On Iran and More (Call it the "Iran Propaganda Thread" if you wish)

Even the British foreign secretary, coming to Tehran to open the British embassy, quickly learns that Iran isn't the country that he had imagined it would be!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/24/philip-hammond-iran-syria-war-discussion

 

I realize that, although some of the onerous restrictions and inspections last even longer (25 years) and the commitment that Iran will not produce nukes embodied in the NPT remain. But, regardless, whether you focus on the restrictions that will be lifted in 10-15 years, or others which last longer, what Iran has traded is the hope that giving up its ability to make nuclear weapons in short order in return for being freed from policies designed to isolate it will create a dynamic which is beneficial to Iran politically, diplomatically, economically and from a national security perspective. The verdict on that to me is still out! I am on the fence because I see merit in both sides of the argument. But the argument that I will present below is one that isn't properly framed and is intentionally ignored.

For more than a decade since the neocons began to overtly and explicitly paint a bull's eye on Iran as a target, despite the bluster and threats, Iran was able to protect itself from any military action. It was able to do so by, inter alia, making sure Iraq doesn't become an American base against Iran; by wearing down America' s appetite for war in Iraq and Afghanistan; by creating a "surge capacity" for itself that allowed it to implicitly serve notice that if Iran was attacked it would be able to build nukes quickly; by protecting its nuclear infrastructure from attack by creating hardened underground facilities in Natanz and facilities built in the mountains in Fordow. At each turn, the "reformist groups" (backed by what were clearly agents of foreign powers) were insisting Iran not take these actions because they claimed these actions would invite military reprisals etc. But despite Iran bleeding the US in Iraq, we saw that America's appetite for war against Iran lessen, not increase, as a result. Despite America yelling and screaming about Fordow, the truth is that facilities like Fordow and the underground hardened facilities in Natanz, made the military option against Iran no real option at all. Despite the US and company threatening Iran when it continued and expanded its enrichment operations, building 19,000 centrifuges, enriching to up to 20% and developing new centrifuge designs, the resulting "surge capacity" only made the notion of war against Iran look silly. Is war against Iran going to be as a silly an idea 2-4 years from now, long before the sunset clauses begin to expire? Iran will no longer have a realistic surge capacity. Iran's facilities will no longer be invulnerable to conventional attack. Iran's centrifuges will be either destroyed or the ones that won't be destroyed, will be in the overground facility at Natanz that even the Israelis alone (but certainly the US) can take out! There isn't going to be anymore uncertainly about the location and scope of Iran's nuclear activities; the inspection regime will give the US/Israel as information about things as they will need. In the meantime, the US will no longer be as tied up elsewhere as before. Even America's greatest vulnerability in case of war with Iran, namely the exposed position of its naval forces, is being rectified with the US pulling its nuclear carriers out of the Persian Gulf.

There used to be two options presented to Iran: the so-called "North Korea option" or, alternatively, the so-called "Libya option". I am not sure Qaddafi had the choice to be do anything other than take the option he was given, but the option he took didn't help him either. Nor did it turn out all that nicely for Libya! On the other hand, even under "crippling sanctions", Iran wasn't and would never become "North Korea".

Lets hope it all turns out well. It might. But I would have preferred a genuine "grand bargain" with the US to a "nuclear deal" with a side that still at odds with Iran on everything!

 

I will play the 'devil's advocate' here.

1- Much of the latent capability Iran retains can be destroyed though air strikes. The 5,000 centrifuges that will operate and the remaining (2%) stockpile of enriched uranium will be housed in an easy to take out overground facility. The rest of the latent capabilities will require years and a lot of money to bring back to where it was before.

2- Iran would almost certainly rally to rebuild its capabilities (and then some) if was attacked only inches away from being able to build the bomb. Iran is much less likely to follow the same path if it is attacked 2-5 years from now, left miles and years away from being able to build the bomb. Iran will only be 1 year from developing the required quantities of enriched uranium for a bomb under this deal if we assume that Iran's facilities aren't taken out. If they are (as they can be now) Iran will probably be 3-5 years (and billions of dollars) away at least.

3- Iran and Libya were never similar. Correct. But Libya was promised something similar to what Iran was promised, i.e. normalized relations and relief from sanctions, even if Libya had to give up all of its much less advanced nuclear program while Iran keeps some of it. In fact, before Qaddafi ended up shot and Libya was torn apart, the example of Libya was often dangled in front of Iran by the west! Of course, after Qaddafi was shot and his country torn to pieces, that example was no longer used as I am sure they realized it wasn't much of an enticement anymore!

4- I am one of those who has spend the last decade arguing about why military action against Iran will be futile, costly to the west, and counter-productive. I recognize the differences between Libya and Iran in that regard. In fact, notwithstanding the childish games here, the reasons I used to cite as to why the US couldn't comfortably engage Iran in war were the real obstacles the US/and company faced in contemplating military action against Iran. However, some/many of those obstacles have been removed. The ones that remain are weakening too. On the one hand, a campaign is underway to prevent Iran from testing its ballistic missiles and improving its deterrent and retaliatory options. On the other hand, the US is moving its nuclear carriers out of the Persian Gulf, which means something different than you might imagine since in the Persian Gulf, they were vulnerable targets not valuable assets. The US is busy trying to remove Assad and cut Iran's links and ability to turn a war against Iran into a wider and threatening confrontation spilling over to the Mediterranean and elsewhere from there. In the meantime, billions are being poured into Saudi Arabia et al in arms and equipment, while Iran no longer will have a real surge capacity. It means, we cannot turn around and build nukes if we are attacked and no one needs to worry about that scenario when they contemplate hitting Iran.

5- The chances of war the next 1-2 years has dropped from, say, ess than 20% to now less than 10%. That is probably true. The chances of war in 2-4 years time? I don't know. It might end up being less than 10% then. Or we might see it rise significantly in time and be well above the 20% chance we faced before the nuclear deal. You can't judge that from the perspective of today alone. No more than Qaddafi could have judged what would happen from the perspective of how things looked when he had just made his deal.

6- With Russia falling from grace in the west and no longer so desperate to prove it is a "partner" to the west because of the Ukraine, we might have been able to have our cake and eat it too.

 

What I am worried about isn't Iran "violating" the deal. Nor am I worried about what will happen in the next 1-2 years. It is afterwards.

In the meantime, this article is actually based on a report in USA Today.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/08/24/426142/US-drawing-military-plan-for-Iran
US drawing plan for 'comprehensive attack' on Iran: Report

 

@totti fan
There is some debate and disagreement as to whether the larger Russian role in Syria in recent weeks reflects growing coordination between Iran and Russia, or whether it is part of a rivalry between Iran and Russia for influence in Syria? Or, alternatively, that it reflects both of the latter as Iran -- in the wake of the nuclear deal and the policies pursued by its current government -- tries to reduce its presence in the region with the Russians filling the gap, while the Iranian revolutionary guards and others also try to find arrangements with the Russians that will protect Iran's core interests nonetheless. At the end of the day, however, it seems pretty clear that much of the burden and responsibility for preservation of the Assad regime, which had fallen on Iran's shoulders, is now being shifted to the Russians. Naturally, that will mean the regime in Syria will be less beholden to Iran but in terms of fighting the fight against the Sunni extremists and their foreign enablers and supporters, it might be the most effective course nonetheless.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-...n-defense-of-assad-regime-in-syria-1442856556
Russia, Iran Seen Coordinating on Defense of Assad Regime in Syria
U.S., regional officials say military buildup in coastal base aimed at safeguarding regime’s stronghold

I thought this article which was published by the Guardian over the last hour was pretty good.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-syrias-maelstrom-fuels-paranoia-and-wariness
Iran's shadowy influence in Syria's maelstrom fuels paranoia and wariness
Tehran has few boots on the ground but it nevertheless plays a critical role that unnerves its allies in the Assad regime as much as its enemies

 

The director of the Separation (which won the Academy Awards for best foreign picture a couple years ago) also directed another movie that was shown in Iran a few years ago (before the Separation), but for some legal disputes over distribution rights, have only recently been released in the US. You might be able to catch that movie, About Elly, in some local theaters in the US right now. It was a good movie and has a 97% rating from Rotten Tomatoes.

 

Iran's parliament approved the nuclear deal and the parliament's approval was ratified by the Guardians Council.
http://news.yahoo.com/top-iranian-council-approves-nuclear-deal-135109653.html
In final step, top Iranian council approves nuclear deal

In other news:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/14/middleeast/iran-missile-facilities/index.html
Iran broadcasts rare images of underground missile bases

 

I believe there will be various mechanisms employed by the US and company, both directly and indirectly including through those who are beholden or favor ties with them in Russia, Iran, Iraq et al, to complicate and make sure the alliance doesn't come to full fruition. Overall, however, I find it a potentially significant and quite positive development to counter the hegemonic forces which have brought a lot of war and destruction to the region and beyond as well as to defeat the terrorist groups such as ISIS which have mushroomed under the circumstances.