Joe Biden’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, said during Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday that the incoming administration is a “long ways” from reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.
Haines said that Biden “has indicated that if Iran were to come back into compliance, that he would direct that we do so as well. And I think, frankly, that we are a long ways from that.”
The Iranians have gradually violated their commitments under the JCPOA since 2019, one year after the Trump administration withdrew from the accord and re-imposed sanctions on Iran.
Biden has said he would lift sanctions on Iran if Tehran returns to compliance, and Iranian officials have made it clear they will be ready to do so in exchange for sanctions relief. But Haines’ comments suggest the Biden administration will not be rushing to revive the JCPOA.
One obstacle for Biden’s return to diplomacy with Iran will be Israel, and Israeli officials are not shy about their opposition to the revival of the JCPOA. Biden’s nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said during his Senate hearings that the administration plans to consult with Israel and Arab allies, who also oppose the JCPOA, before returning to the deal.
Good. The JCPOA was of no benefit to Iran and is useless now that Iran is powerful enough to defend itself.
Everyone will lose if war breaks out. Iran has deterrence, but it obviously couldn’t win. Iran’s bet is that it has enough deterrence to avoid war.
But Iran should remember, the US is an Idiocracy.
I don’t believe a war will break out at any point.
The USA, regardless of how powerful it is cannot defeat Iran (it may do great harm, but will be forced in the end to accept a truce).
The reason is that unlike Iraq, Iran cannot be occupied. Without occupation there can be no concept of defeating and neutralizing Iran.
Also Iran hold israel and the Gulf Monarchies hostage … in a sense.
A third aspect is that Iran is a keystone in the global order, attempting to invade and control Iran will force Russia and China to be drawn in against the US or face being destabilised themselves.
What will happen is that the US will isolate Iran from The West to the point where all Iran’s trade and relationships happen with the East (russia, china, asean), thereby decoupling Iran from the Western financial and political system completely.
Finally, should Iran be pushed to desperation by a US attack, they would give the Houthi all they need to end the regime’ in Saudi Arabia – thereby setting the global oil markets on fire.
I knew this much at least: “Also Iran hold israel and the Gulf Monarchies hostage … in a sense.”
Ty, it sounds like war is unlikely then, especially if Iran is essential to China. If what you say is true, then I wonder why Iran wouldn’t pursue nukes, unless Iran truly fears the Saudis/Turks/Egyptians would get them in reaction.
Beware though, the above rationale assumes that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are rational actors …
Military Intelligence = Mother of all Oxymorons
Generals with sh*t for brains hiding behind their oak desks, barking orders = Death
The JCS have no authority. Chain of command is president, SecDef, Combatant Commanders.
Attack will suck in all kinds of miscreants. A ground attack will mean more American soldiers in body bags and missing limbs.
Iran just could sink an aircraft carrier, taking down a couple of thousand sailors.
Attack will fubar the region. Again.
Violation of the JCPOA and sanctions is an act of war. The only kind the US/Israel fights, ie. against the defenseless
Bet dollars to donuts war with Iran is more likely than lifting sanctions. Israel’s friends here call the shots. Just look at the folks Biden has picked for State.
Look at whom Biden chose for every major position. Peace with Iran is impossible. It’ll soon be illegal to even say Arabs and Persians, and maybe Turks too, have souls. Israel is boss.
. .from Blinken (SecState) testimony Q&A on Iran:
The Iran nuclear “break-out time” (baloney) has gone from a year to 3 or 4 months. . . The new administration is dedicated to a dialogue with Iran. . . .The Biden administration would seek to move toward a longer and stronger agreement with Iran. here
The Iran position is here
So he promised and now he fails us. First day. No surprise. Once a crazed hawk looking for wars, always so.
Haines said that Biden “has indicated that if Iran were to come back into compliance, that he would direct that we do so as well. And I think, frankly, that we are a long ways from that.”
“Biden has said he would lift sanctions on Iran if Tehran returns to compliance, and Iranian officials have made it clear they will be ready to do so in exchange for sanctions relief.”
Iran says they are ready and that witch says “we are a long ways from that”. Which part of “ready” did she not understand?
Sounds like Trump might prove better than Biden after all. Let’s see what Biden does with Cuba and Yemen.
How so? Those sanctions were imposed by Trump.
If Biden continues them, doesn’t he own them? Likewise, if Biden continues the genocide in Yemen, doesn’t he own that as well?
We’ve already seen Biden stay the course in Venezuela. I do expect Biden to reduce the sanctions on Yemen though.
We will see.
What? You thought Biden was selected prez of the US?
Yes, he does own them. But how does that prove Trump “better”? And I recall saying Trump owned whatever he inherited from Obama, if he continued whatever that was, and was usually told: “No new wars”.
If Biden also gives us no new wars, that’s a positive. Biden might prove better than Trump on foreign policy, but I think Trump still helped by condemning the wars. The narrative in Trump’s movement was very good, at times. Ideas can matter, though in democracies it seems ideas are quickly forgotten, new trends established. The GOP was more anti-war before 9/11, for example. Bush talked a bit about ending wars, ironically. Trump broke orthodoxy more seriously, however. At times, he talked a very good talk. When he was suddenly captured by the AIPAC, I assumed he was just saying what AIPAC wanted to hear. However, it turned out that Trump closely trusted Kushner, and Trump sincerely served AIPAC.
It sounds like, regarding troop draw downs, Trump got played. DC made a fool of him on foreign policy, and they tricked him into not pardoning Assange and Snowden, though it was in his obvious political best interest to do so. Look at Ukraine. Trump started out saying he wanted better relations
with Russia. By the time he left office, he was harder on Russia than
Obama had been.
If I were able, I should have mocked Trump for this flip flopping. So many Republicans believe Trump kept his promises. He did not. Trump started out completely different. The original speeches were very different.
Anyway, you clearly expected Biden to be better. I just want to be proven right, for the sake of being right. But I also ofc want Biden to be better, divided emotions.
I don’t think “no new wars” is a positive if the status quo is the result. And I didn’t expect Biden to be better. I expected a lateral move just like Obama to Trump. What I expect to be better is the finger nails across the chalkboard feeling I got every time Trump opened his mouth.
I liked that. Obama had people believing in the empire. The empire is not good. Trump opened eyes. He was at least an unparalleled head of state. “We’re in Syria to take the oil.” I loved that. “Iraq is a disaster.” A Republican needed to say that. “No more war.” A Republican needed to say that as well. “I’m vetoing the opposition to the genocide in Yemen.” Shocking. In a way, that might lead to positive reaction, loss of support for the empire, meaning ultimately less genocide.
Can you imagine being dumb enough to believe the US is fighting terrorism by removing Assad and aiding rebranded al Qaeda? And I don’t see how building Kurdistan in Arab lands leads to stability. I understand better now how truly destabilising Kurdistan would be.
What the Israelis plan, generally speaking, is impossible to achieve, impossible. So, it leads to disaster. Part of the problem is they hope things will turn out differently than they obviously will. Kurdistan, for example, won’t work.
For years the calling among the right was to end FOX News viewership. Not only did Trump give us Carlson, Ingraham, and Dobbs; but he obliterated FOX News, made conservatives wary of elections, the mass media, and elites in general. That’s a positive! The wolf no longer wears a sheep skin. Plus we have an earlier turn towards protectionism than we otherwise would have, which is positive.
There are some clear wins, but it’s over. I didn’t get nearly as much as I had hoped, but I did win some things. 2016, like Brexit, seemed an impossible miracle, like divine intervention almost. I used to tell people I’ve never experienced a political win, never been happy about a political event. Those two events had seemed like wins.
Obama was good, bc he showed the world, and dumb Americans, that the US is not a white country. So, when the empire kills people, or when the empire does something, it is not “our” country doing it. WASPs aren’t to blame for all the world’s ills, and WASPs shouldn’t see the US as “ours.” That’s a win from Obama.
So, I’m still glad Obama beat McCain. And I’m glad Trump beat Hillary. Trump seemed like he was going bad on foreign policy; so, maybe it’s best Biden won now. Democrats might win in a landslide in 2022. If they do, they’ll split in 2024 if they haven’t managed to change the electoral college or demographics. So, 2024 could see a GOP populist win again. If demographics do change, then someone like Tulsi might win in 2024.
So, things can turn out well no matter what happens.
“So, 2024 could see a GOP populist win for the first time ever.”
Fixed, no charge.
populist: a person, especially a politician, who strives to
appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups
I believe Trump fit the bill. So he wasn’t GOP, is that it?
Well, he was a life-long establishment progressive Democrat before he started pretending to be a Republicn for his presidential campaign. So yeah, there’s that.
But he was also never a real populist (the only real populist political ideology is libertarianism.).
Unless those ordinary folk aren’t the MAGA type. Then it’s off to twitterville to tear them a new asshole.
As a Roman citizen, like St. Paul, you got to appeal “unto Caesar”. Under Obama, what the heck, American citizen or not, he just killed you with a drone.
Sorry for the late reply. I think it’s positive that people lose faith in the empire. Too many blindly support US foreign policy, without even glancing at it.
Sometimes, and not always, “worse is better.”
tl;dr of that rant, I regret, in retrospect, not figuring how to draw cartoons to contrast Trump’s early promises vs his actual policies. There must not be many like me who were on the Trump Train when he was at 1%, or whatever it was, support. Trump’s early speeches were golden. He started out targeting me, then he switched to team Israel.
I couldn’t get past his comments on torture and GITMO. Being antiwar and pro liberty is a full throated full time job.
In a real war, it seems international law, just war ethics, etc go out the window. The US already tortures people. McCain is publicly against it, but I bet he was likely for it when done by non-US state actors. Plausible deniability.
McCain says: “See, we’re the good guys. Torture is bad.”
But I don’t care anymore. I barely knew what Obama was doing in office. I need to return to not caring, not following events. The US state murders millions, and I can’t stop it. It’s not my responsibility. The US is literally Hitler/Stalin/Mao, but it leaves me alone. And it’s none of my business.
It’s not Iran’s job to return to compliance FIRST.
It was the US which violated the deal first, and pressured other regimes to violate it as well.
Iran has responded in a slow and measured way with “OK, if you’re not holding up our end, we are no longer bound to hold up ours” measures.
If the US wants to go back to the deal, the ball is in its court, not Iran’s.
I agree. I was commenting more about Haines’ apparent difficulty in recognizing Iran’s willingness to go back into compliance and not who should comply first.
The US doesn’t really want to go back to the deal which it never adhered to even when it was nominally apart of.
So they will repeat the mantra of “Iran must return to the negotiating table.” for the next four years, assured that is something Iran will not do.
Great comment Mr.Knapp!
But unfortunately the neocons that have hijacked US foreign policy for the past 25 years won’t play ball.
To them war is the only solution, game on!
Well, given that Haines unnecessarily added an S to “way”, I doubt she’s thinking clearly or logically.
She must have talked to body Netanyahu before making that statement…!
Israel is not the problem—amerikans are
“amerikans have been liars and braggarts for 3 centuries”. Daniel Boorstin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5yNoxV8dag&pbjreload=101
I’ve been asking online news/comment sites for years why it’s fine for the USA to have 6,000 nuclear warheads, for it to be spending over a trillion dollars upgrading its nuclear weapons of mass destruction, for my own UK government to possess a Trident system and to spend billions of pounds replacing it with more effective ways to inflict mass deaths – but that for Iran to even hint at developing its own nuclear weapons means its population must be attacked with lethal sanctions.
Perhaps someone here will explain.