#still mad about the jcpoa

[tanadrin]

trump killing the JCPOA was so bad because the way it happened meant that even if a US administration did want rapprochement with iran in the future, iran will never, ever trust the US again--and in this case they are correct not to do so! the US has shown it will not abide by international commitments where iran is concerned, if hardliners in the US take power. and the hardliners are still enthusiastic about the prospect of war with iran, so developing nukes is probably the sanest possible move the iranian government could make at this juncture to protect itself.

trump's foreign policy was insanely reckless and belligerent, and the fact that he got credit as being somehow "anti-war" (still does!) is incredibly stupid.

[alexsmitposts]

“Mobbed up” American Policy, the Global Shakedown Those who accept the policies of the Trump administration, cancellation of the JCPOA with Iran, seizing oil fields in Syria, endless sanctions on nation after nation, Europe blackmailed, endless threats emanating almost hourly from Trump’s iPhone as “national policy” or even criminally deranged is simply not paying attention. There is a method, and it isn’t the madness it appears to be. Trump and company have remade the “business environment of the world” in a way Americans are quite familiar with. We call it “organized crime.” Currently, representatives of American political leaders are operating in over 60 nations. These aren’t diplomats, though some actually are, technically at least, but most are simply “business agents,” often with long criminal histories. They sell “the friendship” of the United States in return for anything of value and the buyers, nations terrified of the United States, are ready to sign anything, give up anything. From the film, The Godfather: Michael: Well when Johnny was first starting out, he was signed to this contract with a big-band leader. And as his career got better and better he wanted to get out of it. Now, Johnny is my father’s godson. My father went to see the bandleader, and offered him $10,000 to let Johnny go, but the bandleader said no. So the next day, my father went to see the bandleader again, only this time with Luca Brasi. Within an hour, the bandleader signed the release, with a certified check of $1,000. Kay: How did he do that? Michael: My father made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Kay: What was that? Michael: Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract. Today, Luca Brasi has been superseded by a drone assassination or, just perhaps, a color revolution at the hands of Google and Facebook. Some of what you read is almost common knowledge. Despite broad censorship, it is relatively commonly known that Jared Kushner’s shaky personal finances received a generous bailout from Saudi Arabia, real estate loans but also broad partnerships for his father in law also, including Saudi Arabia’s first official brothel. There is also the glaring issue of Netanyahu’s corruption, of which only the most minor areas are subject to his current criminal indictment in Israel. In truth, Netanyahu has made billions, receiving kickbacks for military contracts from the US, Germany and other nations, but going much further as well. Netanyahu, while prime minister of Israel, has been co-employed by the Adelson casino operations group, making presentations on their behalf tied to trades for stolen American intelligence and technology. The list of political leaders in the Middle East profiting from ISIS and al Qaeda would be frightening but it began much earlier. The vital Baku-Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline that services 30% of the world’s oil reserves and passes through a number of nations began pumping stolen oil a decade before ISIS existed. ISIS simply took over operations from the American occupiers of Iraq, or, more likely, “partnered with,” adding new players to existing pirate operations that included Exxon and BP in what Iraq estimates as $1 trillion in stolen assets. There are stories that are told, in part at least, told then buried, pushed out of sight and considered unimportant as an endless flow of wild conspiracy theories fabricated by “official sources” dominates the fake information flow. It is impossible for someone working in banking, oil, defense or even in relatively innocent NGOs, though few exist today that are not turned subverted or controlled by intelligence agencies, without stumbling over ham-handed resource looting around the world. In recent days, moves against Nigeria by Trump have been directly tied to oil deals where hefty commissions are demanded by American politicians, in some cases up to 3% of gross sale, based on Platts Marketscan prices. In Sudan, for instance, many members of the current government still face international criminal charges tied to Darfur atrocities. Moreover, Sudan is still “terror listed” and is being financially choked by American sanctions. Most recently, representatives, albeit “private” of the White House demanded and received $350 million in diamonds from that poverty-stricken nation, in trade for “efforts” on behalf of leaders facing prosecution seeking US intervention. In fact, the original division of that nation, the separation of South Sudan, was predicated on negotiations between Washington, Khartoum and the UAE over “delisting” then President Omar al-Bashir as a war criminal. I acted as intermediary in those negotiations and continue to consult with the Khartoum government. Similar shakedowns are going on in Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and the list can go on forever. When it gets to the Western Hemisphere, into Central and South America, Smedley Butler’s words again serve us well. Nothing done today is without historical context. Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. As close as we come to Butler in recent times is General Wesley Clark. In 2007, Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, made the following statement: “About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.’ I said, ‘Well, you’re too busy.’ He said, ‘No, no.” He says, ‘We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, ‘I don’t know.’ He said, ‘I guess they don’t know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, ‘No, no.” He says, ‘There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.’ He said, ‘I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.’ So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’ He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ I said, ‘Is it classified?’ He said, ‘Yes, sir.” I said, ‘Well, don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!’” Conclusion It isn’t just the United States or Israel, running “shakedown” or “protection rackets” like Meyer Lansky’s Murder Incorporated or Al Capone’s Chicago based operations from the 1920s. It isn’t just the United States, but it is mostly the United States. A small army of “hungry travelers,” representing the private interests of the White House, Pentagon and Congress, fully backed by the CIA and the militarized social media and internet giants that can and have put thousands of paid rioters (and the snipers to kill them) on the streets time and time again, in nation after nation. The weapons, terror lists, sanctions, advanced arms to unfriendly neighbors or, now at the top of the list, crushing the value of a national currency as we have seen in Lebanon, Syria, Iran but also in Pakistan. A longer list? Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey, Brazil, India and the Philippines, but the vulnerable nations include any with significant debt, collapse the currency, apply sanctions, begin orchestrated social media warfare and then send in the clowns, the bagmen for Washington. The long and short of it? There is no more American foreign policy, only power and influence, money laundering, bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and a nation whose political and even military leaders are tired of working for gangsters. They have decided to be the gangsters.

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/houthis-overturned-chessboard/

How the Houthis overturned the chessboard

by Pepe Escobar – posted with permission

The Yemeni Shiite group’s spectacular attack on Abqaiq raises the distinct possibility of a push to drive the House of Saud from power

Blowback is a bitch. Houthis – Zaidi Shiites from northern Yemen – and Wahhabis have been at each other’s throats for ages. This book is absolutely essential to understand the mind-boggling complexity of Houthi tribes; as a bonus, it places the turmoil in southern Arabian lands way beyond a mere Iran-Saudi proxy war.We are the Houthis and we’re coming to town. With the spectacular attack on Abqaiq, Yemen’s Houthis have overturned the geopolitical chessboard in Southwest Asia – going as far as introducing a whole new dimension: the distinct possibility of investing in a push to drive the House of Saud out of power.

Still, it’s always important to consider that Arab Shiites in the Eastern province – working in Saudi oil installations – have got to be natural allies of the Houthis fighting against Riyadh.

Houthi striking capability – from drone swarms to ballistic missile attacks – has been improving remarkably for the past year or so. It’s not by accident that the UAE saw which way the geopolitical and geoeconomic winds were blowing: Abu Dhabi withdrew from Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s vicious war against Yemen and now is engaged in what it describes as a ��“peace-first” strategy.

Even before Abqaiq, the Houthis had already engineered quite a few attacks against Saudi oil installations as well as Dubai and Abu Dhabi airports. In early July, Yemen’s Operations Command Center staged an exhibition in full regalia in Sana’a featuring their whole range of ballistic and winged missiles and drones.

The Saudi Ministry of Defense displays drones and parts from missiles used in the refinery attack.

The situation has now reached a point where there’s plenty of chatter across the Persian Gulf about a spectacular scenario: the Houthis investing in a mad dash across the Arabian desert to capture Mecca and Medina in conjunction with a mass Shiite uprising in the Eastern oil belt. That’s not far-fetched anymore. Stranger things have happened in the Middle East. After all, the Saudis can’t even win a bar brawl – that’s why they rely on mercenaries.

Orientalism strikes again

The US intel refrain that the Houthis are incapable of such a sophisticated attack betrays the worst strands of orientalism and white man’s burden/superiority complex.

The only missile parts shown by the Saudis so far come from a Yemeni Quds 1 cruise missile. According to Brigadier General Yahya Saree, spokesman for the Sana’a-based Yemeni Armed Forces, “the Quds system proved its great ability to hit its targets and to bypass enemy interceptor systems.”

This satellite overview handout image from the US government shows damage to oil/gas infrastructure from weekend drone attacks at Abqaiq.

Houthi armed forces duly claimed responsibility for Abqaiq: “This operation is one of the largest operations carried out by our forces in the depth of Saudi Arabia, and came after an accurate intelligence operation and advance monitoring and cooperation of honorable and free men within the Kingdom.”

Notice the key concept: “cooperation” from inside Saudi Arabia – which could include the whole spectrum from Yemenis to that Eastern province Shiites.

Even more relevant is the fact that massive American hardware deployed in Saudi Arabia inside out and outside in – satellites, AWACS, Patriot missiles, drones, battleships, jet fighters – didn’t see a thing, or certainly not in time. The sighting of three “loitering” drones by a Kuwaiti bird hunter arguably heading towards Saudi Arabia is being invoked as “evidence”. Cue to the embarrassing picture of a drone swarm – wherever it came from – flying undisturbed for hours over Saudi territory.

UN officials openly admit that now everything that matters is within the 1,500 km range of the Houthis’ new UAV-X drone: oil fields in Saudi Arabia, a still-under-construction nuclear power plant in the Emirates and Dubai’s mega-airport.

My conversations with sources in Tehran over the past two years have ascertained that the Houthis’ new drones and missiles are essentially copies of Iranian designs assembled in Yemen itself with crucial help from Hezbollah engineers.

US intel insists that 17 drones and cruise missiles were launched in combination from southern Iran. In theory, Patriot radar would have picked that up and knocked the drones/missiles from the sky. So far, absolutely no record of this trajectory has been revealed. Military experts generally agree that the radar on the Patriot missile is good, but its success rate is “disputed” – to say the least. What’s important, once again, is that the Houthis do have advanced offensive missiles. And their pinpoint accuracy at Abqaiq was uncanny.

This satellite overview handout image shows damage to oil/gas infrastructure from weekend drone attacks at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia. Courtesy of Planet Labs Inc

For now, it appears that the winner of the US/UK-supported House of One Saudi war on the civilian Yemeni population, which started in March 2015 and generated a humanitarian crisis the UN regards as having been of biblical proportions, is certainly not the crown prince, widely known as MBS.

Listen to the general

Crude oil stabilization towers – several of them – at Abqaiq were specifically targeted, along with natural gas storage tanks. Persian Gulf energy sources have been telling me repairs and/or rebuilding could last months. Even Riyadh admitted as much.

Blindly blaming Iran, with no evidence, does not cut it. Tehran can count on swarms of top strategic thinkers. They do not need or want to blow up Southwest Asia, which is something they could do, by the way: Revolutionary Guards generals have already said many times on the record that they are ready for war.

Professor Mohammad Marandi from the University of Tehran, who has very close relations with the Foreign Ministry, is adamant: “It didn’t come from Iran. If it did, it would be very embarrassing for the Americans, showing they are unable to detect a large number of Iranian drones and missiles. That doesn’t make sense.”

Marandi additionally stresses, “Saudi air defenses are not equipped to defend the country from Yemen but from Iran. The Yemenis have been striking against the Saudis, they are getting better and better, developing drone and missile technology for four and a half years, and this was a very soft target.”

A soft – and unprotected – target: the US PAC-2 and PAC-3 systems in place are all oriented towards the east, in the direction of Iran. Neither Washington nor Riyadh knows for sure where the drone swarm/missiles really came from.

Readers should pay close attention to this groundbreaking interview with General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force. The interview, in Farsi (with English subtitles), was conducted by US-sanctioned Iranian intellectual Nader Talebzadeh and includes questions forwarded by my US analyst friends Phil Giraldi and Michael Maloof and myself.

Explaining Iranian self-sufficiency in its defense capabilities, Hajizadeh sounds like a very rational actor. The bottom line: “Our view is that neither American politicians nor our officials want a war. If an incident like the one with the drone [the RQ-4N shot down by Iran in June] happens or a misunderstanding happens, and that develops into a larger war, that’s a different matter. Therefore we are always ready for a big war.”

In response to one of my questions, on what message the Revolutionary Guards want to convey, especially to the US, Hajizadeh does not mince his words: “In addition to the US bases in various regions like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Emirates and Qatar, we have targeted all naval vessels up to a distance of 2,000 kilometers and we are constantly monitoring them. They think that if they go to a distance of 400 km, they are out of our firing range. Wherever they are, it only takes one spark, we hit their vessels, their airbases, their troops.”

Get your S-400s or else

On the energy front, Tehran has been playing a very precise game under pressure – selling loads of oil by turning off the transponders of their tankers as they leave Iran and transferring the oil at sea, tanker to tanker, at night, and relabeling their cargo as originating at other producers for a price. I have been checking this for weeks with my trusted Persian Gulf traders – and they all confirm it. Iran could go on doing it forever.

Of course, the Trump administration knows it. But the fact is they are looking the other way. To state it as concisely as possible: they are caught in a trap by the absolute folly of ditching the JCPOA, and they are looking for a face-saving way out. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned the administration in so many words: the US should return to the agreement it reneged on before it’s too late.

And now for the really hair-raising part.

The strike at Abqaiq shows that the entire Middle East production of over 18 million barrels of oil a day – including Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – can be easily knocked out. There is zero adequate defense against these drones and missiles.

Well, there’s always Russia.

Here’s what happened at the press conference after the Ankara summit this week on Syria, uniting Presidents Putin, Rouhani and Erdogan.

Question: Will Russia provide Saudi Arabia with any help or support in restoring its infrastructure?

President Putin: As for assisting Saudi Arabia, it is also written in the Quran that violence of any kind is illegitimate except when protecting one’s people. In order to protect them and the country, we are ready to provide the necessary assistance to Saudi Arabia. All the political leaders of Saudi Arabia have to do is take a wise decision, as Iran did by buying the S-300 missile system, and as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan did when he bought Russia’s latest S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft system. They would offer reliable protection for any Saudi infrastructure facilities.

President Hassan Rouhani: So do they need to buy the S-300 or the S-400?

President Vladimir Putin: It is up to them to decide [laughs].

In The Transformation of War, Martin van Creveld actually predicted that the whole industrial-military-security complex would come crumbling down when it was exposed that most of its weapons are useless against fourth-generation asymmetrical opponents. There’s no question the whole Global South is watching – and will have gotten the message.

Hybrid war, reloaded

Now we are entering a whole new dimension in asymmetric hybrid war.

In the – horrendous – event that Washington would decide to attack Iran, egged on by the usual neocon suspects, the Pentagon could never hope to hit and disable all the Iranian and/or Yemeni drones. The US could expect, for sure, all-out war. And then no ships would sail through the Strait of Hormuz. We all know the consequences of that.

Which brings us to The Big Surprise. The real reason there would be no ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz is that there would be no oil in the Gulf left to pump. The oil fields, having been bombed, would be burning.

So we’re back to the realistic bottom line, which has been stressed by not only Moscow and Beijing but also Paris and Berlin: US President Donald Trump gambled big time, and he lost. Now he must find a face-saving way out. If the War Party allows it.

[battybat-boss]

Is America's Disruptor-in-Chief Making an Impact?

Could America's unorthodox president's approach to the Iran nuclear deal actually be gaining traction?

He came into office with no national security or foreign policy experience. In his presidential campaign, he made wild claims about how he would shake up US policy in both areas, previously the province of “the establishment,” whom he derided and excoriated at every opportunity. Almost 16 months into Donald Trump's presidency, could he be succeeding? Is there a method to his madness?

Consider: Europe's two principal leaders and global mainstays of the liberal, rules-based international order, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, visited Washington last week. Their objective, inter alia: to persuade Trump that they had a better idea for dealing with Iran and the matter of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aka the Iran nuclear accord, than the president's much-acclaimed proposal to scrap it and start over. They offered up a plan that would never have passed muster in Europe when Trump assumed office in January 2017.

The disruptor-in-chief has succeeded in upsetting the status quo, making him and his peeves the center of attention. It's an approach any of his business partners, colleagues, employees and adversaries came to know all too well when he was Donald Trump, the real estate mogul. To be sure it may only be said at this point that President Trump has the attention of the P5+1 governments - and no doubt Iran's as well. But will his “overturn-the-chessboard” approach actually deliver a solution without provoking Iran's relaunch of its nuclear development program and an unprecedented crisis in the Middle East?

No one should use that term, “unprecedented,” lightly when referring to crises in this perpetually crisis-plagued region. Nevertheless, an Iran that is seen as pursuing nuclear weapons, or even the capability of having them, opens a Pandora's box of the most vile and venomous possibilities. These are stakes that Donald Trump has never faced before.

Regime Change by Other Means?

European leaders of France, Germany and the UK - parties to the P5+1, along with China, Russia and the US, which negotiated the accord with Iran - now propose addressing many of the issues that Trump and the US claim make the accord “the worst agreement ever.” They acknowledge Trump's principal concerns about the agreement: the inability to inspect Iran's military facilities for possible nuclear activities; the limited horizon for prohibited nuclear activities, i.e., 10 to 15 years in some cases; absence of adequate restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program, which threatens allies in Israel and most Arab states as well as US installations in the region; and Iran's well-documented malign activity in the region, such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and elsewhere, including state sponsorship of terrorist organizations. The US administration has also excoriated Iran's abysmal human rights record and its threatening behavior toward Israel, which the Europeans also recognize.

Whether all such issues can be addressed either in an entirely new agreement, as Trump proposes, or in some additional or supplementary accord remains questionable, particularly given the Iranian regime's insistent refusal to renegotiate the JCPOA. As any experienced international negotiator can confirm, wrapping such disparate issues into a single deal primarily intended to accomplish one primary objective - i.e., the elimination of nuclear weapons by one state - is highly problematic. To attempt to do so with Tehran is tantamount to erasing the spots on the Iranian leopard. It would be regime change by diplomacy. Iran's leadership knows that.

The Trump Way

But the US administration's argument is rooted in a singular vision of Iran as the primary cause of instability and danger in the Middle East. But going after the challenge of Iran by scorching the nuclear accord, by which Iran is abiding according to the International Atomic Energy Agency and other objective observers, would seem to be a questionable approach. If Iran is the problem - and it certainly is “a” problem - then why relieve it of obligations that so far have successfully curtailed its most threatening activities?

That seems to be the argument of the Europeans, with whom the American negotiators have been meeting for months to craft a possible alternative to an all-out US abrogation of the agreement. Trump has given them until May 12 to come up with a plan. Based on early assessments of the Macron and Merkel visits, it is still a heavy lift for the European and American negotiators.

But isn't that all part of the Trump madness? Brinkmanship. Create a lot of movement, noise and negative vibes. Send your minions out with foreboding messages - newly installed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's recent remarks in Saudi Arabia. Trash your opponents - Iranians, Europeans, Democrats, Obama, the media, etc. Set ridiculous deadlines and then press the case, however ludicrous or lucid, to the end for maximum advantage. Then clinch the deal on terms no one would have accepted at the outset. That's Donald Trump's foreign policy, aka the “Art of the Deal.” In this case, it may work, though it still appears unlikely.

Europe and America Have Leverage

To be sure, the Europeans and Americans have considerable leverage. The anticipated economic fallout promised by the Iranian leadership after the original deal was concluded in 2015 has not happened. Iran faced widespread protests in December 2017 and January 2018, largely over economic issues like high unemployment, lackluster growth and troubled credit markets. Its currency has fallen by 25% against the US dollar. The nation's economy needs help, and the West may be the only source. Investment, trade credits, access to hard currency, access to critically needed capital equipment and other goods, and export markets are all cards the West can play to maximum advantage in order to make the adjustments they want to the nuclear accord and even Iran's behavior. On the other hand, continued sanctions, or even more, remain powerful weapons.

All of this would mean an enormous change of tune for the heretofore revolutionary, resistant Islamic Republic. So, a new or supplementary deal may be a bridge too far. But getting the Europeans and Americans to agree on an approach would be a signature achievement and significant step for the unorthodox US president.

There is also one rather bright spot in the matter. Unlike many of his supporters on the right, such as his new National Security Advisor John Bolton, Trump is not a hardened ideologue on this issue, or any other for that matter. It's the deal he wants, which he can easily then tout to his supporters as, “better than what my predecessor Obama got.” The Europeans and Iranians would do well to understand that. All that's needed is something better than “Obama's deal.”

For now, at least on this issue, the Trump approach may be getting some traction. The risk, however, is if his approach fails, the region and the world may face a new kind of crisis that Donald Trump's heralded inexperience would easily exacerbate.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer's editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Prabowo96 / Shutterstock.com

The post Is America's Disruptor-in-Chief Making an Impact? appeared first on Fair Observer.

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/what-putin-and-pompeo-did-not-talk-about/

What Putin and Pompeo did not talk about

by Pepe Escobar : Posted with permission

Russia is uneasy over the destabilization of Tehran, and on other hotspots the powers’ positions are clear.

Even veiled by thick layers of diplomatic fog, the overlapping meetings in Sochi between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov still offer tantalizing geopolitical nuggets.

Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov did his best to smooth the utterly intractable, admitting there was “no breakthrough yet” during the talks but at least the US “demonstrated a constructive approach.”

Putin told Pompeo that after his 90-minute phone call with Trump, initiated by the White House, and described by Ushakov as “very good,” the Russian president “got the impression that the [US] president was inclined to re-establish Russian-American relations and contacts to resolve together the issues that are of mutual interest to us.”

That would imply a Russiagate closure. Putin told Pompeo, in no uncertain terms, that Moscow never interfered in the US elections, and that the Mueller report proved that there was no connection between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

This adds to the fact Russiagate has been consistently debunked by the best independent American investigators such as the VIPS group.   

‘Interesting’ talk on Iran

Let’s briefly review what became public of the discussions on multiple (hot and cold) conflict fronts – Venezuela, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran.

Venezuela – Ushakov reiterated the Kremlin’s position: “Any steps that may provoke a civil war in the country are inadmissible.” The future of President Maduro was apparently not part of the discussion.

That brings to mind the recent Arctic Council summit. Both Lavrov and Pompeo were there. Here’s a significant exchange:

Lavrov: I believe you don’t represent the South American region, do you?

Pompeo: We represent the entire hemisphere.

Lavrov: Oh, the hemisphere. Then what’s the US doing in the Eastern Hemisphere, in Ukraine, for instance?

There was no response from Pompeo.

North Korea – Even acknowledging that the Trump administration is “generally ready to continue working [with Pyongyang] despite the stalemate at the last meeting, Ushakov again reiterated the Kremlin’s position: Pyongyang will not give in to “any type of pressure,” and North Korea wants “a respectful approach” and international security guarantees.

Afghanistan – Ushakov noted Moscow is very much aware that the Taliban are getting stronger. So the only way out is to find a “balance of power.” There was a crucial trilateral in Moscow on April 25 featuring Russia, China and the US, where they all called on the Taliban to start talking with Kabul as soon as possible.

Iran – Ushakov said the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, was “briefly discussed.”.He would only say the discussion was “interesting.”

Talk about a larger than life euphemism. Moscow is extremely uneasy over the possibility of a destabilization of Iran that allows a free transit of jihadis from the Caspian to the Caucasus.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Diplomatic sources – from Russia and Iran – confirm, off the record, there have been secret talks among the three pillars of Eurasian integration – Russia, China and Iran – about Chinese and Russian guarantees in the event the Trump administration’s drive to strangle Tehran to death takes an ominous turn.

This is being discussed at the highest levels in Moscow and Beijing. The bottom line: Russia-China won’t allow Iran to be destroyed.

But it’s quite understandable that Ushakov wouldn’t let that information slip through a mere press briefing.

Wang Yi and other deals

On multiple fronts, what was not disclosed by Ushakov is way more fascinating than what’s now on the record. There’s absolutely no way Russian hypersonic weapons were not also discussed, as well as China’s intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching any US military base encircling or containing China.

SOCHI, RUSSIA – MAY 14: (—-EDITORIAL USE ONLY ñ MANDATORY CREDIT – “Russian Foreign Ministry Press Service – HANDOUT” – NO MARKETING NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS – DISTRIBUTED AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS—-) U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (3rd R) meets Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L-C) in Sochi, southern Russia, on 14 May 2019. Russian Foreign Ministry Press Service / Anadolu Agency

The real deal was, in fact, not Putin-Pompeo or Pompeo-Lavrov in Sochi. It was actually Lavrov-Wang Yi (the Chinese Foreign Minister), the day before in Moscow.

A US investment banker doing business in Russia told me: “Note how Pompeo ran like mad to Sochi. We are frightened and overstretched.”

Diplomats later remarked: “Pompeo looked solemn afterwards. Lavrov sounded very diplomatic and calm.” It’s no secret in Moscow’s top diplomatic circles that the Chinese Politburo overruled President Xi Jinping’s effort to find an accommodation to Trump’s tariff offensive. The tension was visible in Pompeo’s demeanor.

In terms of substance, it’s remarkable how Lavrov and Wang Yi talked about, literally, everything: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, the Caspian, the Caucasus, New Silk Roads (BRI), Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), missiles, nuclear proliferation.

Or as Lavrov diplomatically put it: “In general, Russia-China cooperation is one of the key factors in maintaining the international security and stability, establishing a multipolar world order. . . . Our states cooperate closely in various multilateral organizations, including the UN, G20, SCO, BRICS and RIC [Russia, India, China trilateral forum], we are working on aligning the integration potential of the EAEU and the Belt and Road Initiative, with potentially establishing [a] larger Eurasian partnership.”

The strategic partnership is in sync on Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan – they want a solution brokered by the SCO. And on North Korea, the message could not have been more forceful.

After talking to Wang Yi, Lavrov stressed that contacts between Washington and North Korea “proceeded in conformity with the road map that we had drafted together with China, from confidence restoration measures to further direct contacts.”

This is a frank admission that Pyongyang gets top advice from the Russia-China strategic partnership. And there’s more: “We hope that at a certain point a comprehensive agreement will be achieved on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and on the creation of a system of peace and security in general in Northeast Asia, including concrete firm guarantees of North Korea’s security.”

Translation: Russia and China won’t back down on guaranteeing North Korea’s security. Lavrov said: “Such guarantees will be not easy to provide, but this is an absolutely mandatory part of a future agreement. Russia and China are prepared to work on such guarantees.”

Reset, maybe?

The indomitable Maria Zakharova, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, may have summed it all up. A US-Russia reset may even, eventually, happen. Certainly, it won’t be of the Hillary Clinton kind, especially when current CIA director Gina Haspel is shifting most of the agency’s resources towards Iran and Russia.

Top Russian military analyst Andrei Martyanov was way more scathing. Russia won’t break with China, because the US “doesn’t have any more a geopolitical currency to ‘buy’ Russia – she is out of [the] price range for the US.”

That left Ushakov with his brave face, confirming there may be a Trump-Putin meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka next month.

“We can organize a meeting ‘on the go’ with President Trump. Alternatively, we can sit down for a more comprehensive discussion.”

Under the current geopolitical incandescence, that’s the best rational minds can hope for.