I hope readers will forgive me for relying heavily on a fresh interview at Dialogue Works to assess the prospects for a “deal” between the US and Iran on its nuclear enrichment program and other security matters. However, former ambassador Chas Freeman, former Defense and State Department official Larry Wilkerson and Trita Parsi, co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, all have extensive experience in the region and have been keeping abreast of the latest developments about the indirect negotiations, falsely hyped by Trump as direct talks, set for Saturday in Oman.
The stakes are very high. The US has made a show of force, moving not just naval assets into the area and B2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia, but also according to Wilkerson in other YouTube talks, other strike forces. A new broadcast by The Electronic Intifada confirms Wilkerson, per the map at 16:45 and the additional detail provided starting at 15:55, of THADD and Patriot missile launchers being delivered to Israel’s Nevatim air base.
Trump, in a meeting with Netanyahu, as you can see in the Dialogue Works discussion embedded above, starting at 1:05, made a barely veiled threat of military action if the talks failed.
In the short version of what follows, we see very little reason for optimism. There are already reasons to think the US will continue to make demands that amount to Iran giving up not just its military and civilian nuclear programs, but also its missiles and its alliances with the so-called Axis of Resistance, which is tantamount to rendering itself defenseless. Alastair Crooke and Douglas Macgregor, among others, deemed this to be clearly unacceptable.
Macgregor, in a Judge Napolitano talk mentioned in the segment above, ventured that these provision were designed to be unacceptable and rejected, just as Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was overreaching by design, and meant, as it did, to serve as a pretext for going to war.
Even if the US is actually not seeking an excuse to attack Iran and is simply resorting to the Trump default of maximalist demands to see how much it can squeeze out of a counterparty, and is prepared to accept a lot less, it still seems unlikely that the two sides can agree.
I suspect a core US demand, aside from dismantling the nuclear enrichment program, would be for Iran to get the Ansar Allah (aka Houthis) to stop attacking shipments to Israel. Trump could present the Houthis stopping their campaign as a huge win, one Joe Biden was unable to achieve.
However, it does not appear that that is something Iran could deliver even if it wanted to. The most it could do was promise not to send more funds, weapons, and technical assistance. The Houthis have agency. Alastair Crooke has explained the Houthi tenacity, despite taking as much punishment as they have, as a manifestation of Shia character, particularly the willingness to make sacrifices in the name of religious obligation, and they see combating the Israeli genocide as an obligation. He described how after the Caliphate came to control Shia areas that it barred going to Shia mosques, with the penalty the amputation of a finger. The Shia kept going, losing all their fingers, then toes, then hands, then feet. We soft Westerners cannot comprehend that degree of commitment to moral principles.
So I doubt the Iranians can call off Ansar Allah. And if the Iranian tried explaining why, the US team would dismiss that as bad faith and/or foot dragging. The effort to reason would simply enrage the Trump side.
There is the further obstacle that the neocons around Trump, and probably Trump himself, believes the Israel/US propaganda about how the negotiated Iran retaliatory strike into Israel was a failure, and how the Israel attack on Iran after that did serious damage. John Helmer reported on a recent Dialogue Works that Trump has had all of two intelligence briefings since he took office; cable TV is a more important information source for him. So it’s a safe bet that he discounts warnings that Iran would survive a US/Israel attack and would then destroy Israel and wreck the world economy.
That is before getting to the fact that Israel has agency. Netanyahu in particular is determined to escalate against Iran to save his own hide. In the Dialogue Works talk, one of the interviewees (Wilkerson?) said Netanyahu had rushed to Washington to try to get relief from the then 17% tariffs imposed on Israel. It had been reported, as this source stated, that Trump refused to go there and instead talked about Iran. In addition, Trump blindsided Netanyahu by saying that “direct” talks with Iran were set for Saturday. Trita Parsi said the Trump public remarks also caught Iran off guard. The timing and location of the talks were supposed to be kept quiet.1
But Netanyahu, even with being caught off guard, upped the ante by calling for the “Libya” solution, which was not just regime change, but also the death-by-bayonet-ass-rape of the Gaddafi, celebrated in Hillary Clinton’s “We came, we saw, he died” cackle.
As Chas Freeman drily remarked, advocating the Libya solution to Iran would be like proposing the Pearl Harbor solution to the US. So even in his brief airtime, Netanyahu tried to and may have thrown a spanner.
In addition, as we have said, a false flag attack is one way to sandbag negotiations.
But another seemingly insurmountable impediment is process. There simply is not enough time. The interviewers allude to that obstacle in various ways but fail to take their observations to its logical conclusion.
Consider:
1. The US and Israel are relying on the so-called snapback provisions of the JCPOA to bring Iran to heel2. The short version is that the US has a bullet-proof means to restore the stringent UN sanctions imposed on Iran that the JCPOA alleviated. But those expire on October 18 unless they are extended (unlikely) or the US has an ally trigger them, and the UK has already said it would. The Iranian economy is already in bad shape. There is a bit of a drill involved in triggering the snapback, so there is only a four-plus month window to consummate an agreement.
2. This would be a very complex agreement when complexity and haste do not go together well. For instance, the US, as it has been with Russia, is willfully blind to the impact of its extensive history of bad faith dealings. Or maybe US officials really do have the memory of goldfish. They just can’t recall that it was Trump that chose to exit the JCPOA and then accuse Iran of developing a nuke, despite US intelligence agencies continuing to find, with a high degree of confidence, that that has not happened and is not yet in the works. .
For Iran to agree to what the US wants, it would need security guarantees. But it is conducting these talks on a bi-lateral basis. Pray tell, who could provide these guarantees? Not Russia, given that the Ukraine talks have gone pear shaped plus the US is full of Putin-haters. Certainly not China. Turkiye had the biggest army in the region and is trusted by no one.
Even putting aside the “How does Iran reduce its risk of being completely violated?” elephant in the room, as Freeman and Wilkerson stressed, going back to the JCPOA talks, technical experts would need to be involved to negotiate fine points, such as verification. It’s not clear that the Trump side understands that and has kept DOGE from firing them.
3. The US side is inexperienced and with no apparent knowledge of Iran’s culture or history.
4. Trump’s best negotiator, who is leading these talks, Steve Witkoff, has a record of failure in trying to play diplomat. This may admittedly be due in part to inability to manage his side, such as undermining by neocons and Trump refusal to make concessions.
For instance, the Russia-US talks on Ukraine, again under Witkoff’s leadership, are stalled due to the two US ceasefire schemes, one to stop energy infrastructure attacks, the other to resume the so-called grain deal, both being sabotaged, the first by Ukraine, the second by the EU. The US seems to have no idea what to do now. And even the seeemingly-simple measure, of renormalizing diplomatic relations, also seems to no longer be advance despite both sides going through the motions of meetings. Reuters and other outlets just released bland reports on the latest six hour meeting in Istanbul. Even though the US side mentioned “constructive” and the Russian, “positive” and “move forward,” there was no evidence of progress. Reuters mentioned only impasses, like the failure to restore banking services for Russian staffs and the US insistence that Russia hire some locals (huh?), and agreement that flights should be resumed but no indication that was being made to happen. Reuters also threw in at the end: “Among the issues is diplomatic property.”
John Helmer clarified:
ANOTHER NOTHING BURGER FROM TRUMP TO PUTIN. Sonata Coulter of State Dept in Istanbul talks with Alexander Darchiev of Rus ForMin fail to agree on recovery of Rus Emb property in US except for bank account to pay local bills. https://t.co/rPzGwVJoOw pic.twitter.com/9Fm05rPXp6
— Dances_with_Bears (@bears_with) April 11, 2025
So if the US can’t even take this small step to show it can do something to help Russia that will also help the US, how can they be taken seriously? Is this just spite over Russia completely reasonably sticking to its guns on the grain deal, or US incompetence? Either way, it does no inspire confidence.
On the other side of the ledger, Trump really needs a win. But what does that look like to him? He’s already demonstrated a shocking cavalierness about wanton destruction. Being acknowledged as a driver of events is more important to him than outcomes. So what if he starts World War III?
Now Witkoff is having a meeting with Putin right on the eve of the talks with Iran. But I don’t see this as as potentially de-escalatory as it ought to be. If the US had wanted to consider Russia’s point of view and more important, any signal regarding its position vis-a-vis Iran, or alternatively wanted advice, the time to have done that would not be so close to the actual meeting. Again, there’s not enough time to meaningfully course change, only course tweak, when Putin’s views should have been a major factor in devising the Iran negotiations strategy.
Now admittedly, the Trump Administration does not hew to anything resembling normal behavior. But the timing of the Putin talk suggests that to the extent that they talk about Iran (which Witkoff could also oddly minimize) is consistent with Witkoff seeing himself as mainly giving Putin a general heads up, as Rubio did with Lavrov before the US resumed attacks on the Houthis. Again, as Larry Johnson said in a fresh talk with Nima, Putin may well give Witkoff a “Are you Americans nuts?” level talking-to. But I don’t see Witkoff having a lot of degrees of freedom at this hour. However, if the talks don’t go the way he and Trump would like, any Putin input might gain a lot more weight.
Now admittedly, the Pentagon ought to know that attacking Iran would be a massive losing proposition. But dumb-as-a-rock bully Hegseth is in charge, and has just purged a lot of generals. The ones left were presumably chosen for their dearth of diversity points and toadying tendencies. So the needed naysaying may be in absence.
Now Trump does have a decent fallback position, which is simply to exploit the snapback provisions. Iran is punished. Trump honor is saved. But is that going to provide sufficiently high drama and demonstration of dominance to suit Trump’s true interests?
____
1 I don’t see the talks being “indirect” but in the same building as a positive a sign as other make it out to be. Given Trump’s repeated insistence that that the talks be direct, and then him needing to misrepresent that to save face, Iran may have agreed or offered to have the two parties in close proximity as a concession. Some experts contend this means the talks on the spot could be flipped to direct. That may be the US hope but Americans like to rush negotiations.
As October 18, 2025, approaches – the tenth anniversary of the JCPOA and the deadline for deciding whether to terminate or extend UN Security Council Resolution 2231 – the snapback mechanism outlined in the resolution has once again drawn attention in Iran.
UN Security Council Resolution 2231 was adopted after the JCPOA agreement was reached, and it annulled six previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iran’s nuclear program and most of the UN sanctions.
However, it included a provision that if the Islamic Republic fails to comply with the JCPOA, the sanctions could quickly be reimposed.
Britain has said it is prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism against Iran over violations of the nuclear deal.
How Does the Snapback Mechanism Work?
Any of the current members of the JCPOA – France, the UK, Germany, China, and Russia – can invoke the snapback mechanism if they claim Iran has violated the agreement.
The United States, having withdrawn from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions during Donald Trump’s presidency, has lost its political leverage to use snapback.
However, it can request its activation through other countries. The U.S. government failed in its attempt to invoke snapback during the first term of Trump’s presidency.
Four of the JCPOA member states that are permanent members of the UN Security Council can directly activate the mechanism.
Germany, which is not a member of the Security Council, must seek activation through one of its permanent members.
In the first step, one or more JCPOA member states must send a letter to the UN Secretary-General and the president of the Security Council about Iran’s non-compliance with the terms of the agreement.
Once the letter is submitted, the president of the Security Council must inform the other members of the warning.
The Security Council has 10 days from the formal receipt of the letter to vote on a draft resolution regarding the continuation or termination of the suspension of Security Council sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
No veto power exists, and the time frame is only 30 days.
In the Security Council’s vote on the resolution, veto power was removed following a proposal by Russia, meaning no country could block the draft resolution or prevent the return of sanctions on Iran using a veto.
If a country uses its veto, it would effectively veto the continuation of sanctions relief for Iran, leading to the immediate reimposition of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program.
The continuation of sanctions relief can only be approved if nine votes in favor are achieved in the Security Council, with no permanent member vetoing it.
Secure Payments Powered by Clover
Putin summarized the situation best last year:
https://x.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status/1830235283750584566
The Iranians have launched satellites in space themselves, i.e. they basically have ICBMs, and if they have not built at least a few dozens of these and put nukes on them already, they are absolute idiots.
But remember the situation in Doctor Strangelove — the point of a deterrent is completely lost if you don’t tell anyone about creating it.
The Iranians already have mutual assured destruction of Israel and the world economy with their conventional weapons arsenal. They can take out Israel’s desalination plants, its offshore rigs, and its on-shore energy production in two nanoseconds. They already said if Israel retaliated against its pre-negotiated attack (as in the menu of targets and even the attack time was set) civilian infrastructure would be on the menu. Israel did make another attack. They have hundreds of deeply buried launch sites, using North Korean engineering advice. They will survive even a nuclear attack and will be able to obliterate Israel and torch Saudi oil fields, both wrecking the world economy and creating an ecological disaster (see Krakatoa’s volcanic winter for an analogue, before getting to the CO2 effects).
But your Dr. Strangelove point is operative, in a different way. Even though the extent of Iran’s conventional weapons capability is known, it is discounted due to: 1. prejudice and 2. refusal to acknowledge that Iran’s location enables it to inflict great damage with comparative ease.
So because the West is so arrogant and dumb, Iran may need a nuclear weapon to be taken seriously..
Israelis will simply fly back to their dual-citizenship back up locations if the desalination plants are destroyed while Iran will get countervalue nuclear strikes by both the Israelis and the US.
And there will be no detterence against it.
Then new desalination plants will be up and running within 6-12 months and Israel is back to normal while there is no more any Iran.
This is why comrade Kim has made sure he has ICBMs that can reach everywhere in the US and lots of them. And nobody touches him as a result. You need to have countervalue deterrence against the continental US. And that means at least 50 heavy ICBMs. With MIRVs preferrably.
Of course, you also need leadership with the integrity to enforce it, because if you are never going to use the deterrent and the enemy knows it, then you can be treated as effectively not having it. Comrade Kim has no hesitation when it comes to pressing the button, and thus not a single shot has been fired at NK. Russia, on the other hand, has greater capabilities than anyone else, but is bombed daily. Because it is ruled by a comprador traitors and the “grad vision” of the man who has been on the throne for a quarer century now never really rose above the level of the country being a raw resource appendage to the dear partners.
Iran has to be like NK. It may well be, the North Koreans have been helping them a lot. But the North Koreans are very public about their deterrent while the Iranians are playing stupid games.
Oil will be at over $150 a barrel in a deflationary world economy.
The UN estimated it will take on the order of 15 years to clear the rubble out of Gaza; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/15/clearing-gaza-rubble-could-take-15-years-un-agency-says
Even if we charitably assume only 10 after Iran pulverizes Israel, pray tell will the money come from when the world is in a Great Depression level crisis and no one but the self-impoverished US would be willing to invest?
A couple of points related to this question of Iranian thermonuclear weapons–
[1.] Aside from Khamenei’s stated theological justification that nuclear weapons are ‘un-Islamic,’ real-world deterrence history does provide a strong rationale for Iran not going nuclear.
Historically, one country getting nukes has triggered a regional chain reaction—in the 1960s, for instance, China going nuclear made India follow, leading Pakistan to do the same.
In the 2020s, Iran building its first nukes might lead the Saudis and Egypt to do likewise. Most of Earth’s land surface then would become one continuous zone of nuclear states—all neighbors with histories of mutual hostility—extending from Israel and Egypt in the west, on through Iran, Pakistan, and India, all the way to China, Russia and North Korea, in the east.
That may have weighed on Tehran’s mind.
[2.] Also, there’s a technology called Laser Isotope Separation (LIS or AVLIS) —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_vapor_laser_isotope_separation
–enabling enrichment of fissile material to weapons-grade level in a space the size of, say, a commercial auto repair shop or small warehouse. It indeed gives much higher enrichment with much lower energy use than conventional centrifuge-based methods.
The problem is that LIS is extremely technologically difficult. Iran is one of the few countries that has mastered it, to whatever degree. Thus, in the 2006-2010 period when Israel assassinated a half-dozen Iranian nuclear physicists, those targeted were LIS specialists, though that isn’t mentioned here —
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/11/secret-war-iran-timeline-attacks
Given that and Iran’s general technological competence, alongside the longtime presence of Russian involvement and know-how in Iranian nuclear facilities, and the impenetrability of many of those facilities to outside intervention or oversight, the picture of some Third World nation blunderingly approaching the level of technological development the West and Russia achieved three-quarters of a century ago — the picture we’re constantly fed — has never struck me as very plausible.
‘
The smart money would be a bet that Iran could ‘break out’ in weeks once it so determined. Faster than Japan, which is the hypothetical instance usually cited.
Which will result in countries that have been at peace with each other to do what? Continue to be at peace with each other?
Meanwhile not having nukes and the delivery systesm to pulverize the US results in what?
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.
Is proliferation a good thing? No, it is not. But I would rather be alive and having to deal with that risk than be destroyed by the Americans.
Despite my state of permament shock since 2022 I would always opt for non-proliferation.
Brazil thought about getting nukes in the 1950s. The US obstructed.
In the 1970s again. This time the US might have gone along. The generals under the dictatorship decided not to.
I once had a conversation with one of Chavez´s informal advisors. He had suggested to Chavez to build an SSBN. Chavez decided not to. I seconded Chavez´s decision.
The continent has stayed nuke-free. As has Africa.
I applaud both. Putin had suggested the same thing for Europe and Western Russia. To give into the logic is to grant the US their Nazi-leverage over how the world works. But that is a delusion.
As Michaelmas says: Once they are stocked you will most likely never get rid of them.
Just because the US behaves like a Chromagnon we shouldn´t follow.
If the other countries neighbouring Israel keep out of it in the long run you can always argue on the moral ground. And in the long run economic pressure from the many countries could pressure Israel.
And to fancy what-if ideas e.g: Palestine had nukes, as a very exaggerated one. You do not just have nukes. To get nukes, to keep them, to build industry and facilities around them – it all comes with a strategic price which influences your domestic and foreign policy at large.
Besides we haven´t blown up ourselves only because we were very lucky. With hypersonics spreading this luck will get even scarcer. I am praying that US won´t crack hypersonics vis á vis Europe and the MDF (missiles in Germany 2026).
May be Orseshniks as a non-nuclear alternative could become a serious game-changer in the future of de-nuclearisation. It is not a surprise they are so little talked about in public. Imagine the technology would render almost all of US stockpile superfluous.
I am saying this knowing exactly how you feel. But we need to get off this train. Hard as it may appear. 99% of nations and governments are sane. Lets gather around them.
Sorry it´s Cromagnon
Do you see a general deflationary trend under that scenario? Oil at 150 of barrel seems more like an inflationary outcome. Under what conditions do you think could it roll over to deflation?
If you’ve been following the history of the Ukraine war, you will know that Russian capabilities have loomed very large when it comes to US planning. The US is extremely aware that the Russians can roll right over Europe and the US if they have a mind to do it, particularly as it has become clear how feeble Western military supplies and weapons are.
If you read the recent New York Times article on the German-based “war room” set up by the US to run the Ukrainian war from, you can sense a tremendous fear of Russia running through it. That whole gambit was to ensure that offensive actions against Russia were strictly carried out by proxy forces and that the US had (ostensible) deniability so as to prevent Russian retaliatory attacks outside of Ukraine. These kinds of considerations have definitely not been a feature of other recent US wars in the last few decades against weaker powers.
Of course, US leaders also subscribed to the “madman theory” during the Cold war, deliberately projecting mental instability so as to inspire fear in their opponents. Trump seems to have brought this back into fashion, though perhaps unintentionally.
I completely disagree with your take on US reluctance to up the ante against Russia due to fear of Russian retaliation. The US constantly upped the ante with HIMARS and ATACMS, literally targeting Russian territory. It was also no secret to the Russians that US personnel were providing the targeting data via US intelligence satellites, as well as operating the missile systems. Then of course there was the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk with US provided weapons and equipment–any “(ostensible) deniability” for this attack is ludicrous. These were major provocations that the demented Biden ostensibly approved. We’re lucky that Putin is a wise and patient leader.
Then new desalination plants will be up and running within 6-12 months
I’ve never seen an Israeli desalination plant but I have seen as a Saudi one. If you can clear the wreckage, organize trained engineering teams and skilled work crews, arrange the construction materials, and rebuild a major desalination plant in 6-12 months I would be very impressed.
Oh, and do not forget, most of the area where you are working will likely be evacuated as there is no drinking water and if you are working on a Saudi plant the external daytime temperature for a good part of the year will be 40C–45C+.
https://artiproje.com/projects/detail/south-dahran-ro-desalination-plant-96
Yes, and there also is a decent chance – winds depending – that radiation from the postulated Israel/ US nuclear retaliation (not to mention fallout from missiles hitting Dimona) will poison the Zionist’s holy land for far longer than the bible cited age of Judaism.
A classical Greek Tragedy storyline.
It is indeed bonkers that the demonstration of force from Iran’s two missile attacks on Israel has been taken as a demonstration of weakness.
I’m not sure to what extent actual decision makers but this, but that’s what I get from relatively “educated” members of the general public.
When one considers how much destruction that Israel was inflicting on Gaza and Hezbollah; when one includes the serious insults to Iran in the deaths of its proxies (or infiltrated IRGC members) in Syria by Israel (which says they were transporting weapons), death of Quassem Soleimani, Ismail Haniyeh (in Tehran!), bombing of Iran’s embassy in Damascus etc, targeting of numerous IRGC members in Syria… Iran’s responses do look puny by comparison, which could be interpreted as fear..
Not necessarily fear, more like keeping your powder dry for a bigger confrontation, while demonstrating backup capabilities. Why shoot your bolt now? Better to husband resources for the final confrontation.
Because what already has been lost is a catastrophic defeat. Syria is gone and the dominos fall in a very unpleasant way after that.
For all three of Iran, Russia, and the China too in fact.
“Because what already has been lost is a catastrophic defeat.” Catastrophic for whom? And how?
In substantive terms, it has left Israel in a very weak, overstretched position, and Israel and the US can only achieve a military draw against its/their adversaries by making a series of nuclear strikes – and reciprocal death and an uncertain Rapture is not my idea of a win-win outcome, although I’m open to the suggestion that it is all part of God’s Greater Plan.
And explain the logic underpinning your argument that “,,,the dominos fall in a very unpleasant way after that.
“For all three of Iran, Russia, and the China too in fact.”
It seems to me to be a pretty absurd statement just as it was when it was applied to Vietnam, particularly given that none of these countries bears any obvious resemblance to Grenada.
Under the various lethal insults Israel had dumped on Iran, of which two would be considered acts of war, (a painful, tactically useful response is warranted, like actually destroying some F35 and F15 on the ground..a nudge which does minimal damage, always looks weak especially after a major provocation or major injury to your allies
Not necessarily. Iran’s gotta line up its ducks first and get more Russian and Chinese help, including more advanced radars and missile components, and not prematurely advance to the mother of battle, until it can hit back really hard. In the meantime it has already shown its capability, without touching off a general conflagration. That time will come, but in the meantime it has advanced radars which detected the Israeli strike some months ago and acted as a credible deterrent. You can do this without getting into a general conflict as yet.
Iran needs to keep its powder dry for now and keep building its forces. The longer they delay the better. They also need to get some more launch on warning capability. If they detect Israel or the US launching a first strike, rather than just absorb that devastation, they can be getting their own counterstrike in motion. They also need to build up their proxy alliances and their own special ops to strike at Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates on the ground. That’s another option. They need additional capability so that if they are going to go down, they’re going to take a substantial amount of people with them, including various Arab states from which attacks may be launched. Spread the pain. They’re playing a careful game, and they need to get the timing right.
Iran launched an attack and hit nothing. Israel then launched a failed counterattack, and Iran did nothing after saying they would retaliate. That is, Iran flashed a weapon while simultaneously demonstrating their unwillingness to use that weapon. That was their mistake.
No, that is absolutely false. There were pre-agreed targets and Iran hit them all, despite the West (Israel, US, France, UK) spending a reported >$2.3 billion trying to intercept.
Ted Postel did an analysis of the satellite photos of craters at the Nevatim airbase and concluded that it was not a high precision strike. Yes, the Iranian missiles penetrated the missile defense and hit the airbase, but the CEP (circular error probability) was over 100 meters, not good enough to take out specific hangars, bunkers, or buildings. They got a lucky hit on one of the hangars, but the many other hits didn’t do much permanent damage.
I think Netanyahu is gambling that Israel can ride out a massive but inaccurate strike, and that his intelligence services have penetrated Iran’s military to the extent that a big attack can effectively decapitate and disarm Iran. It is a very dangerous gamble, particularly if Iran is holding high-precision missiles in reserve.
It looks weak, but what they did was demonstrate their capability without as yet touching off a general conflict. They are doing a fine calculus, careful of being baited prematurely. Yet they’ve shown much advance capability in that their ballistics can now hit the Zionist regime in a credible way. 10 years ago this wasn’t the case. What they did is they sent a warning, like the Chinese in Korea sent a warning with some initial probing attacks. The “weak” Chinese then disappeared for a time, giving space to not only get more forces in place, but allowing the Americans time to reconsider what they were doing. We know of course that MacArthur waved off the Chinese warning and proceeded to disaster. Iran also needs to put some additional things in place, like more Russian or Chinese advanced radars and rockets. They also need to build a larger stock of missiles because any strikes by the Israeli or American regimes will hope to not only devastate them with a first strike, but to exhaust Iran’s missile reserves thereafter. So they need plenty of ballistic missiles in place, not only for direct retaliation but to hit collaborationist Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. They need to build more stockpiles for the mother of battle if it comes.
They also need to start building some sort of kamikaze forces. The exact force and deployment will of course depend on the situation, and there’s no reason such couldn’t be primarily used against collaborationist Arab states where they may have a better chance of getting through, either on the ground or in the air. If they have thousands of volunteers willing to die for country, it’s better t beo get them in the field early, including widening the battle space into Syria or Lebanon rather than them just a hunkered down in Iran under a rain of bombs and missiles.
None of the above means of course Iran shouldn’t stop playing the game and do talking about non-existent nukes until Trump disappears in 3 years.
Isreal surely has nuclear reactors that could be targeted. There is more than one way to go nuclear.
Why is Israel allowed to have unregulated nukes but not Iran? Israel is a source of giant instability and disruption in the region since it appeared. Why are they getting a free pass on nukes from everybody including the US, the putative “honest broker”? If Iran is in international supervision over non-existent nuclear weapons, why isnt the Zionist state in international supervision or abolition over its real nukes?
Because Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Israel has not.
Yes, true. And from Jimmy Carter on all US presidents have refused to acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons in order to avoid triggering the Glenn Amendment, which would prevent any further military assistance to Israel.
Carter seems to be blamed for most if America’s failings since his time in office but, to be fair, Nixon was the one who conjured up the notion of nuclear ambiguity, a concept which his successors have been happy to accept.
was thinking more of the general hypocrisy of the US and Israel in the region over nukes, but that is a good point. Didn’t the mullahs threaten withdraw under certain circumstances from that treaty?
Your question is right on. The demand by the war-criminal Netanyahou, that Iran cannot have nukes, is beyond hypocritical. But the fawning MSM scarcely ever point this out. And the utter absurdity, of the U.S. even considering war with Iran, defies all logic. While the planet is quickly overheating to an irreversible level which will disrupt civilization as we know it, idiots like Hegseth refer to that “climate change crap.” It will take a miracle for us to survive at all, given the state of “leadership” in Washington.
We know of course that Trump has been bought and paid for by Zionist money, but it’s been the general hypocrisy of the US in the region for decades now. Some books (Guyenot et al) argue that way back, Kennedy wanted to put the brakes on the Israeli nuclear program, but he was undermined by that same Zionist lobby, and Lyndon Johnson, who took gobs of their money. Some even argue that Kennedy’s assassination was facilitated in certain ways by the Israelis, who wanted him out of the way not only because of his opposition to do their nuke program, but that he was threatening to have the various Zionist lobbyists like APAC register as agents of a foreign government. . Two Kennedys needed to be removed according to this line of argument, because Bobby swore to run a full scale investigation into his brother’s death which would have revealed some embarrassing information on the Israeli connection. There’s plenty of information on this out there but the mainstream media keeps avoiding the topic in depth.
Iran had to consider a nuclear option because it was facing a strong enemy namely Iraq back in the ’80s and 90s, and of course it was also continually threatened by Israel. So they had a legitimate reason to move towards nukes, particularly since Saddam also threatened and had used some chemical weapons against them. Saddam also had a potential nuke weapons capability at Osirack before it was bombed by the Israeli regime, determined to dominate the region. In fact Iran tried to destroy saddam’s osirak facility earlier. It’s still a question if Saddam was going directly for nukes, but all in all the mullahs did not try to develop nukes merely out of a supposedly “irrational” hatred of Jews that’s lamestream media propaganda would have us believe.
I cannot verify Helmer’s claim that Trump has only sat for two intel briefings in his second term. Do you have a citation?
A search engine is your friend. His calendar is public. https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/topic/calendar/
Iran hasn’t built nukes, yet.
Thing is that thanks to Trump going nuts against Iran in 2019 Iran has been reducing their breakout time to weeks. That is unless a US first strike takes out Fordow it is estimated that it takes a week to get enough Uranium to weapons grade and then a week to place said uranium in warheads.
As for using their LEO rockets as ICBMs, the only thing in range (6000km-8000km) that they might be useful for is Diego Garcia. Everything else they might target (İncirlik, 5th Fleet HQ, Israel, aircraft carriers, etc.) is in range of their existing missiles.
That limited range of their ICBMs is why Iran isn’t going to use nukes in defense. Can’t hit the US and dropping nukes anywhere else is not worth getting on the shit list of the entire world. Which is probably why they won’t built nuclear warheads.
And no the ability to get something to LEO doesn’t mean that they can accurately deorbit whatever is put there to hit a target on earth. You don’t want to accidentally gut Philadelphia when trying to torch the Pentagon.
Trump had the best deal possible and that was the old nuke deal but it was Trump himself that trashed that one. Now he wants it back but with a laundry list of conditions put together by the US and Israel. But with any negotiations with Iran, Israel would be there to sabotage it by striking an Embassy or sinking a ship or some such provocation. Netanyahu’s political survival depends on getting the US into a war with Iran and he doesn’t care how many Israelis and Americans get killed doing so. Trump partly negated it by saying that the Israelis would have to lead it when maybe they were hoping that they would be in the rear making the sandwiches for the US troops. But the long and short of it is that the Trump team does not have a competent team of negotiators but only a bunch of rabid ideologues.
LOL making the sandwiches.. Good one.
North Korea. What more needs to be said?
My blood pressure did not need that this morning
Thanks for stressing Houthis having agency. It´s getting completely eclipsed from 99% of reporting. Because otherwise their cause would have to be in fact acknoweldged even by Iran-hating Europe. Which is a no-no-no.
While always keen on hearing what Helmer has to say – does he literally every leave his apartment?
This job means hanging out with people, visiting the clubs, the restaurants, the private places, the lobbies, the halls where folks play squash, golf or whatever is in vogue now.
Reporting about Washington D.C. from your living-room in an apartment on another continent?
I can´t claim to know anything about Trump. But it appears not realistic that he does not know what serious intelligence is reporting. If he does take TV into account he needs to do so in order to know what his voters believe. But I doubt he doesn´t know there is nothing beyond that. I would´t be surprised if he thinks those super-secret intelligence briefings are a cool thing. That´s one of the symbols of him being POTUS.
By now he will understand the significance of Russian missile systems. And if I know that Iran has a close relationship with Russia on these things. Well I assume so does Mossad and the Pentagon and thus Trump.
And whatever a moron Hegseth might appear in public. It´s a show.
We have no clue what they talk behind closed doors. And nobody speaking in public does. If those who do would speak out we know what would happen to them, think Assange, Snowden, Manning and much much worse.
And besides there are all the other secret intelligence agencies which get not talked about. Since virtually every country has one of its own. Thats a lot of data. The fact that USA did fuck up Ukraine does not mean the intelligence that could have warned them was not there. But they could afford to ignore it.
Where there is no disposable proxy as in USA/Israel vs.Iran most likely that´s a different matter of taking into account data that´s not favourable.
Helmer was a part of the Carter Administration, which means he also knows his way around official documents. His remarks indicated that Trump’s schedule is public (I imagine some time slots are diaried but who he is to call or see is not disclosed). He said specifically that Trump had had only two intelligence briefings and that he’s spent far more time having lunches with Vance. It is also an open secret, even just reported in the NYT on the tariff market freakout, that Trump gets his news primarily from cable TV.
I must also say your idea of how reporting is done is wrongheaded. People with knowledge don’t give reporters tips in bathrooms, FFS, unless your idea of reporting is trafficking in court gossip. For instance:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107769909507200302
And Helmer is on this continent.
“I would´t be surprised if he thinks those super-secret intelligence briefings are a cool thing.”
I have never seen any of those secret intelligent briefings, but I presume they are couched in such finely-tuned and subtly balanced terms — everything carefully weighted with “moderately confident”, “inconclusive evidence”, “limited corroborating clues”, etc — that Trump must find them highly irritating. He would prefer black-and-white, unequivocal statements.
On the other hand, it looks as every time when there is a black-and-white statement that does not fit the preconceived notions of the administration, it is simply ignored. Typical examples are the repeated reports concluding that Iran has not undertaken the construction of atomic bombs, or the infamous report bluntly stating that Bin Laden was planning a major attack in the USA.
No, that is false. Go watch Ray McGovern on Judge Napolitano. He was the CIA’s daily briefer to three presidents. He talks in simple and often colorful terms.
The reason Trump does not want to hear from the intel agencies is he does not want their input.
We know from this first term that he is bored with them. As in anything that is more then a two page power point (which intelligence briefings tend to be due to the complexity of the subject matter) means the person who thought to give Trump more then that so he could make an informed decision would be lucky to be just ignored. And we know from the assassination of Qasem Soleimani that Trump will always take the most ‘manly’/domineering option presented during meetings.
Always go with the simplest explanation first and that would be that Trump is incompetent and his Fox News presidential crew are incompetent and the only way to block said incompetence is for Congress to stand in the way.
And so the greatest failure we can ascribe to the Democrats’ incompetence is losing control of the Congress. In the Iran situation this is still further complicated by Israeli ownership of the Congress. Indeed, as some of us have suggested, that may be the very reason Trump spends so much time on the ME.
Still, I don’t believe he will bomb Iran. On that one he likely really is bluffing, another of his favorite behaviors.
But we did already. Israel does nothing without our support, particularly real-time targeting. Israel tried launching a three-wave attack against Iran but changed plans when the pilots in the first wave in supposedly stealthy F-35s could detect Iran’s radars were “seeing” them. So they stopped short of what they thought Iran’s missile range was, and perhaps more important, outside Iran’s airspace, fired at some in-their-range targets and turned tail. And the following two waves were aborted.
So your premise is incorrect.
On top of that, I mentioned Israel has agency. Netanyahu very much wants a war. I mentioned a false flag. If Israel tries another stunt against Iran within its own capacity, like the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Iran would find it impossible to negotiate with the US failing to control Israel.
Parsi mentioned that the Israel damage to The Resistance increases the attractiveness of having a nuclear weapon, since it has fewer capable allies nearby. So he thought that also made for a narrow window for negotiations.
But that previous attack was under Biden who basically let Netanyahu do anything he wanted. Even Biden declined to attack Iran himself. Trump just said on a potential Iran attack that “Israel would take the lead”–implying that he might help in some way short of sending in the B2s.
Trump is ignorant and reckless but I don’t think even his risk appetite is up for starting a war with Iran. That’s just my opinion FWIW.
Netanyahu is even less under Trump’s control. Israel has violated the Gaza ceasefire literally every day and then escalated from that by barring all food and water supplies. It was the latter that led to the Houthis saying they’d renew their attacks. Rather than tell Israel to deliver supplies (which Biden got Israel to do at least some of the time so as to not totally embarrass the US), Trump made a pre-emptive attack on Yemen!
And did you miss Trump’s repeated and disgusting patter about the Palestinians should never have gotten beachfront property?
If you are blind to how much more fully Trump is backing Netanyahu than Biden, I really can’t help you.
No I heard about it. He also said (to a Republican group) that after the tariffs “all these countries are kissing my a**.” His mouth is an unguided missile most of the time it seems.
I’m not trying to argue about what will happen since I haven’t the slightest clue. But the reports I saw said Netanyahu sitting next to him acted surprised about the Saturday meeting with Iran. And I do believe Trump is capable of putting the brakes on Netanyahu if he thinks it’s in the interest of Trump. Of course he’s never given up on his idea of a Gaza Riviera for Jared. He has certain plans–they are just stupid plans. Whereas taking on Iran, many say, is more about a payback to the Adelsons. When it comes to the Trump family interests a regional war doesn’t sound very useful.
“When it comes to the Trump family interests a regional war doesn’t sound very useful.”
Then Israel finds an administration that is more useful.
Not it Trump’s famed instinct tells him Iran will fold like a house of cards.
I’ve been saying this is to people I can speak frankly with (and that’s very few these days). Israel doesn’t “own” the US government, it’s the opposite. It serves a function and satisfies various American polities with its actions and mere presence. My real worry (and I’m serious) is that if Iran finally has to launch a full response/attack, Israel, in dire fear of complete state collapse, will look to Europe to support it and if they don’t get what they want, lash out with its nukes. And not against Iran.
The blowback line could stretch around the block.
But it’s been established that a lobby – not just one – can “own” a politician.
I know the Pentagon has gamed this war out several times and the US comes out the loser.
But the Empire prefers for the CIA to be the main bullwork to wage wars through color revolutions. It would be nice to know if the MEK stands ready within Iran to support the Penagon’s war effort. Also the Empire seems quite friendly with Azerbaijan nowadays.
In addition, does the closing of the strait of Hormuz matter as much to the Empire given that they are now major suppliers because of Shale? It seems like it would hurt allies like Japan and South Korea much more, but that could be used as just more leverage against their allies. Just as the tariffs against allies are being used as leverage to consolidate the Empire’s power to use against China.
It would certainly affect resource poor Europe as well as our Asian Allie’s.
20.5 mmt/day flows thru Hormuz. Plus 10b cu ft lng. Imo at a minimum that would stop at the outbreak of hostilities, and in a real war it seems likely Iran would take out their competitors fields.
In addition, pipelines run from Iraqi and saudi fields… the pipelines are an easy target, more serious would be damage to the producing fields.
Us exports about 1.2mmb/day net of imports. Even if that continues it won’t much affect world price.
Hard to guess the resulting world price of oil. 300/barrel? 1000? $300 to fill your tank? $500? Unless you’ve got a truck? Crashing economies? Except Russia/venezuela.
Venezuela has vast heavy reserves, but their fields are in very bad shape from decades long sanctions. Ending sanctions would help over time, say years. Canada has filthy oil sands, but output increase probably very slow.
Russia’s sanctions would end in a heartbeat, but afaik they’re at full output. It’s just a question of who wins the bidding war, and would they prefer dollars or Juan? What if they want Alaska back?
All true but if the Empire believes its MEK allies within Iran would be in a good position after a shock and awe air campaign, they will only.be thinking in the short run. Given the homeland’s autarky and its export LNG business, perhaps they think they could suffer through an energy price shock longer than Iran.
I don’t think it would play out this way just like the sanctions from hell didn’t pan out in ukraine. I’m just trying to see what the Empire is thinking because it seems too crazy even for them to go to war with Iran. And yet here we are.
Autarky? Do you really think the PTB are so delusional they think the U.S. is self-sufficient? When our military gets at least one third of their spare parts from China? Maybe you’re right. It seems like the simplest explanation for their madness, but it’s hard to believe. If the Chinese maintain their restrictions on the export of rare earth metals it should bring them to their senses in a couple of months.
Given US debt levels throughout society, could the US economy survive $20 a gallon gas when 68%* cannot find $500 bucks for a medical emergency? My common sense is the food would not get delivered, the crops would not get harvested, medicines from overseas would not arrive, and few would show up to work (could the nuclear power plant workers even bicycle in?).
How many Americans can grow their own food (including for barter) or know herbology? China and Japan would manage far better – they have well-developed, electrified mass transportation and a culture and history of cooperation for the good of society. But how would the neoliberal US manage – Katrina gives me the answer. Meanwhile, the US oligarchs retreat with their wealth to New Zealand beyond the reach of the US 393 million firearms….
* https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2022-expenses.htm
Does the reference to Gaddafi mean the reference to Syria solution should be a reference to Libya solution?
Yes, fixing. The gentlemen in the video also discussed Syria as the outcome that Israel wanted for Iran but I bungled the references due to resampling the video while drafting.
The funniest version of this syndrome was when I was preparing a client report of their joint ventures, which included one in Caracas. The client team member who read a draft said, “What is this about Argentina?” I had been listening to Evita while writing.
Don’t cry for me, America.
I agree with those who believe that the very conditions being demanded by Trump guarantee war.
1. If Iran does not dismantle its conventional missile defenses, it will be attacked by the US and Israel for not doing so.
2. If Iran does dismantle its conventional missile defenses, it will be attacked by Israel with US support under some or other pretext.
The writing is on the wall.
Trump pulled back from attacking Iran in his first term. I’m hopeful he continues to be cautious about starting a war we might lose badly. Granted, he’s surrounded himself with warmongers and fools.
I asked an Iranian acquaintance last week, “isn’t the US about to bomb the country”? Eyeroll, “the US has been attacking Iran for 70 years, there is nothing new here”.
There is a more recent episode of Serbia, this time as part of the Republic of Yugoslavia being subjected to demands intentionally so agrégés as to ensure refusal and hence insure its being the subject of aggressive war. This was the product of the 1999 Contact Group negotiations that included Assistant Sec. of State Richard Holbrook between representatives of Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Yugoslavia agreed to most of the agreement that included outside troops going to Kosovo. Yugoslavia balked at the troops being under the command of NATO and for allowing troops in Yugoslavia outside of Kosovo. Sec. of State Madelaine Albright refused compromise and insisted on total acceptance by Yugoslavia. Refusal was the pretext for over seventy days of NATO bombing that included targeting of civilians and a strike on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Thanks for this ugly but important bit of history.
thank you. it was clinton that made unreasonable demands to yugoslavia. the forever wars started in earnest, under bill clinton.
This was actually pretty much admitted in public back then. With a smirk on their faces reporters and “analysts” spoke about it. It was intentionally put into the Rambouillet Agreement to provoke rejection by the Serbs. Everybody knew it. I forgot which paragraph in the draft it was. I had it actually printed out. The entire goddam “Agreement”. Man, these assholes were just insufferable.
Jamie Shea – anybody?
“(…)
QUESTION: The War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague looked at investigating NATO and its actions in Kosovo.
CHOMSKY: For a few days. And you notice what happened? [The tribunal’s chief prosecutor] Carla del Ponte brought it up for a few days. She was immediately informed in the strongest terms that you’d better not do that and she backed off.
QUESTION: As [former chief prosecutor] Louise Arbour had been warned before her.
CHOMSKY: “You better not do it” and they backed off immediately.
QUESTION: Why do you say they backed off immediately? She said there wasn’t a case to [warrant it?].
CHOMSKY: That’s backing off.
QUESTION: That’s saying there isn’t a case to [?]. It’s not necessarily caving into pressure, is it?
CHOMSKY: Really? I mean, it’s not necessarily that but, in fact, the course of events was: They announced that they were thinking of looking into NATO crimes. There was a statement — I think it was from [NATO spokesperson] Jamie Shea, who was asked about it — saying that “we fund the tribunal, they’re not gonna look into our crimes.” An American congressman in Canada was asked about it and he said if they start looking into NATO crimes, we will take the United Nations buildings apart brick by brick.
(…)”
On Afghanistan
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Tim Sebastian
Hard Talk
February 2, 2002
https://chomsky.info/20020227/
p.s. You can safely say all of this got entirely erased out of recorded history with 9/11.
Which is why I cannot bear Americans speak about 9/11 full of this disgusting self-pity as if it were the history´s worst crime one more time. They should just shut up mentioning it.
p.s. Sorry, this is not the subject of the NC post but since you brought up Kosovo my memory messed with my Karma and I had to look it up.
The crucial paragraphs that were drafted with the sole intention to provoke a Serbian rejection were buried in APPENDIX B, especially paragraph 8, of the RAMBOUILLET AGREEMENT:
“(…)
8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.
(…)”
RAMBOUILLET AGREEMENT
https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html
Noam Chomsky sums up the rest:
“(…)
The remainder spells out the conditions that permit NATO forces and those they employ to act as they choose throughout the territory of the FRY, without obligation or concern for the laws of the country or the jurisdiction of its authorities, who are, however, required to follow NATO orders “on a priority basis and with all appropriate means.” One provision states that “all NATO personnel shall respect the laws applicable in the FRY…,” but with a qualification to render it vacuous: “Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities under this Appendix, all NATO personnel….”
It has been speculated that the wording was designed so as to guarantee rejection. Perhaps so. It is hard to imagine that any country would consider such terms, except in the form of unconditional surrender.
(…)”
https://chomsky.info/199907__/
Fuck NATO and all their staff since 1949.
p.p.s. Peter Gowan in 1999 wrote about drafting the Rambouillet text:
“(…)written by Hill from the State Department(…)”
Of course I thought of Fiona Hill. But that could as well be incorrect.
There is nothing to negotiate because, as Lavrov so brilliantly put it, America = “Not agreement Capable”. For the Israeli’s that is doubly so. Perhaps they could come to some kind of smaller agreements, exchanging prisoners or something minor along those lines, but grand strategic bargains and re-alignments? I don’t see how that is at all possible, ESPECIALLY after years of literal massacres and genocide by Team America/Israel.
“Bargaining with oathbreakers is like building on quicksand” Brynden ‘Blackfish’ Tully
Alas . . . the U.S. throughout its history has consistently been far more interested in and talented at starting wars than avoiding or ending them. Add to this the measure of control over Trump by the Israelis — the U.S. neck deep in Netanyahu’s extermination campaign — and a real meat-head at Defense and you have pretty combustible material. Cooler heads (none really available to the Trumpers it seems) would know that the roving carrier based American military and its bases in the area are more vulnerable than in the past and that direct war on Iran would mean “lighting up” the entire region. Are the Trumpers that anxious — or stupid enough — to ignite a global disaster?
“But what does that look like to him?”
One can easily imagine given that for Mr. T a good deal is one where he gets the service rendered but doesn’t pay his contractors, nor his lawyer…
CIA buddy Jeff Stein intends his latest Substack as a serious contribution. But the fact that he uses “spy v. spy” as an illustration gives away the nonsense-level not only of these few bits but his entire blog:
U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks a Magnet for Spies
Bugs, wiretaps, hotel spies, code-breakers, secret agents will be dispatched to find out what the diplomats say in private.
https://www.spytalk.co/p/us-iran-nuclear-talks-a-magnet-for
Remember “I’m Ted Koppel, and this is Nighline” (cue the music) America In Crisis, Day # – – – “
Best not to have been in with the Brits to have overthrown Mossadegh in coup in the first place.
Witkof has a choice to ignore his & Trump’s genocidal support of Israel or tell Trump: We negotiate with Iran or the bond market will implode.
via Nicole Grajewski
Fellow @CarnegieEndow @carnegienpp, Associate @ManagingtheAtom, PhD @UniofOxford | Russia, Iran, nuclear policy | soon a book on Russia-Iran
“(…)Earlier today US and Iranian officials began indirect nuclear talks in Muscat, Oman—the first high-level engagement since the withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. Talks will reconvene next week on 19 April.
Thread on what a successful agreement could include:
(…)”
https://nitter.poast.org/NicoleGrajewski/status/1911124323969991087#m