America demonstrates full powerlessness to Tehran, but wants to save face.
June 20, Iran shot down a spy drone of the United States. US President Trump decided not to respond. The White House and the media claimed that Trump ordered an attack on Iran, but recalled it at the last minute. We said that this is most likely garbage: “The whole storyline“ the blow was assigned, but Trump restrained himself and saved the situation ”may well be a fake … The possibility of striking in retaliation for the downed drone may have never been considered. An alternative interpretation is that the United States sought consent from Iran for a symbolic “strike.” He would have been put to some deserted place in the desert to allow Trump to “save face”. But Iran would not agree with this plan. ”
The British ambassador to the United States, whose reports to London yesterday “leaked” to the press, agrees with this: “Sir Kim Darrok questioned Trump’s recent statement that he prevented a missile attack on Iran, because it would lead to an estimated 150 victims , stating that this “does not stand up to” criticism. ”
- Most likely, he never fully immersed himself in the topic, and he was worried about how this apparent change in his promises of the 2016 campaign will look like in 2020.
That is, in the next presidential election.
Elijah Magnier reported that Trump asked Iran to allow him to strike back, but was refused:
– According to information from well-informed sources, Iran rejected a third-party proposal made by US intelligence that Trump was allowed to bomb one, two or three specific goals to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries can act as winners, and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected this proposal and sent its answer: a strike even on a deserted sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US targets in the Persian Gulf.
America now asks Tehran for permission to strike in a deserted desert, so as not to “lose face”.
An Iranian general confirmed Magnier’s opinion: “A senior Iranian general reported that Washington through diplomatic channels recently appealed to Tehran to allow him to conduct a small-scale operation in Iran’s airspace to save his face after the American spy drone destroyed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, head of the Iranian Civil Defense Organization, said that Iran angrily rejected the US request, saying that he would respond to any act of aggression.
– The Islamic Republic of Iran replied that it considers any operation as a war and will give a crushing response to it. You can start a war, but Iran will end it, – he said on Sunday.
The idea of the United States asking Iran to allow it to bomb certain targets without getting hit back sounds like insanity.
– Dear Mr. Rouhani,
Could you name three targets in your country that I would be allowed to bomb?
This is very urgent, as I need to look tough with Iran.
Honey, well, please!
Or like that.
But this is Trump’s White House, and it seems the only thing Trump cares about is his own rating.
Trump wants a new nuclear deal with Iran. But this, which will be his signature, not Obama.
By killing the existing agreement, while insisting on a new one, Trump shows that he has no idea how Iran or any other independent country will react to such pressure. There will be no negotiations if Trump does not join the agreement and does not lift the sanctions. The United States sent more than 60 diplomatic delegations to Iran to negotiate with Iran, but the leader of the Islamic revolution rejected calls for the United States to negotiate, and Iran began to wind down its obligations under the FACU.
The Trump administration seemed to sincerely believe that Iran would not respond to stricter sanctions against it by exceeding the technical limitations of the nuclear deal. But this is exactly what Iran is doing now. However, in November, Secretary of State Pompeo expressed the opinion that Iran would not do that. When asked what the administration would do if the Iranians renew their nuclear program, Pompeo replied: “We are confident that the Iranians will not make this decision.”
There was no sense in this, of course. Why should Iran adhere to a deal from which it does not receive any benefits? To give the desired for the valid has no reason. A US official familiar with this problem told POLITICO on Sunday that the Trump team is hoping for three things: 1) Europe imposes certain sanctions on Iran to prevent further violation of the agreement; 2) the financial mechanism that the Europeans created to assist Iran in obtaining unauthorized goods is successful; and 3) the recent US military maneuvers in the Middle East are enough to keep Iran from further military escalation.
– Essentially, we want them to continue to be involved in the deal, – the US official said when asked why the Trump administration wanted the European financial mechanism, known as INSTEX, to work. According to the official, there is no desire to enter into an all-out war with Iran or to see how he creates nuclear weapons.
At present, Europe is unlikely to impose sanctions on Iran for the deal that Trump broke. If this happens, the entire SVPD transaction will be broken. INSTEX is a mockery. He “allows” Iran to trade barter with something other than oil, and only in exchange for “humanitarian” goods, for which there are no sanctions anyway. This is worse than the oil-for-food program of the 1990s, which led to serious economic damage in Iraq. Iran is not afraid of the military power of the United States. US forces in the Middle East and Iran are not holding back. They themselves are goals. Iran knows that Trump wants to avoid war.
Poorly thought-out US policy gives Iran advantages in the field of escalation. As Iran has declared, it is able to increase its nuclear activities every 60 days and will do so. Increasing damage will be inflicted on the tanker fleet and other groups on the interests of its enemies in the Gulf region. Trump will be under increasing pressure. Iran’s actions — such as sabotage against some ships near Fujairah — are already yielding results. Traders operating in the regional market report that the demand for marine fuel in Fujairah, the coastal transportation hub of the United Arab Emirates near the strait, has declined, as some tankers stay away.
The British ambassador does not expect changes in the confusing White House policy towards Iran. In one memorandum sent by Sir Kim on June 22, it speaks of the “inconsistent, chaotic” US policy: – It is unlikely that the US policy towards Iran will become more consistent in the near future. This is a divided administration.
But British policy towards Iran is no better. On the one hand, Britain has signed a nuclear agreement with Iran and claims that it wants to support it. On the other hand, it follows the orders of the White House and seizes a tanker that transports Iranian oil, which, according to the British, goes to Syria. For this, Britain has absolutely no legal basis. Even the former Prime Minister of Sweden and, according to widespread rumors, CIA agent Carl Bildt considers this behavior too rude: “I was intrigued by the legality of the capture by the British of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran. Someone is talking about EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU, in principle, does not impose its sanctions on others. This is what the United States is doing. ”
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Aracci called the British actions “robbery” and said that the ship was not heading for Syria. His real destination is said to be the “new South European buyer” of Iranian oil, possibly Italy. Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Amir Khatami promised to respond to the British piracy act.
As usual, the answer will be asymmetrical and will take place at any time and at any place chosen by Iran.
About the author: Billmon is the pseudonym of an American blogger who posts comments on a wide range of political and economic issues on his blog “Moon of Alabama”. The blog is entitled by the title of the song of the same name by B. Brecht, written in collaboration with E. Hauptmann and composer C. Weil for the opera in 3 parts “The rise and decline of the city of Mahagonny”. The composition “Alabama Song” (“Moon of Alabama”), which was included in the opera, was later covered by numerous performers, including Ute Lemper, David Bowie and The Doors.