA because it wanted to, but because it was forced to.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

The vast majority of Islamist terrorist incidents was the work of Sunni Muslims. Very few verified cases of Shiite inspired terrorism.  Of course, you may be confusing terrorism with supporting military actions in the region. Like the attacks on US troops in Iraq. That's an entirely different matter. And do keep in mind that when it came time to drive Isil from Iraq, the Iranians were invaluable allies. So when it comes to interests shared with the US, Iran can be a very valuable ally. Isil and similar Sunni factions were actually receiving support from Qatar and the UAE. You know, our allies.

 

Or maybe you're the one confusing 'supporting military actions in the region' with 'terrorism'. Guess it's related to one's political stance on relevant issues. Be that as it may, for countries affected by Iran's sponsorship of such, I kinda doubt your argument holds.

 

The thing with Iran' support for terrorism (or whatever you want to call it), is that a lot of it is state-sponsored or close enough. When it comes to Iran's neighbors, it's less clear cut than that.

 

I don't think that Iran was seen as an ally, regardless of their position vs. ISIL etc. Similar goals doesn't mean a partnership or anything of the sort. There was an awareness that Iran plays a farther reaching game than just fighting ISIL. Your last line could be argued as per my first paragraph. But that's probably taking us a bit off topic and anyway we have been over this several times in the past.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah I understand exactly what and how it's played but it doesn't work anymore, there's need of clever tactics but also better understanding , no one likes be threaten.

 If you put yourself honestly in Iran's position what would you do. 

That is the question.

 

Would you rate Obama's treatment of Iran and the resulting JCPOA as representing 'clever tactics' and 'better understanding'? If so, expect pretty much the same from Biden's administration. As for no one likes to be threatened - I beg to differ, sort of. It's traditional. Part of the dance. Plays for the home crowd and neighbors. Also, Iran made numerous threats before, during and after negotiations. I think most of these things, from both sides, are for show. Trouble with the former POTUS was that he seemed to have trouble figuring when it was time to get back to reality.

 

Putting oneself in Iran's leaders' shoes how? As in seeing things 100% the way they do? As in applying Western kind of reasoning to their decision making? And which leaders would these be - there are more than one side, faction or contender?

 

I think Iran is desperate to return to the JCPOA framework. Mainly for economic reasons, and second, as it facilitates pretty much any non-nuclear-related goal in their sights. If the JCPOA falls apart, Iran might not be able to handle the economic strain of reintroduced sanctions, which in turn may lead to political stability issues. 

 

Their problem is how to get there without losing to much face/honor, while also not giving an inch (or not more than they are willing to). That's one reason for playing hardball, past experience being that Western powers may be more flexible as deadlines get nearer. So Iran does what it usually does, plays chicken, while negotiating some compromise on the backyard.

 

If I was in their shoes, probably the same course of action, but with wider margins for error. Ultimately, some things can given away (say with regard to further ballistic missile development/procurement), seeing as they are meaningless, and returns are huge. I'd never ever agree on curbs regarding regional activities(supporting various groups), for example. That's Iran's bread and butter as far as regional influence goes. 

[Kwasaki]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Would you rate Obama's treatment of Iran and the resulting JCPOA as representing 'clever tactics' and 'better understanding'? If so, expect pretty much the same from Biden's administration.

 

As for no one likes to be threatened - I beg to differ, sort of. It's traditional. 

 

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Putting oneself in Iran's leaders' shoes how? As in seeing things 100% the way they do? As in applying Western kind of reasoning to their decision making? And which leaders would these be - there are more than one side, faction or contender?

 

I think Iran is desperate to return to the JCPOA framework. Mainly for economic reasons, and second, as it facilitates pretty much any non-nuclear-related goal in their sights. If the JCPOA falls apart, Iran might not be able to handle the economic strain of reintroduced sanctions, which in turn may lead to political stability issues. 

 

Their problem is how to get there without losing to much face/honor, while also not giving an inch (or not more than they are willing to). That's one reason for playing hardball, past experience being that Western powers may be more flexible as deadlines get nearer. So Iran does what it usually does, plays chicken, while negotiating some compromise on the backyard.

 

If I was in their shoes, probably the same course of action, but with wider margins for error. Ultimately, some things can given away (say with regard to further ballistic missile development/procurement), seeing as they are meaningless, and returns are huge. I'd never ever agree on curbs regarding regional activities(supporting various groups), for example. That's Iran's bread and butter as far as regional influence goes. 

That's a good call although I don't have a lot of time for what the US do and the way the west supports them,  for sure Obama tactics were more peaceful. 

I still don't see broken deals and sanctions, threats are the way to treat the Iranian people thinking outside the box is needed. 

The Iran govt leader's are Muslim and run the country as such it's not liked but it's OK for the God of govt USA, so another issue trust.

I think the only desperation is the sanctions on the people of Iran that's why should be lifted not because of there leaders. 

If the west think sanctions will initialate a revolt of the Iran people, I think it just makes them hate the west more. 

Hence the support of various groups as alleged which is wrong only the USA can support various groups. 

 

 

[Walker88]

On 2/18/2021 at 10:52 AM, Pilotman said:

 

The supposed 'agreement'  stopped nothing.  Those Iranian lunatics have never stopped trying to develop a bomb.  Trump was right and  not for the first time in history,  the Europeans are appeasing, gullible  fools .  It will end in tears and rather their tears than ours. 

Your information is incorrect.

 

Iran did stop its nuke program. Some confusion arose because of a disinformation effort by Israel, who released some Iranian documents related to nuke development, but those documents were from the early 2000s and already in the possession of US intelligence.

 

Iran was 100% in compliance with every part of the JCPOA, including all breeder reactors offline (reactors that produced for medical purposes, incapable of ever approaching the 93% purity of U-235 necessary for use in a bomb, were allowed to operate), and the destruction of high speed centrifuges, plus a prohibition on new imports. Even Mossad knew Iran was 100% in compliance, as Mossad and the agency cooperated on efforts to keep abreast of what was going on inside Iran.

 

There are a host of ways intel can monitor Iran's compliance, some of which are classified. Rest assured these measures are 100% effective, which is why the agency could say with total confidence---as required every 6 months under JCPOA---that iran was 100% in compliance.

 

The JCPOA had two goals: the first was to take Iran out of the nuke game. That was done. The second was to use the opening of dialogue as a stepping stone to go after other Iranian actions the US wanted to stop, such as funding for Shi'a terror groups. Because the former POTUS pulled the US out of the JCPOA, that stepping stone was lost.

 

It is ironic, but not surprising, that the former POTUS cozied up to MbS and Saudi Arabia, a country that funds Sunni terrorism, which is far more a danger to the US (read: al Qaeda, ISIS) than Shi'a terrorism. Another major trend in the Middle East is the renewed radicalization and religious fundamentalism in predominantly Sunni countries like Saudi, and a growing youth movement in Shi'a countries like Iran that is moving away from the aging Mullahs. Iranian youth, at least until the former POTUS messed things up so badly, was becoming more "Westernized" and was desirous of enjoying the comforts of modernization enjoyed in the West. Unlike most of the Sunni monarchies, the youth of iran is well-educated and capable of making Iran a major economic power, competing not only in areas such as natural resources, but in technology. Some of the best computer techs in the world---including some of the most talented hackers---are Iranian.

 

President Biden's FP team is, unlike the former POTUS', both competent and knowledgeable. Both SecState Blinken and DCI-nominee Burns want to try to bring Iran into the international fold and find ways to obviate the power and influence of the aging Mullahs, thereby turning loose the youth of Iran so that Iran becomes a reliable member of the family of nations.

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

That's a good call although I don't have a lot of time for what the US do and the way the west supports them,  for sure Obama tactics were more peaceful. 

I still don't see broken deals and sanctions, threats are the way to treat the Iranian people thinking outside the box is needed. 

The Iran govt leader's are Muslim and run the country as such it's not liked but it's OK for the God of govt USA, so another issue trust.

I think the only desperation is the sanctions on the people of Iran that's why should be lifted not because of there leaders. 

If the west think sanctions will initialate a revolt of the Iran people, I think it just makes them hate the west more. 

Hence the support of various groups as alleged which is wrong only the USA can support various groups. 

 

 

 

The original 'deal' broken was by Iran. That would be their non-compliance issues with the NPT - and why all of this came about. Cuts both ways. As for sanctions, if these weren't in place, Iran would have never negotiated the JCPOA. So sometimes, that's what's needed. The wisdom (or lack of) Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA and re-introducing sanctions is another matter.

 

Whether sanctions are seen as means to pressure leadership, the people or both is a matter of perspective (or perhaps, world view). I don't think that the sanctions helped the US image as far as the Iranian people go, but at the same time the economic hardship does result in anger toward the regime. So guess it's a mixed bag.

[Morch]

49 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Your information is incorrect.

 

Iran did stop its nuke program. Some confusion arose because of a disinformation effort by Israel, who released some Iranian documents related to nuke development, but those documents were from the early 2000s and already in the possession of US intelligence.

 

Iran was 100% in compliance with every part of the JCPOA, including all breeder reactors offline (reactors that produced for medical purposes, incapable of ever approaching the 93% purity of U-235 necessary for use in a bomb, were allowed to operate), and the destruction of high speed centrifuges, plus a prohibition on new imports. Even Mossad knew Iran was 100% in compliance, as Mossad and the agency cooperated on efforts to keep abreast of what was going on inside Iran.

 

There are a host of ways intel can monitor Iran's compliance, some of which are classified. Rest assured these measures are 100% effective, which is why the agency could say with total confidence---as required every 6 months under JCPOA---that iran was 100% in compliance.

 

The JCPOA had two goals: the first was to take Iran out of the nuke game. That was done. The second was to use the opening of dialogue as a stepping stone to go after other Iranian actions the US wanted to stop, such as funding for Shi'a terror groups. Because the former POTUS pulled the US out of the JCPOA, that stepping stone was lost.

 

It is ironic, but not surprising, that the former POTUS cozied up to MbS and Saudi Arabia, a country that funds Sunni terrorism, which is far more a danger to the US (read: al Qaeda, ISIS) than Shi'a terrorism. Another major trend in the Middle East is the renewed radicalization and religious fundamentalism in predominantly Sunni countries like Saudi, and a growing youth movement in Shi'a countries like Iran that is moving away from the aging Mullahs. Iranian youth, at least until the former POTUS messed things up so badly, was becoming more "Westernized" and was desirous of enjoying the comforts of modernization enjoyed in the West. Unlike most of the Sunni monarchies, the youth of iran is well-educated and capable of making Iran a major economic power, competing not only in areas such as natural resources, but in technology. Some of the best computer techs in the world---including some of the most talented hackers---are Iranian.

 

President Biden's FP team is, unlike the former POTUS', both competent and knowledgeable. Both SecState Blinken and DCI-nominee Burns want to try to bring Iran into the international fold and find ways to obviate the power and influence of the aging Mullahs, thereby turning loose the youth of Iran so that Iran becomes a reliable member of the family of nations.

 

If it was only quite as straightforward as presented above....

But then:

 

Exclusive: IAEA found uranium traces at two sites Iran barred it from, sources say

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN2AJ269

 

Iran was indeed in compliance with the JCPOA terms - as far as intelligence and inspections could determine. While the former improved and the latter are strict, they are not (and will never be) 100% effective. It is more, IMO, a question of they offer a good enough solution. The alternative (at the time) would have been Iran being under no inspections regime, but under stricter sanctions - would that have been a better path to prevent the manufacture/procurement of a nuclear weapon? I think not.

 

As for the JCPOA's supposed second goal, I don't think Iran signed up for that. Far as I recall, any hint of taking such further steps resulted in rejections on Iran's part. IMO, this was, in part, wishful thinking but also salesmanship helping to market the agreement.

 

I don't know that Saudi Arabia, as a state, was supporting ISIS, or AQ. Elements within, probably yes. KSA not doing enough to curb such, again probably yes. Also, other than Iran there are no "Shi'a countries", but rather countries with significant (even a majority) number of them (Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Gulf states) - not sure how your comment applies.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The original 'deal' broken was by Iran. That would be their non-compliance issues with the NPT - and why all of this came about. Cuts both ways. As for sanctions, if these weren't in place, Iran would have never negotiated the JCPOA. So sometimes, that's what's needed. The wisdom (or lack of) Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA and re-introducing sanctions is another matter.

 

Whether sanctions are seen as means to pressure leadership, the people or both is a matter of perspective (or perhaps, world view). I don't think that the sanctions helped the US image as far as the Iranian people go, but at the same time the economic hardship does result in anger toward the regime. So guess it's a mixed bag.

Iran was in compliance until the former POTUS pulled out from the JCPOA.

 

There is some disinformation out there from an interested party that muddies the waters.

 

(To answer your other post all in one place....)

 

Support for Sunni terror does come with the tacit approval of the Saudi Govt, who fear it gets turned on them. As for Shi'a countries, yes, it's mostly Iran, but support for Shi'a terror also comes from Syria and Lebanon, a Hezbollah stronghold. There is also the likelihood some support comes from elements in the Eastern Province of Saudi, the area where all the oil is.

 

The Middle East was my beat in a previous career. I'm well aware of how well covered the area is in terms of intel, and I can separate the wheat from the chaff. Parties with a vested interest in things moving in a certain direction---some in the region, one quite far from the region but a major player in fossil fuels---are pretty good at floating falsehoods that get picked up even by mainstream media and become a confusing part of the overall picture. Middle east instability has benefits for some in terms of risk premiums in fossil fuel prices.

 

I am quite confident President Biden has the best intel possible and I know he has a host of experts who are anything but naive and quite up to speed on all the machinations in that region. They won't be patsies, but neither will they be bulls in a China shop, like Rapture Fetishist Pompeo was, who is such a fundamentalist he actually thought war with Iran might unleash Armageddon and the end times. That we had someone with that bizarre view as SecState should make people shiver.

 

The Biden team has a goal of ending Iran's support for Shi'a terror and obviating the control the mullahs have over Iranian society. Unlike their Gulf neighbors, Iran could become a major player in the world, not just another oil-funded Disneyland like most of the Gulf. Iran has the resources, an educated population, and a history of scientific brilliance the rest of the Gulf lacks.

 

 

[placeholder]

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Or maybe you're the one confusing 'supporting military actions in the region' with 'terrorism'. Guess it's related to one's political stance on relevant issues. Be that as it may, for countries affected by Iran's sponsorship of such, I kinda doubt your argument holds.

 

The thing with Iran' support for terrorism (or whatever you want to call it), is that a lot of it is state-sponsored or close enough. When it comes to Iran's neighbors, it's less clear cut than that.

 

I don't think that Iran was seen as an ally, regardless of their position vs. ISIL etc. Similar goals doesn't mean a partnership or anything of the sort. There was an awareness that Iran plays a farther reaching game than just fighting ISIL. Your last line could be argued as per my first paragraph. But that's probably taking us a bit off topic and anyway we have been over this several times in the past.

By military actions I'm referring to force being directed at combatants, not at civilians. Once upon a time terrorism meant using violence against non-combatants to advance some cause. Nowadays it also seems to be applied to parties who use violence against our military or the military of whatever nations or movements we support.

"The thing with Iran's support for terrorism (or whatever you want to call it) embodies just the kind of laxity I was referring to."

It might just as well be phrased "The thing with Iran's support for militias (or  whatever you want to call it)...: The question is, what do you call terrorism? Does your notion of what constitutes terrorism coincide with that of those who study it. Once upon a time not so long ago, this was the US State Dept. definition:

"Finally, the operative definition of terrorism on which all provisions depend is given by the State Department as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” 

https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/377363278.pdf

 

 

UAE and Qatari support for violent sunni Islamists in Syria was very clear cut. For that matter, even Israel was aiding them.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Iran was in compliance until the former POTUS pulled out from the JCPOA.

 

There is some disinformation out there from an interested party that muddies the waters.

 

(To answer your other post all in one place....)

 

Support for Sunni terror does come with the tacit approval of the Saudi Govt, who fear it gets turned on them. As for Shi'a countries, yes, it's mostly Iran, but support for Shi'a terror also comes from Syria and Lebanon, a Hezbollah stronghold. There is also the likelihood some support comes from elements in the Eastern Province of Saudi, the area where all the oil is.

 

The Middle East was my beat in a previous career. I'm well aware of how well covered the area is in terms of intel, and I can separate the wheat from the chaff. Parties with a vested interest in things moving in a certain direction---some in the region, one quite far from the region but a major player in fossil fuels---are pretty good at floating falsehoods that get picked up even by mainstream media and become a confusing part of the overall picture. Middle east instability has benefits for some in terms of risk premiums in fossil fuel prices.

 

I am quite confident President Biden has the best intel possible and I know he has a host of experts who are anything but naive and quite up to speed on all the machinations in that region. They won't be patsies, but neither will they be bulls in a China shop, like Rapture Fetishist Pompeo was, who is such a fundamentalist he actually thought war with Iran might unleash Armageddon and the end times. That we had someone with that bizarre view as SecState should make people shiver.

 

The Biden team has a goal of ending Iran's support for Shi'a terror and obviating the control the mullahs have over Iranian society. Unlike their Gulf neighbors, Iran could become a major player in the world, not just another oil-funded Disneyland like most of the Gulf. Iran has the resources, an educated population, and a history of scientific brilliance the rest of the Gulf lacks.

 

 

 

As for my first post - not sure what you're on about. I never denied Iran was declared as being in compliance with the JCPOA. My post was in response to a comment about breaking deals, referencing Iran's "breaking the deal" (with regard to the NPT), and thus starting this saga. People tend to focus on Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA, forgetting that Iran had it's share of issues as well.

 

The general comment about 'disinformation' is meaningless. Disinformation is disseminated by more than one party involved in current events. That would include Iran as well.

 

As for the rest...

 

You want to make claims about 'tacit approval' that's fine, but without support that's an opinion. The previous rendition was that KSA 'funds' Sunni terrorism (specifically naming AQ and ISIS). I believe the issue was with regard to such support (from either Iran or KSA) was "state sponsored". So, 'tacit approval', if this is accepted, does not quite make into "state sponsored".

 

As for "Shi'a terrorism" - to the extent that it's got a meaningful effect, it's generally sponsored/supported by Iran. Hezbollah would be nowhere near as powerful without Iran's backing. Syria, for quite some time now, is more of a conduit for Iranian support, in this regard. There are, effectively, no "Shi'a countries" as previously claimed, other than Iran. Also, Iran doesn't have qualms about supporting Sunni outfits when is suits (as it does in the Gaza Strip).

 

I agree that Biden, personally, and more so his team are as qualified as they come to deal with this specific issue, and of course, they are as well informed and updated on relevant intelligence as can be. And while pretty much anything would have been an improvement on the previous occupant of the White House, this administration seems strongly manned on this front.

 

I don't think 'ending Iran's support for Shi'a terror' is currently on the cards. It might be a future, longer term goal, but doubt it could actually be introduced into the JCPOA at this time, or that Iran is open to negotiate about it meaningfully. As for Iran's religious leaders' control, that too is a long term goal, far exceeding Biden's term. The romantic view of Iran and Iranians is raised a chuckle, thanks. Doubt that their case supports the notion that religious fanaticism and scientific prowess (or at least, technical savvy) are mutually exclusive.

 

Quote

The Middle East was my beat in a previous career. I'm well aware of how well covered the area is in terms of intel, and I can separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

Some of what you posted makes this statement questionable. Be that as it may, still to meet a intelligence officer, reporter, or academic who can seriously say he's on top of each and every aspect relating to the ME.

 

I notice that you've chosen to decline commenting on the article linked.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

By military actions I'm referring to force being directed at combatants, not at civilians. Once upon a time terrorism meant using violence against non-combatants to advance some cause. Nowadays it also seems to be applied to parties who use violence against our military or the military of whatever nations or movements we support.

"The thing with Iran's support for terrorism (or whatever you want to call it) embodies just the kind of laxity I was referring to."

It might just as well be phrased "The thing with Iran's support for militias (or  whatever you want to call it)...: The question is, what do you call terrorism? Does your notion of what constitutes terrorism coincide with that of those who study it. Once upon a time not so long ago, this was the US State Dept. definition:

"Finally, the operative definition of terrorism on which all provisions depend is given by the State Department as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” 

https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/377363278.pdf

 

 

UAE and Qatari support for violent sunni Islamists in Syria was very clear cut. For that matter, even Israel was aiding them.

 

I would suggest that like many other issues, reality is less clear cut than definitions allow. Outfits supported by Iran commit actions which can be construed as both terrorist and (going with your definition) military. Does it makes them terrorist organizations? Does it make them militias? If a 'militia' carries enough 'terrorist' attacks does the label change, and when? At least some of the ways people answer that is effected by political or ideological positions. Same goes for the phrasing of relevant questions.

 

There was indeed such support as you mention, but as far as I'm aware it was focused on ISIL's 'competitors' and not as claimed previously. I don't know that by your own definitions, these would count as 'terrorists', all the more so in the context of a civil war.

[DeaconJohn]

9 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Iran was in compliance until the former POTUS pulled out from the JCPOA.

 

There is some disinformation out there from an interested party that muddies the waters.

 

(To answer your other post all in one place....)

 

Support for Sunni terror does come with the tacit approval of the Saudi Govt, who fear it gets turned on them. As for Shi'a countries, yes, it's mostly Iran, but support for Shi'a terror also comes from Syria and Lebanon, a Hezbollah stronghold. There is also the likelihood some support comes from elements in the Eastern Province of Saudi, the area where all the oil is.

 

The Middle East was my beat in a previous career. I'm well aware of how well covered the area is in terms of intel, and I can separate the wheat from the chaff. Parties with a vested interest in things moving in a certain direction---some in the region, one quite far from the region but a major player in fossil fuels---are pretty good at floating falsehoods that get picked up even by mainstream media and become a confusing part of the overall picture. Middle east instability has benefits for some in terms of risk premiums in fossil fuel prices.

 

I am quite confident President Biden has the best intel possible and I know he has a host of experts who are anything but naive and quite up to speed on all the machinations in that region. They won't be patsies, but neither will they be bulls in a China shop, like Rapture Fetishist Pompeo was, who is such a fundamentalist he actually thought war with Iran might unleash Armageddon and the end times. That we had someone with that bizarre view as SecState should make people shiver.

 

The Biden team has a goal of ending Iran's support for Shi'a terror and obviating the control the mullahs have over Iranian society. Unlike their Gulf neighbors, Iran could become a major player in the world, not just another oil-funded Disneyland like most of the Gulf. Iran has the resources, an educated population, and a history of scientific brilliance the rest of the Gulf lacks.

 

 

Excellent post.

You make points that would be hard to refute without smoke and mirrors and the mind-numbing verbosity of a canned narrative.

[Sujo]

11 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Your information is incorrect.

 

Iran did stop its nuke program. Some confusion arose because of a disinformation effort by Israel, who released some Iranian documents related to nuke development, but those documents were from the early 2000s and already in the possession of US intelligence.

 

Iran was 100% in compliance with every part of the JCPOA, including all breeder reactors offline (reactors that produced for medical purposes, incapable of ever approaching the 93% purity of U-235 necessary for use in a bomb, were allowed to operate), and the destruction of high speed centrifuges, plus a prohibition on new imports. Even Mossad knew Iran was 100% in compliance, as Mossad and the agency cooperated on efforts to keep abreast of what was going on inside Iran.

 

There are a host of ways intel can monitor Iran's compliance, some of which are classified. Rest assured these measures are 100% effective, which is why the agency could say with total confidence---as required every 6 months under JCPOA---that iran was 100% in compliance.

 

The JCPOA had two goals: the first was to take Iran out of the nuke game. That was done. The second was to use the opening of dialogue as a stepping stone to go after other Iranian actions the US wanted to stop, such as funding for Shi'a terror groups. Because the former POTUS pulled the US out of the JCPOA, that stepping stone was lost.

 

It is ironic, but not surprising, that the former POTUS cozied up to MbS and Saudi Arabia, a country that funds Sunni terrorism, which is far more a danger to the US (read: al Qaeda, ISIS) than Shi'a terrorism. Another major trend in the Middle East is the renewed radicalization and religious fundamentalism in predominantly Sunni countries like Saudi, and a growing youth movement in Shi'a countries like Iran that is moving away from the aging Mullahs. Iranian youth, at least until the former POTUS messed things up so badly, was becoming more "Westernized" and was desirous of enjoying the comforts of modernization enjoyed in the West. Unlike most of the Sunni monarchies, the youth of iran is well-educated and capable of making Iran a major economic power, competing not only in areas such as natural resources, but in technology. Some of the best computer techs in the world---including some of the most talented hackers---are Iranian.

 

President Biden's FP team is, unlike the former POTUS', both competent and knowledgeable. Both SecState Blinken and DCI-nominee Burns want to try to bring Iran into the international fold and find ways to obviate the power and influence of the aging Mullahs, thereby turning loose the youth of Iran so that Iran becomes a reliable member of the family of nations.

Yet again a great informative post.