Connect with us

Latest

News

Germany, France and UK issue joint statement to US: DON’T DUMP JCPOA – AKA IRAN DEAL

Germany’s Foreign Minister has echoed the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in saying that a US withdrawl from the JCPOA would send the wrong message to North Korea.

Published

on

3,963 Views

Berlin has released a statement jointly signed by the governments of Germany, France and the United Kingdom, urging the United States not to pull out of the 2015 JCPOA, often referred to as the ‘Iran deal’.

The news comes as many suspect that Donald Trump is preparing to defy the advice of his own state department, his allies in Germany, France, Britain and the EU as a whole, as well as the stated wishes of Russia and China and withdraw from the deal.

The statement was presented by Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. Gabriel previously stated that the “world will change” if the US pulls out of the deal, warning that Germany believes Trump may be on the verge of withdrawal.

Today, Gabriel echoed the words of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in stating that if the US withdraws from the JCPOA, it would send the wrong message to North Korea, one which indicates that the US is not willing nor able to adhere to internationally reached agreements.

This comes as Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, has stated,

“The current situation proves that our party chose the right path by developing the economy and nuclear power simultaneously… In spite of the brutal sanctions of the United States and its satellites, the national economy has expanded”.

With Russia and even South Korea leaving the door for economic cooperation with Pyongyang open, as an incentive to de-escalate tensions in East Asia, the United States is finding itself increasingly isolated in respect of its bellicose threats against both Tehran and Pyongyang. Such threats are rejected not only by Russia and China, but also by America’s EU allies.

Today, Russia’s Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, also expressed Russia’s desire not to see the JCPOA undermined by the United States. Peskov said,

“President Putin has repeatedly spoken about the importance of the agreement on the so-called Iranian nuclear dossier. Of course, the withdrawal of one of the countries, especially a key country like the United States, from this agreement will only have negative consequences”.

Two Koreas–One Road: The future of cooperation between North Korea, South Korea and Russia

If the US de-certifies the deal, Iran may consider the deal null and void. However, there remains a possibility that Russia, China and Europe could work with Iran to preserve elements of the deal in spite of the Trump administration’s intransigence against any sort of cooperation with Iran.

As I recently wrote in respect of the crisis in Washington over the JCPOA:

“When it comes to North Korea, there is a global consensus (whether this consensus is moral or otherwise) which states that Pyongyang should cease testing its weapons and that further more, dialogue between all concerned sides, including China, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the US, must restart.

In respect of Iran, even among countries which are generally on the different side of major geo-political issues vis-a-vis the Iranian government, there is a concensus that Iran is in full compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement which alleviated western fears (however irrational) about supposed long-term Iranian plans to develop nuclear weapons.

The JCPOA was agreed upon after joint talks between Iran, China, Russia, US, UK, France, Germany and the EU as a whole. Currently, all of the aforementioned parties formally agree that Iran is in full compliance with the agreement. However, Donald Trump has given frequent vocal indications that he is displeased with the JCPOA. He even went so far as to call to JCPOA an “embarrassment” at the United Nations, during the same speech in which he threatened a “destroy” North Korea while insulting the North Korean leader by referring to him as “rocket man”.

During the opening session of the General Assembly just weeks ago, every party to the JCPOA affirmed their commitment to the deal, including the United States. Even more recently, both US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as well as US Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis, have agreed that Iran is complying with the deal.

In spite of this, Donald Trump has continually sought to use speeches and Twitter posts to undermine the deal. However, few people seem to be buying Trump’s reasoning, including members of his own cabinet.

The only other world figure who has perpetually worked to aggressively undermine the JCPOA, is Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. While many world figures including Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov used their speech before the United Nations General Assembly to praise the deal, only Trump and Netanyahu took direct aim at the deal, in speeches filled with wildly inaccurate anti-Iranian rhetoric.

Donald Trump recently met with top US military figures, although the only thing Trump publicly disclosed about the meeting was that it represented “the calm  before the storm”. Other White House officials have been equally cryptic when asked about the worrisome remark.

There are several explanations for what might be going on

1. Internal White House Chaos 

Starting with Michael Flynn and more recently culminating with Steve Bannon, the Trump White House has struggled to keep key foreign policy makers on board. Firings and resignations have plagued a Trump administration that is less than a year old.

Rex Tillerson is currently in the spotlight in what can only be called “resignation watch” after unverified reports that have not been specifically denied by Tillerson, stated that the Secretary of State called Donald Trump a “moron”. By some accounts he used the words “fucking moron” to described the US President after a heated meeting.

Donald Trump has denied such an event’s existence, but what is undeniable, is that Trump and Tillerson have had many open disagreements on US foreign policy. Such disagreement include Tillerson’s statement that the US must quietly pursue dialogue with Pyongyang, something Trump called a waste of time. It also includes Tillerson’s State Department’s support of the JCPOA which Trump clearly wants to scrap and finally, Tillerson has said he favours dialogue and neutrality over the Saudi-Qatar dispute, while Trump openly Tweeted pro-Saudi rhetoric saying that Qatar is a state sponsor of terrorism in line with Saudi accusations.

In this sense. the ongoing row between Trump and Tillerson could be manifesting itself in the form of semi-public test of wills over Iran. In an administration seemingly organised on the petty whims of personal vanity, it is entirely conceivable that Trump and Tillerson’s disagreements over the JCPOA have led to Trump taking an autocratic approach to public policy making. Certainly this would appear to be the case when it comes to the unfounded anti-JCPOA rhetoric which is not shared by any other parties to the agreement.

2. The Israel Lobby versus The World 

It is no secret that the US based Israel lobby is the most powerful of the many powerful lobbying bodies in the United States. Israel is unique in its hostility to Iran and is particular hostility to the JCPOA, even by Saudi standards.

What’s more is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, which neither Iran nor its rival Saudi Arabia has.

In spite of this, while Israel has pivoted its foreign policy to be more anti-Iranian than anti-Arab, Israel has yet attack let alone occupy Iran in the way it continues to do in respect of Arab countries.

Having totally failed to manufacture international consensus against Iran, even among Israel’s putative allies, the powerful US Israel lobby has been spewing anti-Iranian rhetoric in an attempt to further taint Iran’s reputation among the American public.

In respect of Donald Trump, who has been on good personal terms with Benjamin Netanyahu even before becoming President, Trump may be simply doing the bidding of the Israel lobby and his self-described “friend” in order to go against the more moderate voices in his own administration which includes both Rex Tillerson and apparently James “Mad Dog” Mattis.

If it really is a matter of Israel ‘wagging the dog’ in respect of Donald Trump, this is proof positive that Trump is not fit to be the US President as he is no longer putting the interests of his own country, nor the collective interests of world peace, before the war mongering desires of the rogue Israeli regime.

3. From Mad Man Theory to “Moron Theory”

Richard Nixon was many things, but he was certainly not a “moron”. He may have been the most intelligent US President of the 20th century. One of Nixon’s ploys was known as the mad man theory. According to this theory, which was often put into practice by the Nixon White House, statements that Nixon had apparently made indicating his willingness to use extreme force, including nuclear weapons, even in the seemingly most mundane situations, were purposefully leaked to foreign powers.

Dovetailing onto the idea of mutually assured destruction, Nixon’s mad man image was said to force other powers to the negotiating table, for fear that anything less would mean a Nixon pressing the nuclear button.

While the mad man theory defies the laws of ethics and of transparency, it is a classic case of extreme brinkmanship that was common during the Cold War and which Nixon mastered so much that he actually managed to achieve both detente with the Soviet Union as well as opening up western diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.

Many have proffered the idea that Donald Trump’s public image as a trigger happy leader with no real knowledge of world affairs, is a giant bluff in order to try and bring others to the table. While it is not beyond the realm of the possible that Donald Trump’s objectively idiotic remarks on world affairs, his threatening rhetoric and apparent disorderly administration are in fact contrived measures designed to scare others into some sort of negotiating, this theory, even if true, is highly misguided.

During the Nixon era, it was clear what the United States wanted from the powers which the ‘mad man theory’ was tested upon. In respect of Donald Trump, apart from levying more sanctions on Iran, something that would infuriate America’s EU allies, there is little else that Trump could achieve apart from provoking Iran into war which even many in the Pentagon admit would be a disaster.

In respect of North Korea, brinkmanship has already failed. The more the US threatens Pyongyang with war and the more unilateral sanctions the US passes, the more North Korea retorts with further threats and with further weapons tests. China has already made clear that it will not allow a preemptive US led attack on North Korea and Pyongyang for its part, is always careful to temper its threats with statements indicating that North Korea would never be the first to strike against the US or allied target. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also warned the US that the North Koreans would rather “eat grass” than surrender to the United States. Where the Iraqi army ran away during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, North Korea would likely fight to the death, with every weapon and man at its disposal.

As for America’s proxy wars directly primarily against China but also Russia, there is also little that a “moron theory” could do other than entrench the Sino-Russian alliance more so than it already is.

To put it bluntly, while the “moron theory” may work on certain domestic issues, it is not, has not and almost certainly will not work in foreign affairs.

CONCLUSION: 

The Trump administration appears to be compromised by its own disorganisation and personal disputes and like many US administrations, the Trump administration is also apparently torn between moderate voices urging a balance and an extremist Israeli position that far too many in the US are utterly beholden to. When this is combined with Trump’s “take no prisoners” attitude towards negotiation, Trump is going to lose far more than he will win.

He has totally lost the trust of Iran and North Korea, he has lost the respect of China and Russia, he has fully alienated Pakistan, Turkey and perhaps even Saudi Arabia, he has exhausted the patience of America’s traditional EU and East Asian allies and he has seemingly lost control over his own administration and country. The only danger is if Donald Trump is powerful enough to do something truly dangerous to the world, but too weak and ill-informed to actually understand what he is doing”.

http://theduran.com/trump-vs-jcpoa-really-trupm-vs-world/

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending