The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

[Feanor]

how about not supplying each side with arms? How about not interfering with their governance. A lot of our need to be there is a result of their attempting to get even with what we’ve done. Eliminate our interference, and perhaps their revenge stops. An interesting concept?

Art

The problems of the Middle East, including some of the more dubious parts of Iran's own behavior, go far beyond "revenge" for foreign meddling. Without diving down the rabbit hole of the Crusades, Assyria, Pontius Pilate, and Sykes-Picot, Iran is clearly set on making itself a major regional power, and in the future possibly a world power. How they choose to go about this is a big part of the problem. Part of what makes Iran so difficult to deal with is that much of what they seek to accomplish is at least in principle legitimate behavior. Countries are allowed to run civilian nuclear programs and it is not up to other countries to decide whether they "trust" them or not. Countries are allowed to develop domestic missile technology, and the "leader of the free world" is also one of the world leaders in missile tech. On the flip side funding clandestine groups dedicated to violent action inside foreign countries is highly problematic, and when the behavior of such groups is used to gain profound political influence inside the foreign country (Hezbollah in Lebanon for example) others can't help but get worried. Iran has also taken a stance on Israel that could be interpreted as genocidal. This is where it becomes very difficult to untangle legitimate state intentions from hostile and aggressive acts, sometimes committed with plausible deniability, and in violation of international norms. Simply pulling out completely doesn't necessarily solve anything. Unfortunately this situation has no simple solutions, and (not to point fingers at anyone here) in my opinion looking for simple solutions to complex problems is itself a sign of dilettantism. Iran has some right to defend its legitimate state interests against anyone, including the US, but where that right ends exactly and aggression begins is unfortunately more and more murky as time goes by.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Although I strongly disagree with @ngatimozart 's comparison of Israel, a liberal democracy that despite the many forms of ugly fringe views, doesn't ban pluralism, and certainly does not use terrorism to achieve its national goals, compared with Iran that has absolutely no issue gunning down so many moderate secular people just to save a small elite from mere protests and homosexuals, and even exports terrorism to every country in the region as a completely valid form of warfare, I do think he did get one thing right about revolutions.

As much as foreign powers can influence internal discord, the revolutions are still driven and executed by the people.
And if you can sell, even a lie, to an entire country's people, and bring them to the boiling point to start a revolution, then I'm sorry to tell you this country was not stable at all.

We can safely assume there will be no revolutions in Europe, Israel, North America, Australia and neighbors, etc etc, because these are all liberal democracies where people usually have plenty of venues to vent.

Considering the recent events in the US and the knowledge there will definitely be temptation to mention it, I'll just preempt it and say that even if in the odd case the US will go through some revolution, it'll be because the US has a lot of things (family friendly language) to fix right now, at home, not considering any foreign influence.

Alternatively, if it happens in my country, Israel, I'll know damn well we brought this instability on ourselves through a long series of stupid domestic policies and the people's decisions.

Bottom line, Iran's unstable. It's like a buttery dude walking on a thread. Don't blame the audience for trying to give him a nudge.

 

[ngatimozart]

Although I strongly disagree with @ngatimozart 's comparison of Israel, a liberal democracy that despite the many forms of ugly fringe views, doesn't ban pluralism, and certainly does not use terrorism to achieve its national goals, compared with Iran that has absolutely no issue gunning down so many moderate secular people just to save a small elite from mere protests and homosexuals, and even exports terrorism to every country in the region as a completely valid form of warfare, I do think he did get one thing right about revolutions.

As much as foreign powers can influence internal discord, the revolutions are still driven and executed by the people.
And if you can sell, even a lie, to an entire country's people, and bring them to the boiling point to start a revolution, then I'm sorry to tell you this country was not stable at all.

We can safely assume there will be no revolutions in Europe, Israel, North America, Australia and neighbors, etc etc, because these are all liberal democracies where people usually have plenty of venues to vent.

Considering the recent events in the US and the knowledge there will definitely be temptation to mention it, I'll just preempt it and say that even if in the odd case the US will go through some revolution, it'll be because the US has a lot of things (family friendly language) to fix right now, at home, not considering any foreign influence.

Alternatively, if it happens in my country, Israel, I'll know damn well we brought this instability on ourselves through a long series of stupid domestic policies and the people's decisions.

Bottom line, Iran's unstable. It's like a buttery dude walking on a thread. Don't blame the audience for trying to give him a nudge.

I agree with most of what you say, but I would challenge your assertionb that:

We can safely assume there will be no revolutions in Europe, Israel, North America, Australia and neighbors, etc etc, because these are all liberal democracies where people usually have plenty of venues to vent.​

Because history has shown that to be wrong. Greece is a liberal democracy yet it had a military coup in 1968 I believe. Spain was similar in the 1920s and early 30s and there was the Spanish Civil War. Germany was a liberal democracy from 1919 until 1933, then Hitler came to power. Whilst not a revolution in the traditional sense, what happened once he gained full power when Field Marshall Hindenberg died, certainly was revolutionary in a terrible manner. Then there is the recent insurrection in Washington DC, so I would argue that a liberal democracy in fact makes it easier for forment a rebellion because of its pure openness and civic rights.

 

[Pentaprism]

I think that you will find that it is the citizenry within the country who initiate and lead the colour revolutions.

I presume by the DT that you mean Trump. I forgot that his intials are DT. However as much as we may loathe that individual, and I do, he isn't responsible for the colour revolutions. It's not for us to cast aspersions against think tanks because of what they do and we don't happen to agree it. They don't formulate and determine a country's foreign policy, but they may try to influence it. To take your thought to its logical conclusion, trying to muzzle think tanks because you don't agree with them is dangerous because you are restricting democracy and freedom of speech. That is already happening now with the cancel culture that is occurring in the western world.

Both Israel and Iran have blood on their hands in this dispute and one's as bad as the other. Netanyahu found an ally in Trump and egged Trump on, playing him like a fiddle. Netanyahu is a far right pollie in Israeli terms and he has never had any intention of settling the Palestinian situation or with Iran. So when Trump came along, Bibi saw him as mana from heaven.

The real sad story is that this whole mess is the fault of the British, French in 1919 with the Sykes - Picot Agreement, and the British and Americans with the overthrow of the legally elected Iranian government in 1953 and the subsequent installation of the Shah on the Peacock Throne. This was because the Iranian government nationalised oil companies in order to gain control of the immense wealth that the oil companies were taking out of the country and paying a mere pittance in royalties. The Shah was hated by his people by the 1970s, because of his autocratic and authoritarian rule, and especially the Savak, his secret police. So no wonder the mullahs were able to incite a successful revolution.

Every Country has Groups of Citizens who want to rebel against their Government. In most cases these Groups lack the Financial or Military muscle to achieve much. The successful Colour Revolutions have invariably depended on outside assistance for funding and logistical support and sometimes Arms. This support has often come from the CIA. The problem with the external support, apart from the Civil Wars that often break out, is that the Group who is running the Revolution has their goals and ambitions compromised by their Foreign Backers and they lose legitimacy. If the revolution is successful the Country basically becomes subservient to a foreign power whose goals are not consistent with the needs of the population. Ultimately the Citizens invariably end up worse off than they ever were.

For this reason I believe it is counterproductive to interfere in other Nation's Politics, you are only going to make things worse and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It is certainly frustrating watching Dictators embed themselves and refuse to rotate Power but Western democracies have been rather hypocritical in their criticism and selective in their punishment which does nothing for their own credibility.

Agree that Trump had little to do with any colour revolutions, they pre-dated his time in office. I suspect he would have supported one in Iran if the opportunity arose. George Soros has been accused of being involved in them, not sure if there is any truth in that, but I do believe the CIA and some Washington Think Tanks have been the main catalyst.

Yes agree the West absolutely made a huge contribution to the mess in the first place with their mistreatment of the Middle East during the last Century.

 

[ngatimozart]

Every Country has Groups of Citizens who want to rebel against their Government. In most cases these Groups lack the Financial or Military muscle to achieve much. The successful Colour Revolutions have invariably depended on outside assistance for funding and logistical support and sometimes Arms. This support has often come from the CIA.

You have made an unsubstantiated claim here. A source is required as per forum rules.

 

[Feanor]

Although I strongly disagree with @ngatimozart 's comparison of Israel, a liberal democracy that despite the many forms of ugly fringe views, doesn't ban pluralism, and certainly does not use terrorism to achieve its national goals, compared with Iran that has absolutely no issue gunning down so many moderate secular people just to save a small elite from mere protests and homosexuals, and even exports terrorism to every country in the region as a completely valid form of warfare, I do think he did get one thing right about revolutions.

You're trying to frame the discussion as Israel vs. Iran, but the Iran question goes well beyond that. It's pretty obvious Israel has some distinct advantages over Iran, but then again Israel is for all practical purposes a 1st world country settled by European colonists. It's akin to proudly comparing South Africa to Sudan and finding that the former is far more likeable and pleasant then the latter. Strictly speaking true, but somewhat counter-productive and a distinct attempt to dodge the complex issues involved when dealing with Iran.

As much as foreign powers can influence internal discord, the revolutions are still driven and executed by the people.
And if you can sell, even a lie, to an entire country's people, and bring them to the boiling point to start a revolution, then I'm sorry to tell you this country was not stable at all.

It doesn't take the entire country's people. Look at the recent EuroMaydan in Ukraine. What portion of the population was actively involved? What portion of the population now, retroactively, thinks the Maydan was objectively bad and would rather undo its consequences? And what actual effect has that had on national politics in Ukraine?

And isn't it interesting how the Arab Spring protests have worked out? In Bahrain the people wanted change, but not the Saudis, and so the Saudis (and UAE) were allowed to crush the protests. In Libya Gaddafi had overplayed his hand in redistributing gas and weapons contracts, and so out he went, with considerable western involvement, and Russian abstention. In Syria a far worse dictator was allowed to remain, likely by a behind the scenes diplomatic agreement with Russia (something must have bought Russian abstention in the Security Council vote on Libya). Russia then rushed to the scene twice more to save Assad diplomatically, and then militarily. And one of the worst (if not the worst) Middle Eastern dictators remains in power. The people you say?

Are you arguing that foreign involvement wasn't the deciding factor in how those color revolutions played out?

We can safely assume there will be no revolutions in Europe, Israel, North America, Australia and neighbors, etc etc, because these are all liberal democracies where people usually have plenty of venues to vent.

Considering the recent events in the US and the knowledge there will definitely be temptation to mention it, I'll just preempt it and say that even if in the odd case the US will go through some revolution, it'll be because the US has a lot of things (family friendly language) to fix right now, at home, not considering any foreign influence.

I'm far from sold. European internal stability is, historically speaking, a relatively recent phenomenon. How many revolutions did France have in the 1800s? And then 2 world wars in the first half of the 20th century? With economic troubles, environmental issues getting worse, questions of energy security looming on the horizon, the migrant crisis only getting worse, and of course the resurgence of nationalism, I'm far from sold that European countries are safe from revolution. Especially when you consider what the European continent looks like in its entirety (instead of just the north-western third of it).

Alternatively, if it happens in my country, Israel, I'll know damn well we brought this instability on ourselves through a long series of stupid domestic policies and the people's decisions.

Bottom line, Iran's unstable. It's like a buttery dude walking on a thread. Don't blame the audience for trying to give him a nudge.

Right. Don't blame the audience for trying to give him a nudge, when previous "nudges" have resulted in death, destruction, and misery, on a national scale, with refugee crises and international instability on an even bigger scale. Are you serious? Of course we blame the audience for their irresponsible behavior. And since when did the US, the reigning super power, become "the audience" in the Middle East? How many US bases are all over the Middle East? How many nations in the greater Middle East has the US been military involved in over the past 20 years? How many are they still involved in?

Or are you referring to Israel as "the audience"? Because that would be even stranger...

 

[OPSSG]

Thread closed for 48 hours to allow for a cooling off period.

 

[2007yellow430]

Thread closed for 48 hours to allow for a cooling off period.

opened up?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You're trying to frame the discussion as Israel vs. Iran, but the Iran question goes well beyond that. It's pretty obvious Israel has some distinct advantages over Iran, but then again Israel is for all practical purposes a 1st world country settled by European colonists. It's akin to proudly comparing South Africa to Sudan and finding that the former is far more likeable and pleasant then the latter. Strictly speaking true, but somewhat counter-productive and a distinct attempt to dodge the complex issues involved when dealing with Iran.



It doesn't take the entire country's people. Look at the recent EuroMaydan in Ukraine. What portion of the population was actively involved? What portion of the population now, retroactively, thinks the Maydan was objectively bad and would rather undo its consequences? And what actual effect has that had on national politics in Ukraine?

And isn't it interesting how the Arab Spring protests have worked out? In Bahrain the people wanted change, but not the Saudis, and so the Saudis (and UAE) were allowed to crush the protests. In Libya Gaddafi had overplayed his hand in redistributing gas and weapons contracts, and so out he went, with considerable western involvement, and Russian abstention. In Syria a far worse dictator was allowed to remain, likely by a behind the scenes diplomatic agreement with Russia (something must have bought Russian abstention in the Security Council vote on Libya). Russia then rushed to the scene twice more to save Assad diplomatically, and then militarily. And one of the worst (if not the worst) Middle Eastern dictators remains in power. The people you say?

Are you arguing that foreign involvement wasn't the deciding factor in how those color revolutions played out?



I'm far from sold. European internal stability is, historically speaking, a relatively recent phenomenon. How many revolutions did France have in the 1800s? And then 2 world wars in the first half of the 20th century? With economic troubles, environmental issues getting worse, questions of energy security looming on the horizon, the migrant crisis only getting worse, and of course the resurgence of nationalism, I'm far from sold that European countries are safe from revolution. Especially when you consider what the European continent looks like in its entirety (instead of just the north-western third of it).



Right. Don't blame the audience for trying to give him a nudge, when previous "nudges" have resulted in death, destruction, and misery, on a national scale, with refugee crises and international instability on an even bigger scale. Are you serious? Of course we blame the audience for their irresponsible behavior. And since when did the US, the reigning super power, become "the audience" in the Middle East? How many US bases are all over the Middle East? How many nations in the greater Middle East has the US been military involved in over the past 20 years? How many are they still involved in?

Or are you referring to Israel as "the audience"? Because that would be even stranger...

You probably misunderstood me. I was not framing this as Israel vs Iran, but the western world and its values vs Iran. Because of my personal philosophical views I prefer seeing the western world including my country as one unit, albeit disorganized.
For that reason I also support an equation where every nation works towards its own personal goals but NATO still sees the war on terror as its top priority.

If you're referring to the comparison I made about Iran and Israel, then that's irrelevant to the rest of my argument. It was strictly a response to Ngatimozart. But just a little correction, European-related people are a minority in Israel. The majority are Arab-related.

Yes, governments can play key roles in revolutions by using brute force. But Ukraine's process is one that is yet to pass the test of time. 6 years is hardly enough when momentum is crucial. In this case, the revolution was counteracted by a military action by a foreign state, so that's not a good example.
Neither is Syria, actually, because the revolution was again thwarted by military action of a foreign power.

What I'm talking about is getting the Iranian people to revolt against the regime in a more legitimate way. Of course, that takes involvement, but not so blatant. And not because I think it should be hidden - but because it's crucial that the people do it by themselves and form local leadership.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Biden administration says it's ready to join talks to restart Iran nuclear deal.

US says it’s ready to restart talks with Iran on its nuclear program

State Department says it will accept invitation from European Union to meet with deal's original participants, including Tehran; US reportedly told Israel of move ahead of time

www.timesofisrael.com

A key issue that eventually led to the collapse of the current agreement is the lack of trust in Iran's willingness to stick to their side of the deal, and the actual intel that was available to all parties, that Iran was indeed violating the deal.

If a new deal is to survive, the west must pressure Iran to accept harsher terms, that will give Iran less room to keep violating such deals.
For example decoupling of military infrastructure from nuclear one, very short notice inspections, more frequent inspections, etc.

 

[2007yellow430]

My question about subterfuge prefers specifically to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Since @Big_Zucchini has provided an independent source in answer to my question, I am happy. I am quite aware of its actions against other nations and its piracy in waters adjacent to its territorial waters. I have no sympathy for them, but I do not accept that their enemies claims be accepted on face value, because both Israel and the Trump Administration went out of their way to sabotage the JPCOA. So that is why independent sources are important in this particular matter. And you are right,this all has played into the PRC's and Russia's hands.

I disagree. Trump left the agreement. Iran complied. Trump wanted short and medium range weapons included but they weren’t part of the agreement. Here is a detailed analysis: Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal

Art

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I disagree. Trump left the agreement. Iran complied. Trump wanted short and medium range weapons included but they weren’t part of the agreement. Here is a detailed analysis: Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal

Art

During the US's participation in the deal, the IAEA's position was Iran was technically compliant, but not in spirit.
But what got the US to withdraw is really neither of what the author of that opinion piece claims.
As you know, the IAEA acts with a fairly long delay relative to other participants.
Participants get their own intel and act upon it immediately, whereas the IAEA only gets it when participants share it, and then the IAEA must also review it, and does not have to share the findings with the public.

As I've already proven in this thread, the IAEA has found Iran guilty of violating the nuclear deal DURING everyone's participation.
According to certain parameters of the deal, Iran was in violation of it since day 1, as it was obligated to transfer all data on past and present nuclear work and facilities, which it certainly did not, a fact which the IAEA confirmed, again, posted in this thread.

Were these reasons true, Trump would've withdrawn from the deal the first chance he got. But he waited a whole 2 years before that, which happened very shortly after receiving a whole bunch of new intel proving Iran was violating the deal the whole time, which the IAEA later confirmed.

 

[OPSSG]

The reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — Part 1

1. Britain, France and Germany have scrapped a U.S.-backed plan for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to criticise Iran for reducing cooperation with its inspectors, in a bid to avoid escalation and make room for diplomacy — The British and the Europeans had planned to submit a resolution that would criticize Tehran's level of compliance with inspections but dropped the move amid efforts by IAEA chief Rafael Grossi to reach a compromise with Iran. In view of this, I have to wonder how stupid Iran is with regards to its policies in Iraq, Lebanon, Straits of Hormuz/Gulf Oman and its cooperation with IAEA. The Iranians are wearing out their welcome not only in Iraq but also in Lebanon. While war with Iran may not be a priority for Biden; they seemed to be trying very hard to get bombed by the Americans. Blinken has laid out Biden's eight most urgent foreign policy priorities:

• Ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Reviving the economy at home and abroad.
• Renewing democracy.
• Reforming immigration.
• Rebuilding alliances
• Tackling climate change.
• Securing U.S. leadership in technology.
• Confronting China.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366461226750935040

2. It is certain that President Joe Biden's administration won't make a "hasty" decision in responding to the latest rocket attack targeting U.S. troops in Iraq, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said; Psaki's comments came after at least 10 rockets targeted a military base in western Iraq that hosts U.S.-led coalition troops.

(i) Iraq military base used by U.S. hit by rockets year after similar attack brought U.S. and Iran close to war.-- CBS/AP​

(ii) US contractor dies in attack on Iraqi base -- The Hill​

(iii) US warns of military response to rocket attack on Iraq base -- AP​

3. The absence of Qassem Soleimani, the IRGC Quds Force commander killed by the US in Jan 2021, make Dehghan’s links with Hizbullah invaluable to Khamenei. Hossein Dehghan, a Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander who served as Iran’s incumbent president Hassan Rouhani’s defence minister and is currently Khamenei’s military advisor.

4. As this RUSI commentary by Kasra Aarabi notes: “Hossein Dehghan is one of the IRGC’s most experienced members. Having played an active role in securing the clergy’s takeover of post-revolutionary Iran in 1979, he joined the Guards in 1980, a member of their founding cohort. As well as holding senior positions in the IRGC – including commander of the IRGC’s air force between 1990–92 – Dehghan has held key positions in the past three presidential administrations. As his experience underlines, Dehghan is not a partisan figure and has maintained amicable relations with both hardline and so-called ‘reformist’ circles, declaring ‘I have never been, am not, and will never be a member of any of the political groups’. True to his word, Dehghan’s only loyalty is to Khamenei and his indifference to working with hardliners and ‘reformists’ testifies to the fact that both factions function to preserve Khamenei and his system.”

 

[OPSSG]

The reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — Part 2

5. For background, I note the Aug 2020 Beirut blast has increased international and domestic pressure to oust the Iranian-backed group from Lebanon’s politics, where it operates as a ‘state within a state’. Hizbullah is a critically important asset to the Islamic Republic, which will do whatever it takes to protect it. As pressure on Hizbullah builds, Iran’s leaders may take the decision to pivot their focus and resources to strengthen Hizbullah – an IRGC presidency could help accelerate this process.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366094436011278336

6. Israel had also accused Iran of a recent attack late last month on an Israeli-owned ship in the Gulf Oman, further raising tensions between the arch foes. The MV Helios Ray, a vehicle carrier, was travelling from Saudi Arabia to Singapore when explosions reportedly ripped holes in both sides of its hull. Yoav Galant, an Israeli cabinet minister, told Ynet TV that photographs of the hull suggested the damage was the result of "a mine affixed to the exterior, apparently in a night-time navy commando operation".

7. Israel on 3 Mar 2021 (Wed) accused Iran of "environmental terrorism" after a devastating oil spill off its Mediterranean coast it said was perpetrated by a Libyan-flagged ship that set sail from Iran. "A Libyan-flagged pirate ship that departed from Iran was responsible," Israel's environment protection minister Gila Gamliel said on Twitter. Storms last month washed tonnes of sticky tar ashore along Israel's entire Mediterranean coastline, staining 160 km (96 miles) of beach from its borders with the Gaza Strip to Lebanon.

During the US's participation in the deal, the IAEA's position was Iran was technically compliant, but not in spirit...

As I've already proven in this thread, the IAEA has found Iran guilty of violating the nuclear deal DURING everyone's participation.

According to certain parameters of the deal, Iran was in violation of it since day 1, as it was obligated to transfer all data on past and present nuclear work and facilities, which it certainly did not, a fact which the IAEA confirmed, again, posted in this thread.

Were these reasons true, Trump would've withdrawn from the deal the first chance he got. But he waited a whole 2 years before that, which happened very shortly after receiving a whole bunch of new intel proving Iran was violating the deal the whole time, which the IAEA later confirmed.

8. Israel was not a party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA); which was why Iran was able to get a good deal from Obama. But Israel has powerful advocates within the US Congress (against the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1367662257174372355

9. While Netanyahu’s threats to take unilateral military action on Iran if he deems diplomacy a dead end, is just a threat, it also figures into big-power planning for any future deal with Iran. “We think that if the United States returns to the same accord that it already withdrew from, all its leverage will be lost,” Ambassador Gilad Erdan told Israel’s Army Radio.

10. At this stage, I have to wonder what sort of leverage team Biden/Blinken have to keep Iran in-line and stop their pattern of attacks against merchant shipping if the 2015 JCPA is back on the table? Is bombing Iran, each time they do these grey zone attacks against US forces in Iraq and the IRGC attacks on merchant shipping (eg. attacks against US Forces in Iraq’s Al Asad air base in Mar 2021, attacks against Israeli owned MV Helios Ray in Feb 2021 and the Japanese-owned tanker Kokuka Courageous in Jun 2019) the only solution?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

@OPSSG Iran's attacks on merchant ships are a global threat. Any country's attacks on trade, are a global threat - because it might raise prices, or outright disrupt trade. And the gulf is a source of products for many countries across the world.

Taking those attacks into consideration in the JCPOA 2.0 will be a mistake, IMO. It will give Iran the legitimacy to keep pursuing such policies because they will see it gives them leverage. Later they'll attack other civilian infrastructure, because we know they see civilians as legitimate targets, to gain additional leverage.
Those attacks must be seen as a separate issue and proper retaliation must be made. If not on Iranian territory then on their proxies in a way that would hurt the Ayatollahs enough.

And of course, the west must maintain its diplomatic as well as military flexibility in parallel to a JCPOA. That is, they must maintain the legitimacy to strike at Iranian targets that are not nuclear-related, for example in Syria and Iraq.

 

[OPSSG]

US confirms that 12 Iranian merchant ships were attacked by Israel (going back to 2019) — Part 1

1. While I do not approve of attacking merchant ships, I have to wonder; with Biden’s foreign policy team as an ally, who needs enemies? The intentional release of this info by the Americans seriously hurts Israeli credibility and lends credibility to lawfare arguments against the IDF in future conflicts.

• Israel has struck at least 12 ships carrying Iranian oil to Syria, report says — Haaretz
• US Intelligence Reveals Israel Has Bombed "Dozens" Of Iranian Oil Tankers — Zero Hedge

2. Although President Joe Biden has expressed an interest in reorienting US foreign policy away from the Middle East, Iran continues to be an issue that his administration must address. Washington also decided to resume a working group with Israel in a move that can only be viewed as a way to coordinate pressure on Tehran. These moves, which are likely seen as hostile acts by the Iranian government, have accompanied other decisions that are sure to rankle Iran hawks in Washington.

3. Negotiating with Iran over the JCPOA was always going to be difficult, but the Biden Administration is likely to face committed and unified opposition to any effort to rethink US-Iran relations. Already on Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans have largely retreated to two camps. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), the Republicans’ third ranking member in the House, told a virtual meeting of the Reagan Foundation that the JCPOA was the single worst deal that United States ever signed. Furthermore, she appealed to US support for Israel, arguing that a return to the JCPOA—or any diplomatic agreement like it—was an “unacceptable” threat to Israel.

4. Chief executive for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Mark Dubowitz, summarized Tel Aviv's approach as follows: "Israel stepped up the game beyond sanctions to sabotage," he was quoted in WSJ as saying. "The Red Sea sabotage is keeping with a broader economic warfare campaign." There is no doubt Blinken and Austin’s teams are competent — which makes me feel they are trying to be too clever in managing the loose cannon called Netanyahu. Joey Hood, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, could have told Israel to back-off these attacks going forward, instead on this public split.

5. A longtime State Department official, Ambassador William J. “Bill” Burns is the first career diplomat to serve as CIA director. The 64-year-old Burns has served as U.S. ambassador to Russia and Jordan. He conducted back-channel talks with Iran that eventually led to the 2015 nuclear deal (later jettisoned by the Trump administration). He speaks Russian, Arabic and French. Burns would likely play a behind-the-scenes role in the Biden administration's efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, which barred Iran from developing a nuclear weapon became one of the most contentious foreign policy debates during that administration.

6. Burns is expected to work closely with the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, who said the following at her Jan 2021 confirmation hearing: “I absolutely agree that Iran is a threat and a destabilizing actor in the region. And I think this is an issue that we need to focus in on. From the intelligence community perspective, if I'm confirmed, what I would hope to do is provide the best, most accurate intelligence that we have on the threat being posed and allow policymakers, therefore, to have that information as they make decisions about what actions to pursue with respect to Iran in the future.”

7. The Biden administration signaled that it does not oppose a US$5 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Iran. While ostensibly for Covid-19 relief, this windfall will fill the regime’s coffers with little accountability at a time when it’s down to less than US$10 billion in foreign exchange reserves. The more cash Iran has on hand means the more it can fund its regional proxies and bolster its missile, military and nuclear programs, regardless of what the IMF money is designated for.

 

[Feanor]

US confirms that 12 Iranian merchant ships were attacked by Israel (going back to 2019)

1. While I do not approve of attacking merchant ships, I have to wonder; with Biden’s foreign policy team as an ally, who needs enemies? The intentional release of this info by the Americans seriously hurts Israeli credibility and lends credibility to lawfare arguments against the IDF in future conflicts.

• Israel has struck at least 12 ships carrying Iranian oil to Syria, report says — Haaretz
• US Intelligence Reveals Israel Has Bombed "Dozens" Of Iranian Oil Tankers — Zero Hedge

I mean... do you suggest hiding Israeli attacks on merchant ships? It seems like two bad options. Given Isarel's attempts to force the US into a corner vis-a-vis the JPCOA (threatening to strike Iran if the agreement is resumed) perhaps Israeli credibility needs to be hurt.

 

[OPSSG]

US confirms that 12 Iranian merchant ships were attacked by Israel (going back to 2019) — Part 2

8. The Biden administration’s eagerness for diplomacy will likely be read by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as a vulnerability to exploit. And in response, Tehran will do what it has done for decades: intensify its aggression and only back down if presented with no other alternative. Israel’s attacks on Iranian’s ships bound for Syria since 2019, unveils a new dimension in Israel's efforts to stop Iran from enlarging its influence in the region and comes amid soaring tensions between the two bitter enemies.

I mean... do you suggest hiding Israeli attacks on merchant ships? It seems like two bad options. Given Isarel's attempts to force the US into a corner vis-a-vis the JPCOA (threatening to strike Iran if the agreement is resumed) perhaps Israeli credibility needs to be hurt.

9. The US can simply say that they condemn any attacks on merchant ships by any party (which will then include both Israel and Iran). This will then end these covert Israeli attacks in the Red Sea — the way it is done is calculated to hurt Israel. IMO, the prior Trump administration gave covert support so Americans do not have clean hands in this matter.

 

[Feanor]

The US can simply say that they condemn any attacks on merchant ships by any party (which will then include both Israel and Iran). This will then end these covert Israeli attacks in the Red Sea — the way it is done is calculated to hurt Israel. IMO, the prior Trump administration gave covert support so Americans do not have clean hands in this matter.

Are you sure a public but generic US condemnation of all parties would end Israeli attacks? And at a time when Israel is blatantly pushing the question of alleged Iranian attacks on merchant ships as a piece of foreign policy agenda is simply ending the attacks enough? If the US intends to bring Iran back to the table and negotiate a solution, it will have to deal with serious Israeli objections and possibly even obstructions. Releasing a piece of the information like this can put Israel on the defensive, while the US involvement can be (conveniently) blamed on Trump.

 

[OPSSG]

US confirms that 12 Iranian merchant ships were attacked by Israel (going back to 2019) — Part 3

Are you sure a public but generic US condemnation of all parties would end Israeli attacks? And at a time when Israel is blatantly pushing the question of alleged Iranian attacks on merchant ships as a piece of foreign policy agenda is simply ending the attacks enough? If the US intends to bring Iran back to the table and negotiate a solution, it will have to deal with serious Israeli objections and possibly even obstructions. Releasing a piece of the information like this can put Israel on the defensive, while the US involvement can be (conveniently) blamed on Trump.

10. I see your point of view, which is valid; but we should note that some of the cargo carried Iranian weaponry destined for the Syrian government.

11. It’s about choice, when making an American policy u-turn — I don’t think this American choice will result in a more compliant Israel, going forward. Joey Hood, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State could simply and behind closed doors tell Israeli diplomats of the American desire for Mossad to stop these covert attacks, as the tit-for-tat hurts all merchant shipping — before escalating to the public domain.

12. If Israel has nothing to lose, they may initiate a direct strike on Iran; which will then polarise the US Congress and destabilise the region a little more.