In Iran, North America, Nuclear war, Syria missile strikes, USA, West Asia
As this site consistently notes, opposition to the US strategic position in the Middle East is not confined to leftists, Putin-lovers and cult bloggers. Divisions go deep into the US elites and in particular its military, who no matter how much they wish to inflict unlimited damage on anyone who stands in the way of the United States, it's not always practical to do so given the military and economic power of its chosen adversaries. The military contains a 'practical' wing which, faced with the military successes of its opponents, has to recognise the potential consequences of all-out war with them. It is therefore noteworthy that 'Mad Dog' Mattis, the most gung-ho advocate of exercising US military power in the Trump camp, was the most senior military figure to question the wisdom of breaking from the Iran deal

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph F. Dunford Jr. (L) and US Secretary of Defense James Mattis talk before a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill April 26, 2018 inAFP PHOTO / Brendan Smialowski

Opposition to the US strategic position in the Middle East is not confined to leftists, Putin-lovers and cult bloggers. Divisions go deep into the US military; no matter how much they wish to inflict unlimited damage on anyone who stands in the way of the United States, are professionally forced to recognise reality. The military contains a ‘practical’ wing which, faced with the military successes of its opponents, confronts however partially the potential consequences of all-out war with them. It is therefore noteworthy that ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, the most gung-ho advocate of exercising US military power in the Trump camp, was the most senior military figure to question the wisdom of breaking from the Iran deal

HAARETZ, May 7, 2018 citing The Associated Press, Apr 26, 2018


Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday emphasized the value of certain aspects of the Iran nuclear agreement, even as President Donald Trump considers pulling out of the 2015 deal, which he has attacked repeatedly and this week called “insane.”

Without explicitly giving his opinion about whether the United States should stick with the agreement, Mattis said that after reading the full text of the deal three times, he was struck by provisions that allow for international verification of Iran’s compliance. He said that since becoming defense secretary in January 2017, he also has read what he called a classified protocol in the agreement.

“I will say it is written almost with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat,” he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “So the verification, what is in there, is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in” with representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency to check on compliance.

“Whether that is sufficient I think is a valid question,” he said after Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said the nuclear deal was not supported by the Congress. The committee’s senior Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, told Mattis the Iran deal is “working as intended” and that withdrawing would ease Iran’s path to nuclear weapons.

Mattis said Iran’s history of hiding a nuclear weapons program makes it “suspect,” and he noted his concern about other Iranian activities, including its role in supporting Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, and supplying its proxy forces in Yemen.

The Pentagon chief said the administration was still considering whether the nuclear deal can be improved enough to persuade Trump it is worth preserving. “It’s going on today as we speak,” he said of the consultations. Trump has said he will decide by May 12.

Mattis reiterated his view that the deal is “imperfect” and said “there are obviously aspects of the agreement that can be improved upon.”

The question being discussed within the administration, and between the U.S. and its European allies, he said, is “whether we can repair it enough to stay in it or if the president is going to decide to withdraw from it.” He said Trump has not yet made a decision.

After meeting with Trump at the White House this week, French President Emmanuel Macron made clear that France would not follow the U.S. lead if Trump decides to withdraw from the agreement.

“We signed it at the initiative of the United States. We signed it, both the United States and France,” Macron said Wednesday. “That is why we cannot say we should get rid of it like that.”

Macron later told French reporters that he has no “inside information” on Trump’s decision on the Iran deal but noted that it’s clear the U.S. president “is not very much eager to defend it.”

Iran’s president on Wednesday ruled out any changes or additions to the accord.

Mattis in the past has said he believes the agreement is flawed but that the U.S. should stick with it.

He also addressed a point made by others — that withdrawing would undermine U.S. leverage and credibility in coming talks with North Korea about eliminating its nuclear weapons. Mattis said he does not see this as the most important consideration with Iran, given that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, has been consistently unreliable in honoring any agreement.

“In light of Kim’s family and himself breaking every international treaty, every agreement, they’ve ever made” — whether with South Korea or the United States — “I’m less concerned with that ripple effect right now,” Mattis said.

“I think we need to focus on what is in the best interest of Middle East stability and the threat that Iran poses” with its potential to resume a nuclear weapons program, he said. In this context, he said, the administration has to weigh the impacts on Middle East stability if the Iran agreement “does not get extended and maintain the verification — intrusive verification — that we need.”

*****

EDITOR’S NOTE: We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.

Recent Posts
Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

The United States has refrained from attacking ISIS and Al-Quaeda in Syria - because its main goal is regime change in Damascus, the New York Times says in an article that has received less attention than it merits