This is a bit of complicated tome, but for me key to understanding who is in charge of US foreign policy, and who (besides Zionist Israel) really rules the Western Empire.
It’s often said that dying Empires, rather than cede some power to other multiopolar nations/nation states, are at their most irrational, and engage in loose cannon command and control wherever they believe they can get away with it.
Additionally, will the New Boss (Biden’s still aiming at China and Russia) look much like the Old Boss come Inauguration Day? Biden’s choice for Secretary of State is Anthony ‘Nice Guy’ Blinken (h/t Alan Macleod) who never met an Imperial war he didn’t love, and apparently the sociopathic Michelle Flournoy for SecDef got a thumbs-down from too many ‘progressives, so he’s going with: ‘Secretary of Defense Lloyd ‘Serial War Profiteer’ (h/t Caitlin Johnstone) Austin’
First up: ‘We distrust Iran’: Germany wants nuclear deal under Biden expanded to include Iranian ballistic missiles’, 4 Dec, 2020, RT.com
“Germany’s foreign minister said on Friday that the country needs to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal with the US, despite Tehran’s vow not to engage in new talks, but to return to the original agreement.
“A return to the previous agreement will not be enough,” Heiko Maas told Spiegel. “There will have to be a kind of ‘nuclear deal plus’, which is also in our interest.” […]
““The decisive factor will be whether the US relaxes economic sanctions against Iran,” Maas said on Friday. “Both sides must come together.”
He explained that Germany needed the deal “precisely because we distrust Iran,” demanding that Tehran ditch both nuclear weapons and its ballistic missile program, which he said “threatens” the Middle East.
But Maas’s Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said on Thursday that Tehran would not look to restart “two years of negotiations” with the US and other JCPOA signatories.
Zarif reiterated Iran’s previous position, that it would prefer to return to the original nuclear deal, which he claimed had not been upheld by European countries and the Trump administration, which he labeled a “rogue regime.”
Next: ‘Tehran will not renegotiate nuclear deal or ‘compromise on its national security’ – Iranian govt spokesman’, RT.com, 7 Dec, 2020
“Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh has dispelled any talk of renegotiating the joint nuclear deal abandoned by the Trump administration after Germany’s foreign minister claimed new, tougher terms were needed.” […]
““All those familiar with the international laws know that Iran will not do renegotiation on something which has been negotiated before and the resolution 2231 will not change by these remarks,” Khatibzadeh told reporters via video conference on Monday.
The spokesman contended that it was not the Iranian side that broke the terms of the deal and insisted it would not be in Tehran’s interest to renegotiate.” […]
“Khatibzadeh also rebuffed any consideration for Saudi Arabia [<Sunni] and Bahrain [< 85% Shi’a riled by 15% Sunni] to be consulted if Iran does return to the negotiating table for a new nuclear deal with the US.
“These countries should know their position and their position is clear in the international relations and regional arrangements, and they should know their limits and speak to that extent,” he said.”
Now in his Dec. 7, 2020 ‘Joe Biden’s JCPOA ‘Plus + Plus’ Deal With Iran Is Not A Realistic Option’ b (Bernhard) at Moon of Alabama has steered readers to Alistair Crooke’s Dec. 7 2020 ‘concise [but longish] summary of the U.S. foreign policy problem with regards to Iran:
‘Biden’s Iran Deal Faces Iran’s ‘Red Pill’, strategic-culture.org (CC, a few excerpts):
“The first is that no one – including Israel – believes that nuclear weapons of any sort are a real threat in the Middle East. The Region is just too small – a jostling amalgam of competing sects and interests. It is all too much of a ‘mixing bowl’ that presents no ‘clean’ targets for strategic nukes. Even Israeli ideologues do not believe that Iran would contemplate liquidating 6.5 million Palestinian Muslims to get at Israel.
What frightens Israel is Iran’s conventional missile weaponry. And these were not a part of the deal. (There would have been ‘no deal’ if these were included, given Iran’s memory of recent life under Saddam’s missiles and chemical weapons).
The second occult issue derived from the (real) Sunni fear of a resurgent and energised Shi’a Iran, at a time of long-term decline and the visible exhaustion of the old Ottoman Sunni élites. The power of the Revolution and of subsequent Shi’a renaissance terrified the Gulf monarchies.
This tension is deep, and its’ nature mostly misunderstood in the West: Sunnis for the last millennia have viewed themselves as the natural ‘party of government’ – they were (and still believe they are) ‘the Establishment’, if you like. The Shi’a, on the other hand, always have been disdained (and discriminated against) – they were the ‘deplorables’ (to use the American analogy). And just as the U.S. Establishment loathes Trump and his populist army, similar tensions exist in the Middle East – the Gulf monarchies loathe the ‘deplorables’ and fear them (and fear any inversion of power). “ […]
“This is the ‘protocol paradox’: For two decades, Washington has been absorbed with stopping a largely illusionary ‘Big Threat’, whilst Iran has quietly been assembling thousands of almost invisible tiny deterrents (as small as the smallest drones) right under everyone’s nose. A ‘Biden’ JCPOA++ diplomatic initiative will resolve none of these under-the-table issues – and will not therefore, be accepted by Israel (or by the Gulf).
“A U.S. return to diplomacy – however improbable its successful outcome – simply exacerbates these fears. And the Democrat’s ‘A-Team’ are giving many hostages to fortune: Not content with aiming for a new nuclear accord – limiting enrichment and centrifuges – they want the deal stripped of its present ‘Sunset clauses’; they want restrictions over Iran’s foreign policy; they want Iran’s proxies de-fanged; they want conventional arms control (ballistic missiles); AND they want Israel and the Gulf States’ direct involvement in the process. In short, they have overbid.” […]
“Israel remains the hub around which U.S. foreign policy wholly revolves.
Should negotiation not produce the desired result, the threat of a military option will be back on the table.
Given the logic to both U.S. and the Israeli formulation, military action will inevitably distill into serious consideration. Does Biden’s Team ‘A’ believe that a limited strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is realistic, without triggering wider war? If not, is Team ‘A’ then prepared to contemplate wider war – on Israel’s behalf? One hopes not.”
Back to b at MoA:
“In January 2020 Iran took revenge for the U.S. murder of Major General Qassem Soleimani with a precise missile attack on a U.S. base in Iraq.” (w/ satellite images)
Iran’s precise missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometer can be mass fired from underground silos. Any attacker would have great trouble to destroy those.”
Is that what payback for the US and Israel’s assassination of Iranian top nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrezade might resemble?
“Iran can not only defend its sea, air and ground but it can retaliate against an attack with precision attacks on all U.S. bases in the Middle East and by destroying all Arab oil export facilities. Its Lebanese brothers in arms, Hizbullah, have their own missile capabilities which are sufficient to destroy most of Israel’s industries. If Iran is attacked they will, as they promised, ‘do their duty’.” […]
“Thankfully Iran has given Biden another option. He can take back all sanctions Trump introduced and return to the JCPOA deal. Iran has promised that it will again restrict its nuclear program and will stay within the limits of JCPOA as soon a Biden lifts the sanctions. The Iranian parliament has put a time limit on that option by directing its government to cease adherence to the JCPOA by February.”
Might wise diplomacy (not through the barrel of a gun) work in time as Iran hopes?
(cross-posted at caucus99percent.com)