Brane Space: Iran Nuclear Deal

Showing posts with label Iran Nuclear Deal. Show all posts

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Another Fake Lead Up To A War - But Unlike Iraq, Any Iran Invasion Wouldn't Be A "Cakewalk"

Here we go again! Another episode of huff and puff, this time to work up to an Iran invasion. But make no mistake, going into Iran for whatever reason would be the very definition of insanity. And it also would not turn into another 'regime change" such as when Bush II invaded Iraq and reduced Saddam's army to rubble using 'shock and awe'. Let's repeat this a hundred times: Iran is NOT Iraq. As the website 'breakingdefense.com' has pointed out:

"Iran is spatially large and mountainous with an enormous, fiercely nationalist population. Make no mistake, U.S. military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the Iraq War, for once, actually look like the “cakewalk” it was billed to be.

So where are the troops available to topple Tehran? They don’t exist. The U.S. military is already running at full throttle, and the American people won’t be flocking to recruiters to stave off an overhyped, distant Iranian threat. The polling data is clear: Americans don’t want another war."

These are not minor considerations. Hence, the Trumpie warhawks - especially John 'Nutso' Bolton- fanning the flames, need to tone it down. Much has been made of alleged Iranian sabotage of oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, but as yet there is no iron clad evidence. Besides, even if true it is not a reason to start a war or launch an ill -conceived invasion in which tens of thousands of U.S. troops may lose their lives.

Never mind, the Trumpie propagandists have also called for evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad - asserting nebulous "threats" by Iranian "proxies" - whatever the hell that means. What it means for me and other critical thinkers is simply another ruse to bait Iran into a misguided conflict - that will be as bad or worse for us as it would for them. (And again bear in mind Iran is not Iraq!)

And if that fails, Trump, Bolton and their criminal cabal can pull the "nuke threat" out of their hats. Oh wow, Iran now ready to go straight ahead to processing nuclear materials for warheads on missiles. Well, whose fault was that anyway? After all, it wasn't Iran that sundered the deal that the Obama administration and many allies had patiently forged! It was traitor Trump and his retinue of loons. See e.g.

Brane Space: Iran Deal Is The Best The World Could Get: So Critics ...

brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/07/iran-deal-is-best-world-could-get-so.html

.

Fortunately, one military voice of sanity has spoken out on this concocted Iranian "threat" propaganda, set up by U.S. Neocons. That would be Major General Chris Ghika - a Brit senior officer in the coalition fighting ISIS. Maj. Ghika, speaking in a video two days ago from coalition headquarters in Baghdad, told reporters the coalition monitors any hostile activity, i.e. of Iranian -backed forces. And to the point:

"We do not see any increased threat from any of them at this stage."

Who could contest such a clear synopsis? Well U.S. Central Command ("Centcom") did, claiming Ghika's sober assessment "runs counter to the identified credible threats from Iranian-backed forces in the Middle east." Which is absolute balderdash.

Besides, why in hell should I believe this claptrap retort from a source (Pentagon) that up to now has not been able to account for $6.5 TRILLION in military expenditures? This as documented in the July 2016, Dept. of Defense (DOD) Inspector General study. So now, get this, these weasels are gaming for another couple trillion of American taxpayer dollars to set fire to in another useless military excursion.

Let's also not forget that in December, 2016 a Washington Post article published its own account of a "buried" DOD report which had found "$125 billion in administrative waste" in Pentagon business operations. What happened to all those taxpayer dollars? Where is the rest of the $6.375 trillion, what did these wastrels do with that? And now they want to over extend for another war, indicted by contradicting the assessment of Maj. Gen. Ghiza?

All smoke and mirrors? Maybe not. The NY Times already reported on the potential deployment of 120,000 U.S. troops to the Middle East - but which was dismissed as only a "rumor" by Pompeo. Well, pardon me but one might consult history here.

On October 18, 1913, after Serbia's occupation of Albania - a Balkan state also under the dominance of Austria-Hungary- the latter dispatched an ultimatum for withdrawal by all Serbian forces within 8 days.. Rumors of war circulated and the German Kaiser, grasping the 'genie' might be out of the bottle, penned a letter to Austria stating "every reason for war is removed"- after a Serbian reply agreed.

The letter of conciliatory support was too late, however, and barely an hour after the Kaiser penned those words Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The match igniting the conflagration known as World War I had been tossed, and eight months later my great grandfather Anton was conscripted into the army of Austria-Hungary, e.g.

My Great-grandfather, left, after conscription into the Austro-Hungarian Army some eight months after the onset of World War I. An Austrian officer stands next to him in this 1915 photo.

The confusion with the Kaiser's letter directly led to 11 million military dead and 7 million civilians in World War I. But you can be sure a misguided and misdirected Iranian conflict could be vastly worse, even conceivably leading to a thermonuclear war. This is because - while the media hasn't mentioned it - the Russians do have strategic interests in Iran, as they do in Syria. Hence, any misstep could have catastrophic consequences. All of which attests even more to the folly of Trump recklessly pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

Will Maj. Gen. Ghika's comments be too late to stave off a rash move by the U.S. into an Iran invasion? Let's hope so, because recall the Brit 1983 movie 'Threads' depicted a rapid escalation starting with an initial strike on a Russian nuclear reactor at Isfahan, leading to global war. This also was ignited by reckless moves into Iran by the U.S. and a "coalition" of allies.

Let me pause here to interject that although none of us except the Japanese have experienced an atomic bomb attack, you can get a very good inkling of what happens to humans by watching it in this clip from the movie 'Threads', e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHoMSRZOS4

Watch it then watch again- especially the last 2 minutes of the clip- to see what we may be in for if cooler heads do not prevail now and if congress again allows crazies to usurp its war making powers.

See also:

Iran

Neocons Won’t Stop Until They Get Their War With Iran

And:

Bolton in Wonderland

John Feffer

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (2)

FB comments (0)

John Bolton

by John Feffer | May 15, 2019 - 6:05am

Excerpt:

"Of all the places where John Bolton would like to go to war, Iran is currently in the lead position.

The national security advisor was in office for less than two months before Trump announced that he was pulling the United States out of the nuclear deal with Iran, a key Bolton objective. Since then, Bolton has been part of the team that has put the squeeze not only on Iran (with additional economic sanctions) but any country with the temerity to continue any kind of economic engagement with Tehran (with the threat of secondary sanctions). Last year, Bolton also asked the Pentagon to prepare a menu of military options for striking Iran, scaring even some seasoned administration officials.

But it was earlier this month that Bolton upped the ante considerably. On May 5, he assumed the prerogative of the commander-in-chief by issuing a direct threat to Iran.

In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force. The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.

Monday, May 21, 2018

Europeans Still Need To Confront The U.S. Over Scuttling Iran Nuclear Deal

"The truth is that the deal had frozen in place a huge reduction in Iran's capacity to pursue nuclear weapons. Trump's false assertion to the contrary comes at a high price, including a weakening of United States credibility in all of its future international negotiations, particularly with North Korea. That collapse of the U.S. diplomatic reputation will also extend far beyond Trump; the fear that some equally erratic president might be waiting in the wings may take a generation to fade." - David Goldfischer, 'Trump's Dangerous Decision On Iran', Denver Post, May 13, p. D1.)

Given that every sentient citizen now grasps the full folly of Trump's decision to back out of the Iran nuclear deal, including that the U.S. has now lost the moral high ground to Iran, e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/79191/thanks-to-trump-s-perfidy-iran-is-now-on-a-higher-moral-plane-than-the-u-s

It ought to be incumbent on the European signees and their allies (e.g. China, Russia) to come full force to rescue the deal anyway they can, and trash or ignore all U.S. sanctions. As reported by Michael Birnbaum in The Washington Post,

"The European Union's chief diplomat took a defiant stance Tuesday after meeting with Iran's foreign minister and other top European diplomats to try to salvage the Iran nuclear deal following Trump's decision to withdraw the United States. Federica Mogherini, who negotiated the deal on behalf of the European Union, listed a string of proposals that taken together may not be enough to convince Iran's leaders to hold to the deal but probably will be seen in Washington as a raised fist against U.S. policy."

To which I say, terrific! Or at least I did - before reading the WSJ article (Saturday, p. A7) that both Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron had gotten cold feet about challenging the U.S. Trumpies about sticking to the Iran deal. But they need to know the betrayal and rejection of that policy was spawned by a cabal of international gangsters, grifters, swamp parasites and traitors trying to pass themselves off as a legitimate government. Trump, the chief 'don' of gangsters and uber traitor (which will be proven after Mueller indicts him for conspiracy with the Russians to undermine and steal a U.S. election) was behind the torpedoed deal - which destabilizes geopolitics on a level that his reptile base can't begin to understand.

That is all the more reason for the EU and allies need to have acted to bust the Trumpie Imperium in the snout, and demonstrate there is at least one credible Western side that remains committed. This even while Ms. Mogherini admitted the EU is "operating in a very difficult context" especially given Washington's (aka the swamp's) ability to "strike around the world because of the reach of the U.S. financial system".

But this is why the spectacle of Macron and Merkel throwing their hands up instead of fighting was so dispiriting. Macron himself, as reported by the NY Times Friday- has become a subject of derision by 55 percent of French citizens for his fawning display on his visit with the Dotard in D.C.. This included letting the arrogant swine remove "dandruff" from his suit coat in a display of alpha male supremacy. Most Frenchmen were aghast calling Macron a "serf", a "stooge", Trump's lap dog and worse. Had he no shame, no pride? Plus they regarded him as a loser for doing all the posturing and getting nada. He, above all, could have shown he did possess some few milligrams of testosterone by putting up a fight. (Most French poll respondents didn't believe his subsequent, hard hitting speech to the U.S. congress was good enough to overcome the image of a submissive little whelp to Trump's Top dawg earlier.)

As for Merkel, she has much more power in terms of the German economy - i.e. we know it will be carrying a large surplus forward through 2020. She could easily have committed to a more powerful Iranian deal without losing any face. But I suspect perhaps she's terrified of the rising German "Alt" party nationalists, especially after the flood of refugees that poured in by Sept. 2015. So maybe by not taking on Trump in an Iran face -off she hopes to curry some favor with the new brand of German fascists.

Or maybe, taking the kindest interpretation, neither Merkel nor Macron knew there were remedies despite the EU having tried them before and succeeded - with the U.S. I refer, of course, to the EU's use of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to defy the U.S. embargo against Cuba in 1996. The WTO ruled in the EU's favor and the Yankee imperialists had to back off. The world's rejection of the U.S. position - including Europe - meant the D.C. "swamp" wasn't able to dislodge the Cuban government and the Castros. And yeah, I have a dog in this fight - namely with the U.S. in its Cuba posture - given it was the CIA -abetted terrorist Luis Posada, e.g.

Who was responsible for blowing up Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off the southwest coast of Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976, killing all 73 on board. I was at the Paradise Beach with my five nieces when it occurred. We witnessed the plane come down, and wondered what the hell had happened – then watched in horror barely an hour and a half later as bloody body parts began to wash ashore. See also the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uspkEV_fFzs

If you are not up to speed on the event. Certainly that act of terror is just as emblazoned in Barbadian neurons as the 9-11 attack for those in New York. Maybe worse, since the scale of Barbados is radically smaller than New York, or the U.S. On a national scale of devastation, that Cubana Airline bombing took out a percentage of people equal to 0.03% of the total populace, while numerically as a % of NYC, 9-11 took out roughly 0.0001%. Thus, in purely proportionate numerical terms, Cubana 455 was much deadlier. But sadly, it's not on most citizens' radar - certainly not in the US Of A.

Anyway, that is why I fully backed the EU end around using the WTO of the then Cuban embargo. Not because I am necessarily a fan of the Castros, but because the Cuban nation suffered at the hands of U.S.-backed terrorists who've yet to receive their just deserts.

The European governments have as much right now to protect their own companies and business interests vis-à-vis the Iran nuclear deal -especially given France's Total SA and Airbus SE have billion dollar projects in the works that stand to be scuttled. This despite the WSJ's Dan Henninger recent caterwauling ('America's So-Called Allies' , May 16, p. A13) that the Europeans were "only in the Iran deal for the money they could get". To which my response was a pronounced, "Meh".

If the US. stood to lose such business does anyone believe it would stand idly by? Does anyone with more than air between the ears not believe it would jump at a similar nuke deal? In addition, France's financial system still has $163 million in cross -border claims on Iranian banks as of the last quarter. - according to the Bank of International Settlements (WSJ, May 12, p. A3)

Another option would have been for the EU to draw up counter legislation to the U.S. and also order European companies to ignore U.S. sanctions, equivalent to the thumb in the eye of the Amerikkan Trumpie nationalists and warmongers.

Meanwhile, it's since been learned the U.S. "wants to restart nuclear talks with Iran" with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to "outline a new strategy today" (NY Times, May 19, p. A8). This would be nothing more than a brain fart effort given it "is centered around a demand that the European allies have already rejected." What is this hare brained scheme? It basically entails putting indefinite limits on Tehran ever gaining access to nuclear weapons. (Whereas the deal just scuttled set a ten year limit). The plan is hare brained because the Iranian hardliners had even barked loudly about the original deal and 10 year delay. SO why would they now accept an "indefinite" postponement? Fact is, they wouldn't, and the Europeans know that too.

This is why the Europeans - perhaps with Russian and Chinese help - need to do something to beat aback the Trump- Nazi cabal. The WTO gambit seems like the best bet, combined with alternate legislation to neutralize the Trumpite treachery. It's an issue of essential peace, not to mention saving the U.S. from itself - given it's being run by money pirates, conspirators and gangsters.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Iran Deal Is The Best The World Could Get: So Critics Must Stop Bellyaching About It!

To hear the parade of warmongering Neocon repukes squawking, as well as Israel's deranged PM Benji Netanyahu, you'd think Obama had sold the Southern states to Iran along with Israel's Gaza strip. All you heard is bombastic bloviation such as out of bonehead Mitch McConnell's mouth that the ideal deal would be "one through which Iran gets no nuclear weapons" which is as full of hot air as when he claimed we needed a war in Syria 3 years ago to put Assad in his place.

Meanwhile,, perpetual Reeptard nincompoop Darrell Issa insisted the deal was "junior varsity foreign policy grounded in childlike optimism rather than clear-eyed realism". Clearly unable to tell the difference between them, since this deal - as I will show - is about as realistic as one can get, short of all out war which is really what most of these jabbering assholes want.

The editorial pages of newspapers split along typically Neocon v. non-belligerents' lines with The NY Times accurately calling the deal "one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history" while the now neocon -contaminated WashPo claimed "it was a complex and costly deal that poses a major threat to the United States and its allies."

Meanwhile, the reactionary Wall Street Journal op ed pages featured almost end to end 'hair on fire' columns such as Patrick Kagan's "Why The Iranians Are Cheering". But what would you expect? Bear in mind the only viable alternative to this diplomatic solution would be war. That means millions of tons of weapons, including cruise missiles, obliterated which then have to be remanufactured - jacking up defense budgets and share values for contractors.

Then there is the low grade tabloid press, including the NY Post and Daily News called the deal a joke, but what do you expect coming from media bottom feeders that are themselves jokes?

Anyone remotely familiar with cooperative game theory principles would understand this was the best deal we could obtain, i.e. that didn't totally shank one side. Indeed, the fact hardliners in both the U.S. and Iran are railing against it shows it struck the exact right balance between hideous and effective.

As nuclear compliance specialist Joe Cirincione ('Ploughshares Fund' President) put it on Rachel Maddow two nights ago:

"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."

Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).

"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."

This is critical because it means the harshest critics - namely the Repukes, the Wall Street Journal op-ed bunch and Netanyahu- are not aware of the modern in situ sensor inspection capacity, i.e. that allows the Iranian facilities to be electronically "spy" monitored 24/7. Why hasn't more been published on this technology to reduce the widespread ignorance? Probably because the spooks like in the NSA - who use it in other venues - do not want the details known. Fair enough, but the problem is we are then forced to listen to critics' complaints based on their antiquated perceptions from what they understood about the old time inspections using actual humans in Iraq.

Getting back to the game theory aspect let us recall again a ‘game’ means any mutual interplay between one or more players- which could be individuals, corporations or nations – in which one stands to gain a larger payoff than the other.

In each such game, the respective players (in this case, the U.S. and Iran) make choices from respective sets: S _i (where in this case i= 1,…n). In addition we have n-real valued functions (in this case n = 2) described as:

P _i= S1 X ………S _n ® R (i= 1,…n)

Where R defines the Cartesian space. The set S _i is called Player i’s ‘strategy space; while P _i is called the “payoff function”. We take S _i to be the set of actions available to the character called Player i, and we insist each Player must choose some action – and even a “non-action” can be included in the set since it can provoke a response in the other Player. Note there will also be some actions that have joint consequences, and that P _i basically measures Player i’s assessment of the consequence.

Other basics:

Cooperative Game: One for which some kind of binding agreement is possible

Non-Cooperative Game: One for which no binding agreement is possible.

Strategy: involves a set of rules S _i which defines which action is taken at each point in the game.

A ‘strategy pair’ i.e. (a*, b*) is such that a* represents A’s best move when B plays b*, and b* represents B’s best move when A plays a*.

In a Nash Equilibrium, no player has an incentive to change strategy.

A “Dominant strategy” is optimal no matter what the other player does.

A sequential game is one which evolves in time and for which Payoffs P _i are exchanged based on sequential actions S _i, eventually leading to a denouement- or a stalemate.

From the above, we see this nuclear deal is predicated on a cooperative - sequential game. (As many have said, and I reiterate, this is not one 'done' deal but an unfolding process over YEARS.) The U.S. and its treaty collaborators (including from Europe and Russia) gain nuclear weapon neutralization while Iraq's payoffs include getting access to the global finance system and lessening of sanctions.

In the case of the treaty template, each : S _i denotes an in situ inspection (via 24/7 electronic sensors) which then determine whether and to what extent the set of payoffs sets: P _i will be delivered.

The fact the deal is rigorously restricted to one objective also aids in assuring its ultimate successful outcome, so there is no muddying the water with Iran's past history, whether it is a "good actor" on the Middle East stage or wants conventional weapons or whatever. It is strictly about preventing Iran gaining a nuclear weapon. As Obama put it yesterday, in an interview with Thomas Friedmann:

"We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran,” said the president. “We’re not measuring this deal by whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran, whether we are eliminating all their nefarious activities around the globe. We are measuring this deal — and that was the original premise of this conversation, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu — Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion. And what I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of the world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.”

Let us finally acknowledge that it is primarily the reactionary Beltway bozos and poltroons reacting negatively. Americans by significant majorities want this deal. Maddow cited a Quinnipiac poll, for example, that 73 percent favored it. And another poll showing 57 percent.

Will the politicos, especially on the Right, obey the will of the people, or go off half-cocked on their own as they have done with the efforts at gun control legislation, i.e. following the 2012 Aurora Theater then Newtown massacres? We will see!