Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 06, 2015

Obama Wants Nuclear Deal With Iran But Argues A (False) Case For War

In arguing for the international deal over Iran's nuclear program the Obama administration is selling, quite intentionally it seems, a (false) case for war on Iran.

The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, argues that the deal is good because the agreed upon additional IAEA inspections would make war on Iran easier:

The military option would remain on the table, but the fact is, that military option would be enhanced because we’d been spending the intervening number of years gathering significantly more detail about Iran’s nuclear program. So when it comes to the targeting decisions that would be made by military officials either in Israel or the United States, those targeting decisions would be significantly informed, and our capabilities improved, based on the knowledge that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections regime.

Q So if Israel wants to contemplate it, it should wait?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, what we believe --

Q That’s what you just said.

See - war is easier when we wait a while and let some inspections happen first. Then, when we have a new targeting list, ...

Iran has official protested against that remark:

The International Atomic Energy Agency should “condemn categorically” statements made last month by a White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, Iran’s representative to the IAEA wrote in a July 24 letter to the agency’s director general, Yukiya Amano.
...
Earnest’s “statement jeopardizes the role of the IAEA” under the Vienna agreement, Reza Najafi, Iran’s envoy to the agency, wrote in the letter. The IAEA must “ensure scrupulous compliance with the principle of confidentiality regarding all information related to the implementation of safeguards,” he added.

The IAEA, under the sycophantic U.S. puppet Yukiya Amano, did not respond to the Iranian letter.

Secretary of State Kerry is also boosting for war on Iran. In front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he argued that Iran is untrustworthy and a bad actor and actually wants nuclear weapons:

In two sentences, Kerry managed to combine the images of Iranian-supported terrorism and sectarian violence across the entire region and Iranian determination to get nuclear weapons. He told the committee about the administration's plans to “push back against Iran’s other activities - against terrorism support, its contribution to sectarian violence in the Middle East,” which he called “unacceptable”. Then he added: “But pushing back against an Iran with nuclear weapons is very different from pushing back against Iran without one.”

The administration’s determination to be just as alarmist about Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions as its opponents creates a US political discourse on the Iran nuclear issue built around two duelling narratives that disagree about the effect of the agreement but have one politically crucial common denominator: they both hold it as beyond debate that Iran cannot be trusted because it wants nuclear weapons; and the only question is whether and for how long that Iranian quest for nuclear weapons can be held off without war.

Obama himself claims that the nuclear agreement is the only alternative to waging war on Iran:

The president made it clear that if the goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the real choice is between the existing deal and a war. It's a simple fact, though one that skeptics have shied away from.

"Because more sanctions won’t produce the results that the critics want," Obama said, "congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration only one option: another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative. I’m stating a fact."

That argument, also made by some 'liberals', is of course complete nonsense. Iran has never strived for nuclear weapons. There is no reason for it to do so even without any agreement. It would just continue its civil nuclear program as it had planned and the IAEA would continue to inspect and report on it. The negotiations and deal with Iran came to pass because the U.S. needs to untangle itself from the chaos it created in the Middle East, not because Iran needs it.

Obama is clearly setting up a false choice and thereby creates the danger that any minor future hiccup in the execution of the agreement will lead to war on Iran "because Obama said so." As Micah Zenko explains:

The most stark and substantial claim made by the president and his senior advisers over the past two weeks is that Congress and the world faces a binary choice: either implement the JCPOA, or prepare for a war with Iran.
...
[R]epeating the claim that there are only two choices—the JCPOA or war—is a false dichotomy that the Obama administration should refrain from making any longer. There are simply too many assumptions about the future decisions of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that must be true for this hypothesis to be correct.

The facts speak against Iranian plans for any weapon of mass destruction. Iran has a history of choosing not to use WMD even when it was attacked by such. U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies says that Iran has no nuclear weapon programs. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran and its political leaders have the intention to create one:

Predicting leadership intentions is inherently difficult, and the Obama administration should not assume that it can do so accurately for Iran’s supreme leader. Again, there are many better and more convincing reasons for supporting the JCPOA. Repeating the false dichotomy that it is either this diplomatic agreement or certain war is not one of them.

But repeating the false choice as the Obama administration does makes it very easy for those who want war to (again) invent some "intelligence" to pretend that Iran is not keeping to its agreements and to then go to war. Obama is creating the argument for them. Iran should not that and prepare accordingly. As I explained earlier:

The U.S. has a bad record of sticking to international deals it made.
...
Netanyahoo's puppets in the U.S. congress will do their best to blockade the current deal. Should they not be able to do so attempts will be made to press the next U.S. president into breaking the agreement.

There is no sane reason for the Obama administration to use the "bad Iran" claims and the false choice argument "agreement or war". It is kicking the can down the road while making the argument for the next player to pick it up. One gets the feeling that the intentions behind this are not good at all.

Posted by b on August 6, 2015 at 5:18 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The Iran agreement was a scam to get the stupid Iranians to disengage most of its civilian nuclear facilities while the US Empire and its allies prepared to attack them in the future. That Iran surrendered so much is why the US keep kept pushing for more negotiations..... The US couldn't believe how much Iran surrendered, so they kept upping the shit-ness of the deal.

Iran will have to dismantle most of its nuclear facilities even before the US start considering reducing sanctions. And it takes years of nuclear work to get Iran back to where they were before.
So if the plan is not to attack Iran now but to attack them later, what better way then to start a negotiated nuclear reduction scheme, pretend you're going to get rid of sanctions in the future,and when you're ready to attack Iran, there will be less nuclear facilities and an existing weapon embargo.

This whole deal is a perfect set up to weaken Iran now, so to be attacked later.
That's the difference between sophisticated empire Democrats, and bloodthirsty - kill them now - Republicans and zionists

Posted by: tom | Aug 6 2015 5:46 utc | 1

I imagine the USA has a dossier and a plan to devastate and destroy each and every nation on earth, has them all queued and is purusing them in order. They reshuffle the queue from time to time, according to developments 'on stage', but I imagine that every state on earth does have its place in that queue. And the Neolibracons will doggedly keep pursuing those so enqueued, day in and day out, until they're done, or done in themselves. They began 70 years ago today, with their total war against all, and still they continue today.

No one is safe anywhere on earth while Neolibraconia still rules.

Posted by: jfl | Aug 6 2015 6:15 utc | 2

b

Since the Year Dot, the Kerry-Nuland Plan for Iran has been no different, not one twit, than the 60-year Arab (sic) - Israeli Peace (sicker) Accords, which don't even mention that Israel was cleft from Palestine's rib; then like a bitch ex-Eve, the USAryans have no intention whatsoever of restoring trade, free economy and laissez faire relations with Iran, they're just waiting for those IAEA precision GPS targeting coordinates, for another go at Shekinah and Final Solution Israeli hegemony over a New Levant of the Oil States.

And if the talks fail, or Iranians refuse to be GPS- targeted, then we'll have another #CheneyBakedaYellowCake, and Petraeus will unveil some secret intel from his Mossad hooker-journalist ex-girlfriend, then we'll go full battle rattle with a $58 BILLION 'war slush fund' the RINO Congress misappropriated to backstop IMFs' loans to Kiev, with slush left over for domestic propaganda and Evangelical Fever.

They will launch this in *mid-September*, I'm predicting now, after Fed raises interest rates to firmly crush the Draghi Breakout, and create an economic firestorm to crush the Trump Breakout at home, then launch a total takedown missile attack on Syria's radars, so that if they can't strong arm the UN with economic hijacking for a SC war resolution, then Israel will fly Operation Dark Alley, using the nuke bunker busters Hagel sold them, and airframe retrofits provided by Boeing.

Not poor...not stupid. They want it all.

Rabbinical nutsacks? Yes. Evangelical Exceptionalistas? Sure. Ready to create Hell on Earth for the Return of their Satanic Anti-Christ? IT'S THE PENTANGLE, IN PLAIN VIEW SINCE WW2!!!

Posted by: Chipnik | Aug 6 2015 9:33 utc | 3

As has been stated, this agreement wasn't about stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon (although the deal may hinder three or four possible pathways for them to do so). How could it, when every national intelligent assessment made to this point have come to the same conclusion; that the Iranians are NOT developing a nuclear weapon. This deal was about the US coming to terms with its own limitations.

Certainly Obama knows that the Iranians aren't trying to build a bomb, but he's very much forced to puppet along with the official narration. Because the truth would permanently close the Iran nuclear file, effectivly destroy the sanctions regime, leaving the West without a deal to limit (ie hurt) Iran's nuclear ambitions. For the US, a bad deal is better than no deal.

And the US could use, though for a limit of time, the IAEA as a bargaining chip against Iran. But I don't think this deal gets us closer to war (big business won't allow it, and its gradually flocking to Iran).

Posted by: never mind | Aug 6 2015 10:06 utc | 4

Following, a highly recommended analysis by Eric Draitser covering regional geopolitics surrounding the US's determination to attack Iran. It should be obvious to most, by now, that the reason for US war-mongering against Iran has little to nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program.

And, suddenly, ISIS appears in Afghanistan, of all places …

A few excerpts from Draitser's article: "The emergence of ISIS in Afghanistan, along with the impending withdrawal of US-NATO troops from the country, has driven the Taliban into a marriage of convenience, if not an outright alliance, with Iran".

"[…] Iran understands that ISIS is, in effect, an arm of the power projection of its regional rivals Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have been primary instigators of the war in Syria and the attempt to break the alliance of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah. Therefore, from the Iranian perspective, the Taliban’s war against ISIS in Afghanistan is essentially a new theater in the larger war against ISIS and its backers".

And, then, there's China …

"[…] China sees in Afghanistan one of the main keys to its entire regional, and indeed global, strategy. […] Afghanistan represents for China both a bridge to its partner, Pakistan, and the key to the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia. Moreover, it represents a critical node in the potential pipeline networks, as well as trading routes".

"[…] Afghanistan is at the very heart of both China’s and Iran’s regional plans. And this fact, more than any other, explains exactly the purpose that ISIS serves in Afghanistan. From the perspective of Washington, nothing could serve US imperial ambitions more effectively than a destabilization of Afghanistan both as justification for continued occupation, and to block Chinese penetration".

Full article: ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War against Iran and China

The US really is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to justification for its desperate, expanding military strategies, notably with respect to Iran. Meanwhile, wasn't it Brzezinski who explained that the conquest and control of Central Asia was the real prize, key to global hegemony?

Posted by: dana | Aug 6 2015 12:24 utc | 5

Following, a highly recommended analysis by Eric Draitser covering regional geopolitics surrounding the US's determination to attack Iran. It should be obvious to most, by now, that the reason for US war-mongering against Iran has little to nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program.

And, suddenly, ISIS appears in Afghanistan, of all places …

A few excerpts from Draitser's article: "The emergence of ISIS in Afghanistan, along with the impending withdrawal of US-NATO troops from the country, has driven the Taliban into a marriage of convenience, if not an outright alliance, with Iran".

"[…] Iran understands that ISIS is, in effect, an arm of the power projection of its regional rivals Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have been primary instigators of the war in Syria and the attempt to break the alliance of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah. Therefore, from the Iranian perspective, the Taliban’s war against ISIS in Afghanistan is essentially a new theater in the larger war against ISIS and its backers".

And, then, there's China …

"[…] China sees in Afghanistan one of the main keys to its entire regional, and indeed global, strategy. […] Afghanistan represents for China both a bridge to its partner, Pakistan, and the key to the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia. Moreover, it represents a critical node in the potential pipeline networks, as well as trading routes".

"[…] Afghanistan is at the very heart of both China’s and Iran’s regional plans. And this fact, more than any other, explains exactly the purpose that ISIS serves in Afghanistan. From the perspective of Washington, nothing could serve US imperial ambitions more effectively than a destabilization of Afghanistan both as justification for continued occupation, and to block Chinese penetration".

Full article: ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War against Iran and China

The US really is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to justification for its desperate, expanding military strategies, notably with respect to Iran. Meanwhile, wasn't it Brzezinski who explained that the conquest and control of Central Asia was the real prize, key to global hegemony?

Posted by: dana | Aug 6 2015 12:24 utc | 6

This post is very disconcerting.

Posted by: gemini33 | Aug 6 2015 12:34 utc | 7

An I for an I

Posted by: mcohen | Aug 6 2015 12:38 utc | 8

No, no, no.

If Obama, Kerry & Biden hadn't been running into such fierce opposition then they would have made a deal with Iran in 2013.

These 3 people DO NOT want a war against Iran !!!!!

Then how would one "B"explain this piece of news ? "Obama will veto any attept to undermine the deal with Iran"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-will-veto-any-bill-that-prevents-implementation-of-iran-deal/

Posted by: Willy2 | Aug 6 2015 12:43 utc | 9

Iran was very flexible in concessions concerning the nuclear program, because it actually has no weapons program and its civilian needs seem rather modest. American sanctions are not important per se without EU sanctions, and EU seems to be quite enthusiastic about dropping them, with trade delegations flocking to Tehran. France was most obstructionist, allegedly for quite mercantile reasons (Saudi and Gulf contracts), but in a larger picture, the detrimental effect of sanctions adds up.

Economically, Iran needs to trade and bank without harassment, militarily, it needs updated conventional weapons, computer-guided artillery, tactical missiles with good guidance, modern anti-aircraft defense and some alliances. With Russian veto, American airforce cannot make "parking lots" in Iranian cities and military bases. The most surprising Iranian concession was an extension of arms embargo, but perhaps the small print is not onerous. To the maximal extend Iran tries to copy (and develop?) technologies and produce domestically.

The most sticky question is the use of inspections to uncover conventional military secrets. For example, Iran may construct hundreds of tunnel entrances in the vicinity of Strait of Hormuz and use some of them for actual tunnels for missiles that can target the Strait. You would not be able to apply bunker trusters to all of them, but after inspections you could. But if the inspection regime is sufficiently convoluted, it cannot be used for that purpose.

Concerning Obama's rhetoric, one can explain it with Plato's story about a cave where people watch shades. An explanation that the shades are caused by the Sun that they have never seen would be instantly rejected.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 6 2015 12:46 utc | 10

There's something being overlooked in all this huffing and puffing.
The Obama Admin just shot itself in the foot. I've read the first quoted par in b's post and it says...

The military option would remain on the table, but the fact is, that military option would be enhanced because we’d (have) been spending the intervening number of years gathering significantly more detail about Iran’s nuclear program. So when it comes to the targeting decisions that would be made by military officials either in Israel or the United States, those targeting decisions would be significantly informed, and our capabilities improved, based on the knowledge that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections regime.

That "we'd" is of HUGE significance.
No matter what Obama may say to play it down, it confirms that, from Obama's point of view, "Israel", USA and the IAEA act as, and thus are, a single info-sharing entity with a common goal.

The Yankees have lost the plot.
Now, all anyone who wants to be Nuked by Russia & China has to do is attack Iran. Nifty.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6 2015 13:45 utc | 11

jfl @ 2:
"No one is safe anywhere on earth while Neolibraconia still rules."

dana @ 5:
"It should be obvious to most, by now, that the reason for US war-mongering against Iran has little to nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program."


True that, on both accounts. The Western Empire and its minions will not relent, ever.

Giant corporations, who seek to eliminate ALL competition, and by way of the Fed, can create unlimited sums of $, seek global hegemony, will never cede control to the workers.

THAT, my friends, is the struggle.

Posted by: ben | Aug 6 2015 14:33 utc | 12

Understanding how the Sausage is made in Washington seems to be beyond the understanding of many people. The kabuki rhetoric creating the drama here is little more than propaganda designed for local consumption, the Iranians know this, and it is needed to appease the McCainiacs who must seem to defend their belligerent positions until they don't.

No one including the Israelis are going to bomb Iran, the cost/benefit analysis was done years ago, but the bombing rhetoric has been useful.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Aug 6 2015 14:59 utc | 13

B doesn't realize the power of Zion in America.Obomba is just trying to combat their total opposition to sanity,although of course Obomba lacks it also.Yes,he is in over his head,but so is the whole govt,infected by Zions lies.
The 28 pages;Today over at AW or CP I saw a story about the silence on releasing the redacted info.There was a mention of a Saudi Princess funding the hijackers.Not the Saudi Princess whose plane inexplicably crashed the other day?One never knows.

Posted by: dahoit | Aug 6 2015 15:00 utc | 14

Silly question, but would someone explain how the power dynamics of the middle east shift if if there is not a war and the agreement is adopted and respected?

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 6 2015 15:18 utc | 15

I was not feeling great yesterday. Resting between my 2 jobs, I had NPR on in the background so that I kept track of the time. I was half asleep and heard Obama basically threatening War against Iran unless blah blah blah.

Sheesh. These MoFos just won't let up, thinks I... they're like a dog with a bone. Utterly unsurprising that Obama the Grand Capitulator would make his pronouncement from on high. I had a picture in my mind of addled demented perpetually angry John McCain foaming at the mouth in the background, shaking his wrinkled fist and cursing: it should be me Me MEEEEEEEEE making this "important" declaration of WAR, Inc. Curses, John, ye be foiled again!

It's all a dog 'n pony show in the ME, or Kabuki Show or what have you.

"Giant corporations, who seek to eliminate ALL competition, and by way of the Fed, can create unlimited sums of $, seek global hegemony, will never cede control to the workers." ben @12

Yes, pretty much that's it. That, plus, how can the MIC suck more money out of the system.

Where or how this ends is anyone's guess. There apparently appears to be another "campaign" orchestrated by the PTB to gin up fear & loathing over the horrid Muslims "running" Dearborn MI. Suddenly I'm seeing scary scary fear fear stuff about Dearborn (the propaganda is waxing at the moment); the Fibbies are flying spy planes openly over it; the rightwing churches are "warning" about Sharia Law being "imposed on everyone" there.

It's just endless. As long as the rubes capitulate along with Dear Leader, the Capitulator in Chief, this is the way it's gonna go.

We sure as heck aren't going to see any enlightenment from the trained gibbering baboons on Fox tonight. I can assure of you that!

Posted by: RUKidding | Aug 6 2015 15:20 utc | 16

Gareth Porter gave a good interview to the "Peter B. Collins Show" on the topic "Iran".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kpayh4e31i45lpb/1452.mp3?dl=0

From the Peter B. Collins Show:
http://www.peterbcollins.com/
http://www.peterbcollins.com/2015/07/16/independent-journalist-gareth-porter-shares-some-truths-about-iranian-nuke-deal/


http://www.peterbcollins.com/

Posted by: Willy2 | Aug 6 2015 15:52 utc | 17

At least 13 possibly 17 Saudi Policemen killed at a Saudi Mosque by suicide bomber.
Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi political analyst, said that if the latest attack is proven to be the handiwork of ISIL groups, it would be the largest ISIL attack targeting security forces inside Saudi.
"Those guys, they are at war with us," he told Al Jazeera. "This is shaking us to the ground." http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/suicide-attack-mosque-saudi-arabia-southwest-150806110739697.html

Posted by: harry law | Aug 6 2015 16:31 utc | 18

@18 I wonder if Iran will get the blame.

Posted by: dh | Aug 6 2015 16:47 utc | 19

One theory i heard that might explain much is that the agreement is merely designed to allow Iranian oil back onto the open market, without the US appearing to lose face, in order to keep oil prices low thus maintaining the financial pessure on Russia, by depriving them of any chance of increased oil revenues in the short to medium term.

The recent plunge in oil prices hit their coffers hard.

Difficult to modernise your military when you just lost a whole chunk of revenue

As Obama himself now admits, in the long term, info collected now by inspectors, can by used for targeting purposes in the future, when some US/Zio manufactured event will inevitably be created from nothing and to be used as a casus belli

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 6 2015 17:39 utc | 20

...A (False) Case For War

Indeed. It is false because the time for the neo-zio-nazis to launch a war in Iran is long gone. The US neocons are complete idiots out of greed, but there is enough brain left in them to protect their survival. Understanding the (empty) threats against Iran requires getting out of the duality mindset empire/periphery, and to take a fresh look at Iran's new position and role in the Eurasian Great Game. As peripatetic Pepe Escobar points out in The Eurasian Big Bang,

Let’s start with the geopolitical Big Bang you know nothing about, the one that occurred just two weeks ago. Here are its results: from now on, any possible future attack on Iran threatened by the Pentagon (in conjunction with NATO) would essentially be an assault on the planning of an interlocking set of organizations -- the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union), the AIIB (the new Chinese-founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and the NDB (the BRICS' New Development Bank) -- whose acronyms you’re unlikely to recognize either. Still, they represent an emerging new order in Eurasia.

Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, Islamabad, and New Delhi have been actively establishing interlocking security guarantees. They have been simultaneously calling the Atlanticist bluff when it comes to the endless drumbeat of attention given to the flimsy meme of Iran’s "nuclear weapons program." And a few days before the Vienna nuclear negotiations finally culminated in an agreement, all of this came together at a twin BRICS/SCO summit in Ufa, Russia -- a place you’ve undoubtedly never heard of and a meeting that got next to no attention in the U.S. And yet sooner or later, these developments will ensure that the War Party in Washington and assorted neocons (as well as neoliberalcons) already breathing hard over the Iran deal will sweat bullets as their narratives about how the world works crumble.

The landmark meeting at Ufa, Russia’s Republic of Bashkortostan, on July 9, 2015, at which BRICS, SCO, and the EEU overlapped, approved Iran’s full membership in the political-military alliance headed by China and Russia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, pending the removal of the US/Eurostan criminally imposed sanctions. Iran has been an observer member of the SCO since 2005. Iran is also looking for membership in BRICS and the EEU. Rumors about a political-military Russia-Iran/China-Iran/Russia-Iran-China axis are already roaming around the internet, and the usual pundits are already warning about the new impending “axis of evil.”

Once Iran is under the protective nuclear mantle of Russia & China, and that is becoming a near-future fact, it would be impossible for the neo-zio-nazis to fulfill their dreams of attacking Iran. After all, they are not as stupid as they appear to be.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Aug 6 2015 17:44 utc | 21

There is one major potential poison pill in the Iranian nuclear deal. This is the clause that the IAEA can inspect military sites if they have reason to believe that they might being used for nuclear purposes. This will give Israel an incentive to fabricate some 'reasons' to pass on to IAEA.

As we all know the main deterrent Iran has against an Israeli and/or US attack is their anti-ship missile batteries that are in the mountains overlooking the straits of Hormuz. If the IAEA inspectors gained information on the exact locations of those sites the US could easily neutralize them with a few hundred cruise missiles. Iran would never agree to allow Amano's inspectors anywhere near those sites. This could be the pretext for war. This is a major risk that Iran took when signing the deal.

However, I think it was a risk worth taking to reach a final deal. Iran will after all have the support of China and Russia in any diplomatic efforts that resists US intelligence from gaining access to those military sites. Europe will be very hesitant to back the US in such a situation. We will just have to wait and see what some war mongering future administration will do with this military site access clause.

Posted by: ToivoS | Aug 6 2015 17:57 utc | 22

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran’s-rouhani-says-nuclear-deal-‘more-than-what-was-imagined’/ar-BBlkJZq?srcref=rss
(Bloomberg) -- Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, calling the nuclear deal signed last month “more than what was imagined,” said the country will start implementing its terms by next month -- after which the process of sanctions removal will begin.

In a live interview on state television in Tehran, the moderate cleric said the historic accord signed with six powers, including the U.S., was a “great achievement” for Iran because it meant it’s seen as a country the rest of the world wants to engage with, rather than as a threat to peace.

“Without exaggeration I say that today’s achievements are more than what was imagined yesterday and what we have achieved today is more than what we thought we could (achieve) two years ago,” Rouhani said.

“In one month, we will start our implementation of the deal. The lifting of the sanctions will start, the atmosphere will change, investment will come to the country, our hands will be untied to sell oil,” Rouhani said, adding that the agreement placed no limits on Iran’s missile strength.

Rouhani said that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will enable Iran to reduce inflation to single digits by the end of his first term in 2017, from a high of more than 40 percent when he was elected in June 2013.

Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 6 2015 18:35 utc | 23

“In one month, we will start our implementation of the deal. The lifting of the sanctions will start, the atmosphere will change, investment will come to the country, our hands will be untied to sell oil,” Rouhani said

Not a bad way to try and drive a wedge between Russia and Iran.

Iran gets much needed oil revenue, while Russia suffers prolonged oil price slump.

Iran possibly easier to manipulate in the future, regarding oil output.

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 6 2015 18:51 utc | 24

can someone post here how much capital is now tied up in useless tight oil - and who lent it?

Posted by: bridger | Aug 6 2015 19:33 utc | 25

@22 "As we all know the main deterrent Iran has against an Israeli and/or US attack is their anti-ship missile batteries that are in the mountains overlooking the straits of Hormuz."

Not a big problem. Simply set up a few hundred dummy sites. Stand well clear and watch them get neutralized.

Posted by: dh | Aug 6 2015 19:34 utc | 26

@26

The continuing production of this 'useless' tight oil along with the future prospect of increased Iranian production has driven WTI crude prices down to $44 today. Banks and investors have loaned the billions of dollars for this tight oil development and much of it has returned large profits. We are now in a contraction of exploration and consolidation of the weaker players but tight oil production will continue for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Aug 6 2015 19:44 utc | 27

25

In USGDP terms?

S.F.A

Shale oil accounts for a miniscule fraction of US GDP. Canada might be another matter though.

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 6 2015 20:01 utc | 28

From reading the press outside the Western world, the common believe is that US policy is to dominate the world militarily, economically and (culturally if possible). It is not viewed a wishful thinking by the US and the desire to do so was accelerated/promoted with less fan fair during Obama regime with blood on many hands the blood of women and children of Gaza, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and so on with no remorse.
The believe that this policy is carved in stones long time ago and placed in front of every decision makers in the State Dept., Pentagon, NSA, CIA etc. (a challenge for this forum is to name someone in key position in those departments who is not hostile to Arabs, Iranians, Russian, Chinese, Latin Americans ). Strategies developed was and will continue to be implemented regardless who is sitting in the white house. Countries that stand in the way will be targeted for annihilation (Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Russia, ) even after they ask for forgiveness (Gadhafi). The program and the process is will established with recipes that could be modified slightly to accommodate a given president public posture, Bush – “bring them on”, Obama “red lines” based on false report, “Assad is magnet for terrorist” “no boots on the ground”.
From that point of view it is not surprising when we hear about how Obama and the next president is going to use the deal, inspections, and false flags to destabilize and attack Iran’s infrastructure (attack on nuclear facility is a small part of it) to push them back to the stone age as the Israelis did in Gaza, Saudis in Yemen and others in Syria and Libya. Many observed that the most clever list of deceptions and misinformation used by the white house, state department, CIA, etc. are:
1-False Intelligence led us to this and that, we trusted informants, 2- The boggy man used Chemical Weapons against his people, 3-we are defending our allies against Russia, China, Iran aggression, 4- Major disagreement between us and Israel on Iran Deal and our Middle East policy (read Palestinians and two state soltion). 5- we must arm our allies in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, South East Asia to defend themselves (here we are taking about Trillions which may sound as good economics on the surface ( need a study to prove that). Of Course the Major Media and paid consultants echo, recite and amplified the above with no shame and questions asked

Posted by: DanE | Aug 6 2015 20:03 utc | 29

@27 Psst. Wanna double your money? Oil stocks are very oversold at the moment. Pick one with low debt and wait a few months.

Posted by: dh | Aug 6 2015 21:13 utc | 30

Correct dh, there are probably already 10 decoy missile sites for every real one.

Posted by: Lisa | Aug 6 2015 21:24 utc | 31

30

You should start a blog. "dh's Outside Trades"

Make a mint

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 6 2015 22:03 utc | 32

@32 You surprise me foff. I thought you had too much political integrity to play the stockmarket.

Posted by: dh | Aug 6 2015 22:48 utc | 33

I used to work in a betting shop.

When I think of the stockmarket I think of the 8:15 to Cheltenham, Day before the gold cup

You've never been on the 8:15 to Cheltenham, day before The Gold Cup.

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 6 2015 23:04 utc | 34

preperation for consolidation in iraq and somalia is underway....this is a "president bush" speciality...jeb bush is the man to watch

opposing sides take note.

obama has laid the groundwork in both areas for a negioated settlement i.e the iranians and there proxies have a simple choice ..allow for change in iraq and somalia

Posted by: mcohen | Aug 6 2015 23:23 utc | 35

Details Of Iran Nuclear Documents To Remain Confidential, Says Nuclear Agency Leader

BLOCKQUOTE>In a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans on Aug. 5, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continued to deny the U.S. access to secret documents agreed upon between the United Nations and Iran over the nation’s nuclear energy facilities.

Yukiya Amano, the head of IAEA, met with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in an attempt to garner support for President Barack Obama’s unpopular deal with Iran. Amano would not reveal the secret side deals that his organization made with Iran that did not include discussions with the United States.

“Imagine if a country provides me with confidential information … and I do not honor the commitment, no country will share information with us and I cannot implement the safeguards,” Amano said to the press after the meeting ended.

Posted by: never mind | Aug 7 2015 9:00 utc | 37

21

BRICS is a bankrupt WS farce, equivalent to 'Gold $10,000!'

"... pending the removal of the US/Eurostan criminally imposed sanctions...", ...which will never be removed! Ergo, no union!

This 'agreement' is a golden noose, like the Israelis walking away from the table unless Palestine and Levant agree to be their vassal. The Iran deal is like the Iraq deal. A setup for 'non-compliance', then a UN SC war resolution, before the global oil&gas infrastructure goes belly up, and pulls down the entire global financial system.

Or they'll allow Daesch to take out Saudi overproduction, let Iran build up Iraqi oil supplies, then take out Iraq and Iran again, since neither has any part in the global financial derivatives pyramid scheme. They can be shut in at whim, and send crude back to $150.

You need to lose the Hope Is Chains brainwashing. Hope is for Dopes. Open your eyes. There are no more White Knights on Unicorns Farting Rainbows.

Posted by: Chipnik | Aug 7 2015 9:10 utc | 38

37

Precision GPS targeting of Iran's military facilities is as simple as embedding microcircuitry in a cell phone, an IAEA identity card provided by an Israeli subcontractor, just as US defense contractor badges are now, or a radiation dosimeter badge, ...no matter what BS this IAEA Pol says about 'confidentiality'. Cui bono? IAEA.

The IAEA inspections have only one function: GPS targeting, even of they have to shove GPS circuitry up the inspectors' asses, then later as a 'non-compliance' screed to get the UN SC war declaration to go ahead and use those GPS coordinates.

"Everyone has a plan, ...until they get punched in the face."
Iron Mike

Posted by: Chipnik | Aug 7 2015 9:26 utc | 39

34

This is a massive international finance mafia racket, letting oil&gas fall, fall, fall, even as they're building the largest LNG tankers the world has ever seen, and widening the Panama and Sue canals just for them, and for super container ships.

They'll buy up all the oil&gas juniors, buy control or credit-debt control of the majors, then flash crash war in MENA over some Kerry-Nuland fraud (prolly to hide $10s Bs IMF backstop bailout with US taxpayer savings of imminent Kiev default), giving a Giga short squeeze to pump their holdings profits, and come out on top with the vampires owning all the energy, and the world's pensioners holding their dicks.

Hope Is Chains.

Posted by: Chipnik | Aug 7 2015 9:41 utc | 40

b

Slightly OT: Report: Russian Hack on Pentagon the ‘Most Sophisticated’ in Military History

"The Pentagon took down the Joint Staff unclassified email system after Russian hackers attacked the emails of 4,000 military and civilian personnel. The email has been offline for the past 11 days.

US officials called the hack the “‘most sophisticated’ cyberbreach in U.S. military history.” In fact, the level of sophistication is so high the officials did not rule out is a “state entity” took part in the hack.

They also told The Daily Beast they are “creating mock hacking scenarios” before the personnel can access the system. The hackers used a “spear phishing attack” to obtain personal information on numerous users.

The attack occurred on July 25, only 16 days after Marine General Joe Dunford, a nominee to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services that Russia is the greatest threat to American national security. Dunford placed Russia above China, North Korea, and the Islamic State because of its “rapidly expanding military.”

--

Really? I thought the 'Chinese' (sic) breach of all Pentagon civilian and military PII was the 'most sophisticated attack' in US history, considering that whoever made the attack, and that would most likely be the Israelis, can now access Pentagon documents using that PII or access bank accounts and use hostage extortion to mine for top secret files.

Oh, wait, I thought the 'Soviet' (sic) breach of all Pentagon contractors' financial information last year was the 'most sophisticated attack' in US history, considering that whoever made the attack, and that would most likely be the Israelis, who provide the badge IDs on subcontract and therefore have all the contractors' PII already, can create fake companies and bill the Pentagon for $10s of Bs without detection. That's pretty serious.

No, this 'Russian' (sic) breach, using spear phishing, that any pimple-faced US grade school hacker could put together, that relies solely on the gullibility and venality of Pentagon employees staring at their Inbox, it simply invades one machine, then uses the network to metastasize across to other workers with that false identity. Like taking cookies away from a drone.

--

"Dunford placed Pentagon employees below China, North Korea, and the Islamic State citizenry because of their “rapidly expanding gullibility.”

And now Israel has it all, all the PII of all Defense workers and contractors, and their email access with all their passwords and financial information.

There is your Axis of Evil.

On to Tehran~!

Posted by: NoReply | Aug 7 2015 12:04 utc | 41

@22 "If the IAEA inspectors gained information on the exact locations of those sites the US could easily neutralize them with a few hundred cruise missiles."

Oh, please, get real.

The IAEA is going to ask to inspect anti-ship missile batteries because.... why, exactly?

There has to be a least a patina of a reason that the IAEA must give for why they might be "concerned" that "nuclear-related" activities are being carried out at any given site.

And, as Article 75 of the JCPOA says, upon becoming "concerned" about the possibility of an undeclared site "the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification".

IAEA: We want to visit all your anti-ship missile batteries.
Iran: Care to explain why, exactly?
IAEA: Errr, ummm, ahhh.... because?
Iran: You haven't read Article 75, have you?

Give the Iranians at least some credit for brains: the deal does not allow open-ended fishing expeditions of the type that you envision.

Posted by: Johnboy | Aug 7 2015 12:52 utc | 42

@ Johnboy | 42

Give the Iranians at least some credit for brains: the deal does not allow open-ended fishing expeditions of the type that you envision.

It does allow. And it was done before. Remember Parchin? Its purely conventional military base, and yet IAEA demands to see it based on "suspicion of nuclear activity". Iran allowed to visit Parchin in 2005, twice, inspectors didnt find anything. But it didnt solve anything, because fishing expedition continues to this day, and Iran has to allow inspectors in Parchin now again.

According to the deal, it goes like this:

1) IAEA asks to visit xx military base because of Israel's provided fake docs, Iran says no.

2) IAEA then presents this request to International board, which mostly comprises of Western countries, and 2/3 of votes is enough to FORCE Iran to allow visit to said base. China and Russia cant block it. So if US wants to spy on anything, they can push it through legally, and Iran has to abide.

I understand your point that IAEA wouldnt have proof of illegal nuclear activity, but since when it stopped US and its alies? Four rounds of UNSC sanctions, then US initiated completely illegal sanctions, all of that was done with zero evidence of Iran's foul play.

Posted by: Harry | Aug 7 2015 15:18 utc | 43

Re: 43

I do not think that a single round of this process can cover "all anti-ship missile batteries". It would be too brazen, and not popular in Europe. Also, battery sites are quite implausible "hidden enrichment installations", for example, they lack sufficient power supply. If the West would press the issue it could be humored several times and loose face. The nature of such batteries is that USA knows roughly where they are anyway, and if this is not enough it would be because of decoy sites, and spot checks are not helpful for that.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 7 2015 16:38 utc | 44

It's not hard and fast that the IAEA has access to military sites. Iran has the right to have those requests determined by a vote among the G5+1. Haaretz covered it here:

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.665913

Posted by: MRW | Aug 7 2015 17:27 utc | 45

Harry and MRW #45. Good points. It remains a little unclear how those inspections of military sites will play out. The agreement certainly does allow the US to renege on the agreement if they can provide sufficient 'evidence' that Iran has nuclear technology hidden in their military installations. The Haaretz article MRW links to says this:

Under the deal, Tehran would have the right to challenge the UN request and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers that negotiated with it would have to decide on the issue.

Still, such an arrangement would be a notable departure from assertions by top Iranian officials that their country would never allow the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency into such sites. Iran has argued that such visits by the IAEA would be a cover for spying on its military secrets.

We can be reasonably sure that Iran would never allow the IAEA to inspect their military installations along their Persian Gulf border (after all those anti-ship missile batteries are Iran's most important deterrent to any Iraeli/US attack). If Israel and supporters inside the US fabricate evidence and demand such inspections they might be able to activate this clause. I would suspect that Russia, China and Iran would constitute 3 votes out of 7 to oppose any frivolous inspections. Would that be sufficient? I am not sure given the ambiguity in the public record of the the deal. As I first pointed out at #22 this part of the deal could be a poison pill that future US presidents might try to use to negate this deal. I think it might come down to rather or not Germany, France and England are willing to support the US in such an event.

Posted by: ToivoS | Aug 8 2015 4:50 utc | 46

@43 "It does allow. And it was done before."

OK, I've already quoted you the paragraph that says the JCPOA does NOT allow the IAEA to demand fishing expeditions of any and all military sites that take its fancy.

As a community service to all I'll quote it again, in full:
Para 75: "In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification"

Now, so sorry, under that article the IAEA can't simply point to a place on a map and say "There. I want to look there" and the Iranians are forced to say "OK, OK, if that's what you want.....".

Read that paragraph again: if the IAEA points to a place on a map then they must provide to Iran "the basis for such concerns" i.e. they can't simply say that they want to look *there* because they want to look *there*.

Am I to assume that you don't understand the plain meaning of the phrase "a fishing expedition"?

Posted by: Johnboy | Aug 8 2015 11:22 utc | 47

@ Johnboy | 47

Read that paragraph again: if the IAEA points to a place on a map then they must provide to Iran "the basis for such concerns" i.e. they can't simply say that they want to look *there* because they want to look *there*.

Am I to assume that you don't understand the plain meaning of the phrase "a fishing expedition"?

No need to be rude. How is that quote any different from what we have seen before? "the basis for such concerns" can be anything, like "stolen laptop files", which El Baradei rejected as fake, but Amano said they are credible documents and was hammering Iran with it for many years now.

When did US and its alies ever bothered with actual facts? They produce fake evidence, call it credible and then demand Iran's explanation. But anything Iran says is rejected as lying or "hiding something". Then IAEA can demand 5+1 for access of xx military base, and it will go as US wants, Russia/China cant block it.

Bottom line, you interpret the text as a reasonable person, but as history shows us, US and its alies ALWAYS misinterpret it how it suits them, along with blatant lies and faked evidence.

P.S. Another evidence of what I'm saying, Iran had to allow an inspection of Parchin, again. What basis IAEA has? Nothing, just some fake files provided by Israel.

Posted by: Harry | Aug 8 2015 12:36 utc | 48

No on war with Iran. (As argued before.) … just one pov.

Iran is to brought into the fold, for various reasons: biz, oil, and finance-sector pressure, many exporters as well — sanctions breaking down anyway — to create a breach between Iran and Russia (in part, and prevent the spread of BRICS/Chinese initiatives in that direction) — to open up Iran oil biz, particularly > Europe to make it less dependent on Russian nat gas — to avoid some parts of ‘more useless war’, have yet another entity involved with (this gets very complicated) ISIS. While keeping control, ostensibly, of course!

Obama is just mouthing fakelorum spin to convince the public and adversaries. Iran realises this perfectly well and objects only pro forma. The Iran deal is done. Just like Crimea is now Russian, never mind if Poroshenko says he will get it back or accord it independent status.

Netanyahou needs to scream and agitate about traditional enemies, threats. (Isr. lifeblood.) He can’t change tack in three weeks, or months, in public. Opinion is turning against Israel, and gathering steam.

read CNN 5 aug. (Most of it lies and nonsense natch.)

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/kurtzer-israel-iran-deal/

WaPo July 28 http://tinyurl.com/qx3wyro

The Iran ‘deal’ has been approved unanimously by the UN. All other countries in the world will refer to that and are ready to sign juicy contracts. In a way, what the US congress decides is by now irrelevant, except for US cos.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2015 17:17 utc | 49

@49 I hope, and think, you're right Noirette. ' what the US congress decides is by now irrelevant, except for US cos. '

Conflict within US political establishment over Iran nuclear accord intensifies


In his final question to Obama in the CNN interview broadcast Sunday about the dangers that would follow a congressional rejection of the deal with Iran, Zakaria concluded as follows:

“[A]re you worried that you would confront, within your remaining term, the strong possibility that you might have to use nuclear- that you might have to use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?”

So that's what the Israelis and their stooge US Congress are worried about ... loss of the Iran's mythical nuclear weapon as the casus belli for a preemptive nuclear war on Iran.

The Israelis are insisting the US adopt the Samson 'solution', and their now massive 5th column in the US Congress has obediently clicked its heels, saluted, and is marching the US based TNCs into the valley of death by a thousand lost deals.

The parallel between the EU countries sanctioning themselves at US command over Ukraine and the US' fight to the last US based TNC at Israeli command over Iran is a perverse but interesting spectacle, isn't it? Watching all the vassals 'perform' at the behest of their masters, like court jesters of old.

Posted by: jfl | Aug 11 2015 0:49 utc | 50

Interesting development: Gary Samore has just resigned as head of the lobby group he founded, the "United Against Nuclear Iran".

Apparently he was so gob-smacked about how good the deal was for those who, you know, are united again a nuclear Iran that he could not bring himself to oppose it.

At which point, of course, there was no longer any place for him in a lobby group that was dedicated to nothing more - nor less - than the carpet-bombing of Tehran.

Fancy that: a lobbyist who says what he means, and means what he says.

Clearly Samore is not a fit and proper person to front an Israeli front organization.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Aug 12 2015 11:31 utc | 51

One theory i heard that might explain much is that the agreement is merely designed to allow Iranian oil back onto the open market, without the US appearing to lose face, in order to keep oil prices low thus maintaining the financial pressure on Russia, by depriving them of any chance of increased oil revenues in the short to medium term.

The recent plunge in oil prices hit their coffers hard.

Difficult to modernise your military when you just lost a whole chunk of revenue


Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 6, 2015 1:39:21 PM | 20

+

Not a bad way to try and drive a wedge between Russia and Iran.

Iran gets much needed oil revenue, while Russia suffers prolonged oil price slump.

Iran possibly easier to manipulate in the future, regarding oil output.

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 6, 2015 2:51:13 PM | 24

================

According to RT

World Bank says: Lifting Iran sanctions will drag oil prices down by $10

— RT (@RT_com) August 12, 2015

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 18 2015 18:56 utc | 52

cont'd:

Iran’s return to the world market is expected to add 1 million barrels of oil a day to production, the World Bank said in its report Monday.

While the increase will drag oil prices to new lows from the current $49 a barrel, it will also help Iran’s economy grow.

The World Bank expects Iran’s economic growth to accelerate to 5 percent in 2016, from 3 percent this year.

good for Iran bad for Russia

Russia really shoulda delivered them S300 AD Missiles on time.

Too Little, Too Late?

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 18 2015 19:02 utc | 53

Russian Missile Sale to Iran "unseen Deals with Israel" says Bloomberg.com

Others argued that the Russian move shouldn’t be taken at face value.

“The public announcement of the possible sale of S-300 to Iran is no more than a political gesture aimed at the U.S. to motivate it in restraining its arms transfers to Ukraine,” says Konstantin Makienko, deputy head of Moscow’s Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.“In any case deliveries of S-300s to Iran will remain a bargaining chip between Moscow, the United States and Israel in talks on a wide range of issues.”


Ukraine

One of those issues is Israel’s neutrality toward Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists have waged war over the past year. Israel has held back from selling weapons to the government in Kiev, which is backed by the U.S. and European Union, in the hope of keeping Russia’s S-300s away from Iran. It’s reportedly reconsidering that position

“Israel has come under a lot of pressure for not joining the all-Western consensus on the Ukrainian crisis,” said Sarah Feinberg, a research fellow at Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies. “It was a difficult decision for the Israeli government, which was concerned about possible Russian retaliatory moves in the Mideast - such as selling the S-300 to Iran.”

On April 18 Putin cautioned Israel against selling arms to Ukraine, saying it “will only lead to yet another swirl of confrontation, to more human casualties, but the result will be the same.”
Importing Drones

Putin’s concern over Israeli arms sales to Ukraine, including drones, is not without basis. Last October, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin visited Israel and told local journalists his country was very interested in importing Israeli drones, especially to monitor ceasefire agreements with Russian-backed separatists.

Just a month earlier, Israel’s Channel 2 television reported that Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd., the country’s top producer of unmanned aerial vehicles, had agreed to sell Ukraine drones. The deal foundered over opposition from within the Israeli government, Channel 2 said, without citing sources.

An Israeli official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter on record, said the drones sale to Ukraine was quashed after Putin phoned Netanyahu to object. Netanyahu’s office, the Israeli Defense Ministry and IAI declined comment. A Putin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, didn’t reply to messages seeking comment.

While Ukraine may not have gotten the Israeli drones, Russia already has -- in an earlier deal that sources say has a direct connection with the S-300 sale.

Georgia

Russia expressed interest in buying Israeli drones after coming up against them during the 2008 war with Georgia. In 2010 Russia concluded a deal to purchase 15 of them from IAI, and to set up a joint venture to produce drone technology.

An Israeli familiar with the matter said the drone deal with Russia carried an unwritten quid pro quo: It would proceed only if the Kremlin suspended its announced S-300 sale to Iran.

Now having gotten the Israeli technology, the Israeli said, that promise is no longer a factor in Russian considerations.

“Sending drones or other arms to Ukraine would be an ineffective, even inconsequential Israeli response to Russia selling the S-300s to Iran,” said Feinberg. More effective, she said, would be for Israel to lift its political neutrality on the Ukrainian conflict, or take actions in the Middle East against Russian regional allies such as the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

Mind you, it's all sourced from Israelis, and we know how much they lie.

Posted by: BLOCKQUOTE | Aug 18 2015 19:08 utc | 54

The comments to this entry are closed.