I do not place much faith in Iran, Russia, or China living up to any nuclear deal they sign. Stability with a Russia/China centric Middle East would not in the long run benefit the United States or western democracies. I believe both Eisenhower and Truman would have supported a policy of "tightening the screws on Russia, blocking China’s influence, building relationships with our Arab allies, empowering Israel to stand up to Russia and Iran, and putting America’s footprint squarely on the Middle East". True that this type of post World War II policy of containment in some ways led to the Iran we are dealing with now. We need policy that keeps the United States as a strong player in the Middle East and that delays Iran going nuclear for as long as possible. Agreement or no agreement, I believe it will take more than talk and signed papers to achieve this.
Apr 5, 2022·edited Apr 5, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr
Our memories may be short, but I do still recall that Iran was months from nuclear breakout prior to -and that they were indeed following the terms of - the JCPOA, which pushed their breakout a decade. This page from Australia's government appears to back up that memory.
If the goal is to stabilize the region, then regime change is pretty much out - that's a destabilizing event, and we've seen how destabilizing a country in the middle east works out. That leaves how to prevent/delay nuclear armament. The JCPOA did delay that - they still haven't built a nuke - and we were able to maintain sanctions (at least the US did, the EU is another thing entirely).
I just don't get why Trump (and the GOP) wanted to leave the JCPOA when Iran was following the measures of the agreement. How did that improve the situation? What was the end goal of leaving?
I do not place much faith in Iran, Russia, or China living up to any nuclear deal they sign. Stability with a Russia/China centric Middle East would not in the long run benefit the United States or western democracies. I believe both Eisenhower and Truman would have supported a policy of "tightening the screws on Russia, blocking China’s influence, building relationships with our Arab allies, empowering Israel to stand up to Russia and Iran, and putting America’s footprint squarely on the Middle East". True that this type of post World War II policy of containment in some ways led to the Iran we are dealing with now. We need policy that keeps the United States as a strong player in the Middle East and that delays Iran going nuclear for as long as possible. Agreement or no agreement, I believe it will take more than talk and signed papers to achieve this.
Our memories may be short, but I do still recall that Iran was months from nuclear breakout prior to -and that they were indeed following the terms of - the JCPOA, which pushed their breakout a decade. This page from Australia's government appears to back up that memory.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/IranNuclear
If the goal is to stabilize the region, then regime change is pretty much out - that's a destabilizing event, and we've seen how destabilizing a country in the middle east works out. That leaves how to prevent/delay nuclear armament. The JCPOA did delay that - they still haven't built a nuke - and we were able to maintain sanctions (at least the US did, the EU is another thing entirely).
I just don't get why Trump (and the GOP) wanted to leave the JCPOA when Iran was following the measures of the agreement. How did that improve the situation? What was the end goal of leaving?