Блиски исток

Anduril wrote:Naravno da je ovo koordinisano sa Boltonon, Pompeom i ekipom. Jedva  su docekali da budu na odlucujucim mestima za ovako nesto. Mad dog Matis dodje kao glas razuma, sto je totalna katastrofa. Oni ce da njuknu Iran ako treba...

Anduril wrote:Propaganda ce da odradi svoje kao i u slucaju Iraka. U Izraelu su vec odavno naostreni a ni iranskih izjava o unistenju Izraela nije manjkalo pa ce sukob poceti na toj liniji. Kad Izrael bude onda napadnut, US ce da uskoci kao saveznik i za to im ne treba neka posebna priprema javnosti.

Anduril wrote:Propaganda ce da odradi svoje kao i u slucaju Iraka. U Izraelu su vec odavno naostreni a ni iranskih izjava o unistenju Izraela nije manjkalo pa ce sukob poceti na toj liniji. Kad Izrael bude onda napadnut, US ce da uskoci kao saveznik i za to im ne treba neka posebna priprema javnosti.

Gargantua wrote:Pa nekakvo američko napuštanje sporazuma bitno menja politiku. Iran je dobio skidanje sankcija - da li će, ako se sankcije vrate a EU ostane slegnutih ramena i otprati američki korak, Iran ostati obavezan sporazumom, ili će krenuti da "ljulja čamac" sa svoje strane.

Ovo je prosto najava opasnog koraka na putu na kojem je jasno da itekako stoji i ratna opcija.

Netanyahu is playing to Trump’s abject ignorance — and it might work
by Jennifer Rubin April 30 at 4:05 PM Email the author


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu certainly hyped a speech today in which he was to announce stunning news about the Iran deal, specifically Iran’s intent to “deceive” the international community. Naturally, you’d think the results of an espionage operation that lifted a treasure trove of Iranian documents would show some new evidence Iran is violating the deal. Nope. And despite genuine admiration for another Israeli intelligence coup, the entire presentation left observers wondering what all of this was about.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

   Speaking from the Kiryia military headquarters in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu, speaking mainly in English, said, “Iran’s leaders repeatedly deny ever pursuing nuclear weapons,” said Netanyahu. “Tonight I’m here to tell you one thing: Iran lied.”

   “After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret files,” he said. “In 2017 Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in Tehran.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the international community, when it entered into the deal, knew Iran lied and knew it had previously pursued a weapons program. The Obama administration in coordination with the other P5+1 countries entered into a deal to stop that weapons program, choosing not to demand a complete accounting of the past. That was, in the minds of critics of the deal, a foolish strategic decision, but opponents who raised this very point ultimately couldn’t persuade Congress and the administration to hold out for better terms. (Notice Netanyahu says Iran hid the files of past work, not that it hid material or facilities that run afoul of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.)

In short, it’s no news that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, although it’s impressive the Israelis were able to lift the documents evidencing this. What Netanyahu did not display and what we have yet to find evidence of is Iran’s cheating on the terms of the JCPOA. Longtime Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross tells me, “It is not new to say that the Iranians lied.  It is not new to say that the Iranians were not required to come clean on their whole nuclear program — something that was a major flaw in the deal, partly because it allowed them to claim they had never worked on a nuclear weapon when we know that they had.” He continues, ” You may recall that [former secretary of state John] Kerry said we know they did, so we don’t need to require them to say it.”

The rest of Netanyahu’s presentation is also a restatement of the arguments against making the deal in the first place. He said, “Even after the deal, Iran continued to preserve and expand its nuclear know-how for future use.” That is another perfectly valid complaint about the deal, but allowing certain types of nuclear research to continue is a flaw in the deal; not evidence of cheating. Ross notes that if there is evidence of ongoing work on the weapons program (not simply enrichment) not allowed by the JCPOA that would be “a violation of the highest order: they would be violating the Iranian commitment not ever to pursue, acquire or develop a nuclear weapon.” But where is evidence of that? “That is not clear from what the prime minister said,” Ross says. “But it would be a serious violation and would need to be answered — and, if so, the Europeans (and maybe the Chinese) would join us in that.  If not, however, then what the PM presented is not new.”

It seems rather that Netanyahu is simply complaining the deal allowed Iran to do too much. The Times of Israel reported:

   Repeating his past criticisms of the deal, Netanyahu said the accord gave Iran a “clear path” to uranium enrichment and did not address its missile program or nuclear weapons ambitions.

   “This is a terrible deal. It should never have been concluded,” he said.

But it was concluded, and now the question remains what to do about it. If pulling out of the deal —  or threatening to pull out of the deal — would fix its infirmities, the Europeans would be in lock step with Trump. The problem, however, is that the West currently has little or no leverage to force Iran back to the table. Iran is in compliance; sanctions are suspended and the Europeans are happy to do business to the extent possible in Iran. Pulling out means Iran is free to pursue its program,  and the United States as odd man out.




Defenders of the deal will say that Netanyahu inadvertently showed that Iran is in compliance. In all that trove of espionage, they’d point out, there is no evidence Iran is currently in violation of the agreement. The dilemma is still how to make the deal stronger.

Why would Netanyahu put on this show if ultimately it didn’t deliver the killer proof of Iran cheating? Most likely, he figured (not unreasonably) that he’d bamboozle Trump into believing Iran is currently cheating. Trump hears what he wants to hear, and is already disposed to undo the Obama administration’s signature achievement. It is altogether possible that President Trump will nix the deal — with just a little push from Netanyahu.

Nevertheless, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis (and perhaps others) will have to break it to Trump: There is no evidence Iran is in violation of the deal, and the Europeans won’t agree to reimpose sanctions absent such proof. The choice remains whether to isolate ourselves or stay in the deal while building up leverage in other ways.

What is the end game for Trump and Netanyahu if the United States backs out? That’s far from clear. Iran could stay in the deal, and the United States would face the prospect of having to sanction our allies’ companies. Iran could say the deal is over, deny the inspectors access and choose at its discretion to restart the program. Regardless, what we would not have is an improved JCPOA — and we’d have lost support of our allies not only in the JCPOA arena but in taking stronger measures against Iran on non-nuclear items.

Netanyahu could of course push Trump to take military action, but in the absence of any evidence Iran is racing to a bomb that simply isn’t going to happen in the United States. Unless Netanyahu has some dream of a unilateral action to knock out Iran’s facilities without starting another regional war, it’s hard to figure out where he does if he successfully eggs Trump into pulling out.

Perhaps we’ll get a clearer idea of the end game before the May 12 deadline. Our fear is there isn’t one, and the game of chicken will wind up reigniting Iran’s nuclear program with little recourse for the West. As Ross says, “a credible ‘day after’ strategy is needed.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/04/30/netanyahu-playing-to-trumps-abject-ignorance-and-it-might-work/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8433be8e55d8

Anduril wrote:Mad dog Matis dodje kao glas razuma, sto je totalna katastrofa.

Gargamel wrote:

Anduril wrote:Mad dog Matis dodje kao glas razuma, sto je totalna katastrofa.

Matis je bio glas razuma i u Obaminoj administraciji, kada se zalagao za oštriji stav kontra Iranaca. budalani ga ni tada nisu slušali.

hebiga... za detant je potrebno dvoje. Obamin pokušaj detanta se zasnivao na tome da se Irancima pruže garancije da im Ameri ne misle zlo, i u relativno uspešnom kontrolisanju izraelskih i saudi ispada kontra Iranaca. uz nadu da će Iranci uzvratiti pruženom rukom. kada su Iranci krenuli da guze kad god i gde god mogu, Obama nije reagovao.

ovih dana, američka ratobornost vis-a-vis Iranaca je u određenoj meri posledica Obaminog pristupa i percepcije koju je takav pristup stvorio. ispalo je da su anti-iranski nastrojeni jastrebovi u DC-u (+Izrael+Saudi) u dobroj meri bili u pravu, i da je jedini način da se Iranci primoraju da ne prave pizdarije ekonomski i ini pritisak. pa je detant sa Iranom stavljen ad akta, pitanje je kako im skresati krila.

Makron objavio snimak telefonskog razgovora s Putinom

Piše: DanasOnline30. aprila 2018. 18.04

Ruski predsednik Vladimir Putin i predsednik Francuske Emanuel Makron složili su se da je neophodno očuvati i u potpunosti primeniti nuklearni sporazum s Iranom.

Kako Kremlj navodi, telefonski razgovor inicirala je francuska strana.

Makron je takođe obavestio Putina o ishodu njegove posete SAD i razgovorima koja je imao oko nuklearnog sporazuma s Iranom, prenela je agencija Tass.

Francuski predsednik objavio je na Tviteru video snimak razgovara sa ruskim predsednikom.

   Телефонный разговор с Владимиром Путиным, для нового обсуждения состояния дел. Иран никогда не должен обладать ядерным оружием. От этого зависят стабильность региона и международная безопасность. Мы работаем над этим, как мы должны поработать и для справедливого мира в Сирии. https://t.co/eqHTq39x2F

   — Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) April 30, 2018

Makron je juče razgovarao i sa britanskom premijerkom Terezom Mej i nemačkom kancelarkom Angelom Merkel, a oni su se složili da je nuklearni sporazum s Iranom najbolji način za sprečavanje Teherana da se domogne nuklearnog oružja.

Kako je saopštila kancelarija britanske premijerke, oni su ukazali da je neophodno proširiti sporazum da bi obuhvatio i druge oblasti kao što su balističke rakete.

Razgovarali su i o tome šta će se dogoditi po isteku ugovora, kao i „destabilizujućim regionalnim aktivnostima“ Irana, navodi se u saopštenju.

Dogovorili su se da će „nastaviti blisko da sarađuju i sa SAD o tome kako se izboriti sa nizom izazova koje predstavlja Iran, što uključuje i pitanja koja bi movi sporazum mogao da obuhvati“.
...

How Europe Can Save the Iran Nuclear Deal
Apr 30, 2018 Mark Leonard


Europe cannot afford to let the 2015 Iran nuclear deal fail. That's why Donald Trump should be confronted with a choice: either uphold the agreement, in exchange for European support on regional issues and Iran’s missile program; or scrap the deal and risk the loss of European cooperation and the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran.


LONDON – This week, a senior German official pointed out to me that, “The Iran nuclear deal is the last firewall preventing military tensions in the world’s most combustible region from spilling over into thermonuclear war.” That language is unusually apocalyptic, but it reflects a genuine fear that US President Donald Trump could soon dismantle a crucial line of defense that Germans and other Europeans are proud to have built.

European leaders have been on the back foot since January, when Trump gave them a deadline of May 12th to “fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal,” or he would re-impose sanctions on Iran. Trump’s main objections to the deal are that it does not address Iran’s misbehavior in the region or its ballistic missile program, nor does it prevent Iran from restarting its nuclear program after 2025. And now that Trump has installed a hawkish new foreign-policy team – with John Bolton as national security adviser and Mike Pompeo as secretary of state – European diplomats fear the worst.

Over the past few months, the German, French, and British governments have been frantically assembling a package of measures – including potential sanctions on Iranian elites – to address Trump’s concerns. And both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have now visited the White House to persuade Trump that it is better to build on the deal than blow it up.

In the short term, the Europeans are hoping that their proposed measures will allow Trump to declare victory while remaining in the deal. They have reminded Trump that a diplomatic solution to the North Korea nuclear crisis could very well depend on whether he unilaterally abandons America’s commitments to Iran under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In the long term, though, European leaders’ ability to save the deal will depend on the extent to which they can act in their own interests, rather than being a hostage to the caprices of the Trump administration.

It is fitting that the Iran issue has come to the fore around the 15th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. For European diplomats, that disaster and the success of the JCPOA have come to represent two foreign-policy extremes. Iraq was post-Cold War Europe’s darkest hour, with European countries lined up against one another to support or oppose the war, even though none had any real influence over US decisions.

The JCPOA, by contrast, is seen as modern Europe’s shining success. Desperate to avoid another war in the Middle East, Europeans, starting in 2005, began to define their own interests in the region. With the two-pronged goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and avoiding another war, they devised various carrots and sticks to shape Iranian and US actions.

To Iran, European diplomats offered a choice between two futures: one in which Iran would freeze its nuclear program and end its international isolation; and one in which it would maintain its program and face ever-harsher sanctions, and possibly war. At the same time, the Europeans, having convinced Russia and China to back their strategy, approached the US with another stark choice: either join an international coalition to apply diplomatic pressure on Iran, or pursue dubiously effective military measures on your own.

Today, European leaders’ overarching goals in the Middle East are to de-escalate the hegemonic struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, prevent nuclear proliferation, combat terrorism, and stanch the flow of refugees into Europe. But many of these goals are now being actively undermined by the Trump administration, which has made a show of siding with Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran in regional conflicts from Yemen and Iraq to Lebanon and Syria.

Diplomats in some EU member states have started to worry that attempts to placate Trump could force them into self-defeating positions, thus reprising the relationship between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush in 2003. As one official confided to me, the introduction of new sanctions will make it even harder to keep Iran committed to the JCPOA, let alone engage with it on other regional issues.

Nevertheless, the European approach so far has been carefully calibrated both to win over Trump and preserve Iran’s commitment to the deal. Needless to say, this requires a delicate balance. If the Europeans give Trump too much, they will be playing into the hands of US hardliners.

At the same time, they will be empowering the hardliners in Iran. In a recent interview, political scientist Nasser Hadian of Tehran University told me that moderate Iranian leaders such as President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif have already been left in a weak position, with hardliners now saying, “We told you so.” In Hadian’s view, the greatest danger is that Europe will try to appease Trump “at any cost,” when it should be working “on a plan B to save the deal without the US.”

Among other things, a plan B would offer Iran economic relief if the US were to re-impose sanctions, conditional on Iran’s continued compliance with the JCPOA; and it would provide the basis for a larger strategy of engaging with Iran and other stakeholders to de-escalate regional conflicts. Of course, it would be better for everyone if Trump agrees not to abrogate the nuclear deal. But to persuade him of that, Europe must show that it is willing to go it alone.

To that end, Trump should be confronted with a clear choice: either preserve the JCPOA, in exchange for European support in addressing regional issues and Iran’s missile program; or scrap the deal and risk the loss of European cooperation and the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran. As my German interlocutor put it, “Trump must be told that he cannot have his cake and eat it.”

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/how-europe-can-save-the-iran-nuclear-deal-by-mark-leonard-2018-04