Timothy Birdnow

Just a quick thought on the U.S. pullout from the Iranian deal, and Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-Un in Singapore; does anybody think these are related events? I do. First, Trump has handled Kim brilliantly, making the chubby little tyrant understand he's up against someone who cannot be played like previous Presidents. Trump took a lot of heat for his vitriolic rhetoric toward the Norks, and not just from liberals. But Trump was absolutely right to approach things in this manner; he had to show he meant business, and that he was just crazy enough to put Kim in a spider-hole like Saddam Hussein inhabited. Kim is desperate; North Korea's economy is in ruins, the people are literally starving, and his nuclear test site collapsed, perhaps as a result of his underground tests, perhaps with some help, but be that as it may it leaves Kim with no testing facility and not enough money to rebuild it. So he has to make a deal. And with Trump not falling for the usual saber-rattling Kim had few good options. Oh, and the Chinese were not happy about the collapse of that test site, methinks. Letting the Norks play with nukes is like letting a five year old play with your lighter and can of gasoline inside your connected garage.

In the past Kim sought relief by making threats and getting America to pay him money to stop. Now that isn't working and he has to make a real negotiation. That should have been done decades ago; there never was a good reason to kiss the little boy's hindquarters.

And Trump's choice of Singapore was a good one; a stable country with no danger of assassination attempts and no protests, and a small country to boot. China can't claim it their victory, which they would do if the talks were held in Beijing or some Chinese satellite.

Now, as to Iran, Asia Times Online has an essay trashing the withdrawal from the Iranian nuke deal. Pepe Escobar rails against the act of diplomus interruptus, and while he makes a good point or two he is horrendously wrong. First, the deal was never a legally binding one, as Congress never authorized it and indeed even Iran never actually signed it; it was just a gentleman's agreement, and that because Obama could not get approval for it. Why not? It was a bad, bad deal for America.

Escobar argues:

"It does not matter that the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, repeatedly confirmed Iran was complying with the JCPOA as verified by 11 detailed reports since January 2016. Even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis vouched for the stringent verification mechanisms."

End excerpt.

How do WE know? WE are not allowed to inspect. And this from the United Nations, the very organization that ran the embargo on Iraq which everyone violated. Lots of people are making lots of money off Iran now, and will make more in the future if sanctions are not reimposed. The U.N. is an anti-American organization (largely funded by us) and many of her member nations believe we have no right to tell another country they can't have nuclear weapons. Funny; the IAEA never alerted us that North Korea had nuclear capabilities after the 1994 accord. They also were surprised when Pakistan developed a bomb. I do not see any reason why America should put her faith in them.

Oh, and if Iran is so trustworthy then why did they want uranium from America.? It should be pointed out that Iran threatened they could enrich uranium within 48 hours if the deal fell through. Well, if they could do that if we pull out of the deal it means they could do it anyway. Iran has also continued to develop ICBM technology, it should be pointed out. You don't do that if you do not plan to have something to deliver.

And it does not matter if Iran is obeying the agreement right now or not; that can change at the drop of a hat. What will make that easy is if they have strategic partners like North Korea to assist them with their program.

Look, enrichment IS a nuclear program. If you have or can get enriched uranium or plutonium you can make a bomb. It's off the shelf technology with schematics available online courtesy of A.Q. Khan. The main issue is testing the device. Once you successfully test it you have a weapon.

North Korea has done the testing and Iran is their strategic partner.

So Donald Trump is beating Iran with a stick while enticing North Korea with a carrot. The goal is to split these two problem children apart. If he cuts a deal with North Korea while simultaneously squeezing Iran he can split these two apart. And with the Saudis helping by ramping up oil production (and with American oil from fracking) the Iranians will be in a pickle. It should be pointed out that one of the most alarming things that can happen is to raise expectations then pull the rug out. Trump is pulling the rug out from under Iran. The Iranians thought they had won and now have to explain to their already dissatisfied people why they have to tighten their belts again.

Therein is the endgame; a "color revolution" in Iran. Obama had a golden opportunity for one but ignored it; he was too busy overthrowing U.S. allies. The Iranian People are pretty tired of the theocracy and the austerity programs. I suspect they are going to turn not on America but on their own leaders over this.

At any rate, the anti-American "international community" may howl over the ending of the Iran sham, just as it howled over the tearing up of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) or the Law of the Sea Treaty by Reagan, or his renewed Cold War which spent the Soviets out of business. But Reagan persisted in actually trying to end the Cold War, as opposed to letting it simmer through detente and containment. Reagan was proved right. I rather suspect Trump will be proven right as well.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1031 words, total size 6 kb.