What's new

The Real Reasons For The Iran Agreement

BuddhaPalm

BANNED
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
912
Reaction score
-16
Country
China
Location
China
The Real Reasons For The Iran Agreement By Paul Craig Roberts

The Real Reasons For The Iran Agreement

By Paul Craig Roberts

20 July, 2015
Paulcraigroberts.org

Obama is being praised as a man of peace for the nuclear agreement with Iran. Some are asking if Obama will take the next step and repair US-Russian relations and bring the Ukrainian imbroglio to an end?

If so he hasn’t told Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland or his nominee as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Paul Selva, or his nominee as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, or his Secretary of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James.

The other day on Ukrainian TV Victoria Nuland declared that if Russia does not “fulfill its obligations,” by which she means to turn all of Ukraine over to Washington including Crimea, a historical Russian province, “we’re prepared to put more pressure on Russia.” During the past week both of Obama’s nominees to the top military positions told the US Senate that Russia was the main threat to the US, an “existential threat” even. With this level of war rhetoric in play, clearly Obama has no interest in reducing the tensions that Washington has created with Russia.

In my last column I wrote that the agreement with Iran does not mean much, because Washington can renew the sanctions at any time merely by making false charges against Iran. Obama knows this even if Lindsey Graham and John McCain pretend that they don’t know it.

The US and its proxies continue to murder people over a large area of the earth. Clearly Obama is not a man of peace, and neither are his European enablers and the United Nations. So what is the reason for the accommodation with Iran after many years of rabid demonization of a country for no other reason than the country insisted on its rights to nuclear energy granted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

If you can free yourself from the brainwashing from the presstitute media, three BIG reasons jump out at you. One is that the neoconservatives’ perception of the threat has shifted from “Muslim terrorists” to Russia and China. Unlike Muslim terrorists, both Russia and China are constraints on Washington’s unilateralism. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington has grown accustomed to being the Uni-Power, able to exercise its will unchallenged in the world. The rise of Russian strength under Putin and Chinese strength under the new policy has destroyed Washington’s Uni-Power privilege. Washington wants the privilege back.

Washington is not in good shape, economically or militarily. According to Nobel Economist Joseph Stieglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes, Washington has wasted at least $6 trillion dollars in its 14-year old wars in the Middle East. Despite the extraordinary cost, Washington has been defeated, and is now faced with the Islamic State, a new entity arising out of Washington’s mistakes that is creating a new country partly out of Iraq and partly out of Syria.

Despite its gigantic hubris, Washington has figured out that the US cannot simultaneously take on Russia, China, Iran, and the Islamic State. This realization is one reason for the nuclear agreement with Iran. It removes Iran from the mix.

A second reason for the agreement is that Iran is opposed to the Islamic State and can be employed as an American proxy against the Islamic State, thus freeing Washington for conflict with Russia and China.

A third reason for Washington’s agreement with Iran is Washington’s concern with Europe’s energy dependence on Russia. This dependence is inconsistent with the EU going along with Washington’s sanctions against Russia and with NATO’s military moves against Russia. Washington wants to end this dependence and has hopes that money can bring Iran into becoming a supplier of natural gas and oil to Europe.

The explanation I have provided is realism, not cynicism. All that the agreement with Iran means is that Washington has belatedly realized that the concocted Iranian and Muslim threats are using up time, energy, and resources that Washington needs to apply to Russia and China. Moreover, there were too many threats for the American people to know which was paramount.

One of the reasons that Greece has to be destroyed is to block the entry of Russian natural gas into Europe from the Russian pipeline into Turkey.

Washington has US troops in Ukraine training the Ukrainian military how to subdue the break-away provinces, and the stooge Ukrainian government has taken no steps to comply with the Minsk Agreement. Clearly Washington intends that peace is not in the cards in Ukrainian-Russian relations.

At some point Russia will have to accept defeat or else stop contributing to its own defeat. On more than one occasion when the Russian break-away provinces had the Ukrainian military totally defeated, the Russian government intervened and prevented the collapse of the Ukrainian military. For its consideration, Russia has been rewarded with more demonization and with US aid to the Ukrainian military. When hostilities resume, which they will, Russia and the break-away Russian provinces will find themselves in a worsened position.

The Russian government cannot pursue peace when Washington is pursuing War.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.
 
. . . .
Right, as if that has never happened in human history.
Hi,
Just because it happened in the history doesn't means it has to be repeated, right? Thats simply no justification
like even in 21 century we see this land of free and freedom champion killing under the statue of liberty
 
.
Hi,
Just because it happened in the history doesn't means it has to be repeated, right? Thats simply no justification
like even in 21 century we see this land of free and freedom champion killing under the statue of liberty

Of course, to you there may be no justification. To others, there may be every justification. Different people have different views, and they are equally entitled to have them.
 
.
Bahut chaloo country hai US :p:, all the reasons mentioned for removing are very interesting, the US has tried to kill many birds with one stone (removal of sanctions)
 
.
Of course, to you there may be no justification. To others, there may be every justification. Different people have different views, and they are equally entitled to have them.
Hi,
In thast case would you justify the killing of ISIS or twin tower attacks?

Killings cannot be justified (especially for the pursuit of national interests, it's not as if US was being invaded or anything) by the so called champions of freedom. Why then sanction other nations on the very same banner of Human rights violations?
 
. .
Very immoral, inhumane and primitive mindset. What matters is the greater good, peace and prosperity for all of humanity.
American national interests do not allow it. One has to dominate the entire planet either by hook or crook
 
.
Very immoral, inhumane and primitive mindset. What matters is the greater good, peace and prosperity for all of humanity.

American national interests do not allow it. One has to dominate the entire planet either by hook or crook


You are entitled to your views, as I am to mine.

Hi,
In thast case would you justify the killing of ISIS or twin tower attacks?

Killings cannot be justified (especially for the pursuit of national interests, it's not as if US was being invaded or anything) by the so called champions of freedom. Why then sanction other nations on the very same banner of Human rights violations?

USA was attacked. USA responded. What is the issue here?

Bahut chaloo country hai US :p:, all the reasons mentioned for removing are very interesting, the US has tried to kill many birds with one stone (removal of sanctions)

Seems like good policy making to me.
 
.
USA was attacked. USA responded. What is the issue here
Is it now?
So USA retaliated by using the same which was applied on nagasaki and hiroshima, this time minus nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq.
I am sure Iraq had nothing to do with WOT, right?

The issue is the very core hypocrisy that is used and justified when US mounts an invasion on another country on the pretext of freedom and shi* or national interest
 
.
Is it now?
So USA retaliated by using the same which was applied on nagasaki and hiroshima, this time minus nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq.
I am sure Iraq had nothing to do with WOT, right?

The issue is the very core hypocrisy that is used and justified when US mounts an invasion on another country on the pretext of freedom and shi* or national interest

The pursuit of national interests is supreme in international geopolitics, for every country, not just USA. You have no argument here.
 
.
The pursuit of national interests is supreme in international geopolitics, for every country, not just USA. You have no argument here.

Yes, I do And thanks for making it very easy for me.

According to you. when Colin Powell Threatened Pakistan that Bombing It back to stone age is another national interest ?

Typical disgusting American Attitude

Then what's left of humanity? In case you didn't realize, people live beyond the borders of continental US.

Every now and the we hear that US department is very disturbed to learn blah blah human right violation, but when US itselfs attacks and destroys an entire nation. You justify it as National interests ?

Or one must think US has not moved on from pre historic mentality of killing and looting. Its new age so they have shistictawd weapons, but the principle in the core is the same, ain't it ?

So much for land of freedom and statue of liberty, which itself is the symbol of other nations, threat to their liberty.

Murreka da mujasme i azaadi, jidday dosre di azaadi khorn alaamat hai

You are entitled to your views, as I am to mine
Hi,

Results matter more than just views. And I would disagree with you over terming a medieval time mentality as in ''Pursuit of National Interests"
 
.
Yes, I do And thanks for making it very easy for me.

According to you. when Colin Powell Threatened Pakistan that Bombing It back to stone age is another national interest ?

Typical disgusting American Attitude

Then what's left of humanity? In case you didn't realize, people live beyond the borders of continental US.

Every now and the we hear that US department is very disturbed to learn blah blah human right violation, but when US itselfs attacks and destroys an entire nation. You justify it as National interests ?

Or one must think US has not moved on from pre historic mentality of killing and looting. Its new age so they have shistictawd weapons, but the principle in the core is the same, ain't it ?

So much for land of freedom and statue of liberty, which itself is the symbol of other nations, threat to their liberty.

Murreka da mujasme i azaadi, jidday dosre di azaadi khorn alaamat hai


Hi,

Results matter more than just views. And I would disagree with you over terming a medieval time mentality as in ''Pursuit of National Interests"

Your rant born of personal prejudice is your entitlement, but pretty ineffective. My words, callous as they might seem to you, are absolutely correct.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom