Anyone who still believes that expanding trade and commerce with a despotic regime will naturally result in the liberalization of its policies in other areas seems to have totally missed the biggest story in international developments over the last three decades with the ascendance of China. Supposedly accepting China into the WTO was going to lead to society wide changes and hopefully to democratization. We have seen how that works, i.e. it didn’t. It merely lead to a more powerful despotic regime. And this guy who is going to be the leader of international policy in a Harris administration believes that Iran would be any different? It is another example of elites and so-called experts holding stupid and dangerous views.
A carefully worded investigative report presented without drawing unwarranted conclusions. Instead the author has asked some pointed questions of the players which have, to date, gone unanswered.
You don’t need a forever war, you don’t even need a war. You impose sanctions, dry up the oil like Trump did and wait for the popular revolution or make it clear to Iran, that you will under no circumstances, permit them to gain an atomic bomb.
Right on! First, the neocons gave us the stupidest war in our history, the utterly disastrous war to “protect” Israel from Iraq. For dessert, now Bibi and AIPAC are doung all in their power to blow lots more blood, treasure, and international goodwill by going to war to “protect” Israel from Iran. This Israeli tail trying to wag the American dog has to stop. Israel is Exhibit A of the profound wisdom of Washington’s warning that America must never allow itself to get so entangled with the affairs of another nation that its interests come to override our own. America would be crazy to go to war with Iran. If Israel wants war with Iran, let it fight its own battles. I’m heartened that Harris is listening to Gordon.
Good lord, Gordon's policymaking ideas regarding Iran are what led to war in the first place. Without a "relaxing", or non enforcement of sanctions against Iran, Iran would not have had the funds to arm or train Hezbollah or Hamas or the Houthis attacking international shipping.
10 B-52s, as the final blow after fully disabling their air defenses. Utterly destroy Iran's ability to build nukes. This is how I would deal with this monster.
The real question is why are you so hell-bent on believing that giving Iran money and loosening sanctions is a good idea. The Middle East is living through a crisis caused by doing exactly this. If these policies continue, kiss the Abraham Accords, which would give the Middle East a pathway to long peace, good-bye.
Didn’t we give sudan $1B to fund their war as part of the abraham accords? Isn’t that giving away money (it will likeky not be repaid)? And is that really a path to long peace if funding war?
Sudan and Iran aren't remotely comparable. Iran has been a US adversary since 1979, and has been responsible both directly and through proxies with attacks on American troops and personnel stationed overseas.
Nothing Sudan does or doesn't do is similar to this.
The current Iranian regime has been in power since the Shah was deposed in 1979. The Shah had been in power since 1953, but was installed after an Iranian communist was elected by Iranian citizens. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan should not be taken to be representative of the only way to achieve regime change, or a political outcome preferred by the US and other western nations. An Iranian regime that fails to provide a desirable standard of living for Iranian people could be an Iranian regime that falls on it's own, without the US needing to fire a shot. The Biden administration's decision to suspend enforcement of sanctions that were creating the kinds of economic pressures in Iran that also contributed to the dissolution of the USSR and to communism in the Warsaw Pact nations in 1989 was catastrophically stupid. We are now more likely to end up in a hot war with Iran as a result of Philip Gordon's thinking than if Mike Pompeo was still secretary of state.
The dissolution of the USSR hasn’t created a US friendly Russia. Assuming sanctions brought iran down as you suggest, how would you engineer productive relations with a new Iran regime ongoing?
Actually, the dissolution of the USSR created a Russia that was on good terms with the US throughout the 1990s, and also largely eliminated any threat of Russia creating satellite states within central America, Africa and parts of Europe that had not previously been a part of the Russian empire under the Romanovs.
Regarding Iran, if the US took the same approach that it did to defeating the Soviets in the 1980s, it wouldn't require much to cultivate good relations with Iran. The Islamic regime took power 45 years ago with popular support aided by useful idiot Iranian leftists who opposed the shah, and subsequently had to seek refuge in Europe, mostly Scandinavia after the Shah was deposed. But it's not at all clear that the Islamic regime in Iran enjoys popular support any more than an impoverished, hypothetical American regime subject to massive international sanctions and run by Pat Robertson would.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was in the same high school class in Paris (École Jeannine Manuel) with.... Robert Malley - the Iranian spy and appeaser who crafted the JCPOA for Obama. The JCPOA is what unlocked billions of dollars for Iran. Money used to fund proxy attacks on Israel. All for the low low price of Iran "pinky swearing" to not build a nuclear bomb.
Great reporting. Reading between the lines one can sense that people like Gordon either: sympathize with Iran, hate America, hate Israel and Jews, think Iran and America are morally equivalent, or are just so naive and really think if we are just nicer to our enemies than they will be nice back. Scary that Harris falls into the category of not understanding the enemy
What’s the proven template for dealing with enemies in your opinion, that’s actually worked (cost vs benefit) in the past, that we can carry into the future?
Neal gave a great answer. I think that number one you have to be strong when dealing with enemies. The Dems are just too anti-America to defend America. They sympathize with the enemy and our enemies know it.
It’s kinda silly to think there’s a single template for dealing with enemies. Every enemy has different strengths, weaknesses, constraints, and capabilities.
I think it’s easier to make cases about what doesn’t work. Our experience in the Middle East I think demonstrates that military-led forced regime change doesn’t lead to positive outcomes. I think every time we’ve tried to appease enemies it’s led to bigger problems down the line.
Regarding Iran, the motivations of the regime seem to sincerely be religious in nature: kill Jews and expand Islam. If nothing else, it’s hard for a regime to chant “Death to Israel, death to America” and then negotiate in good faith for mutual benefit while maintaining credibility at home.
Let’s spend the next 10 years ideating over solutions. That’ll really get us somewhere. Two simple things, restore the sanctions and make it clear to Iran about the cost if it continues process of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
So having Tulsi Gabbard shadowed by sky marshals and the TSA while Gordon, Tabatabai and Malley are at the least known appeasers to our mortal enemy and Tabatabai is allowed to continue to hold an ultra sensitive position in the Pentagon? Is our federal government run by idiots or are they just foreign agents peddling influence for Iran?
Based on what we know today the havoc that Iran is creating for Israel, for our international shipping costs and all the mischief they create globally makes you wonder why State Department officials continue to pursue a deal that shows weakness to Iran and allows them to get a nuclear weapon? We can act like appeasing morons but the second before the Iranians can weaponize a nuclear devise Israel will take it out in what ever manner it sees fit. The difference between our respective foreign policy strategy is that Israel believes Iran when they threaten Israel’s existence, we keep hiding our head in the sand.
The argument Gordon is making to reach a nuclear deal with Iran is similar to the one made to allow China into the WTO. Membership in the organization has actually helped China acquire power and fund its military. It certainly has had no positive impact on the population or on the regime; in fact, it has strengthened the regime.
Instead of learning from the West's mistake in allowing China to join the organization, Biden and Obama are repeating the same mistakes with Iran. The policies they pursued have empowered Iran. Is it possible that they believe an Iran in control of the Middle East will lead to peace in the region? Can they be so clueless and naive about the nature of the regime? Do they really think that Iran will abide by any agreement it makes with the U.S.?
There seem to be a whole class of elites with Ivy League professorships and PhD‘s who have no idea how the hard countries and the hard people view the world. we have Neville Chamberlain, instead of Winston Churchill.
Economic sanctions and precision strikes could bring Iran and all its terrorist proxies to their knees. Denied the ability to export their oil and gas by sea, Iran's revenue and cash reserves would dry up. How many ports does Iran have for exporting their oil and gas? Hitting those few ports would instantly stop the cash flow to Iran, although maybe Biden and Obama's shipments of billions in cash to Iran would help cover their losses and keep cash and weapons flowing to the various Iranian terrorist proxies. Democrats are the new Quislings.
Day 2? No, maybe Year 4. Workers at the oil- and gas-exporting ports would be warned to get out and then the unmanned missiles would destroy the infrastructure. No boots on the ground. Rinse and repeat as necessary. The cost would be borne entirely by the Islamic terrorists running Iran and their proxies around the world.
The only price paid by the West would be a temporary increase in oil and gas prices until the US and Canada regained the energy self-sufficiency and energy export levels they had under president Donald Trump, and destroyed by 4 years of the Biden-Harris idiocracy.
Define temporary? Have you done the math on how much and for how long prices will skyrocket, shipping is shut down due to fuel shortages, bringing the world financial system to its knees? How will the common person afford goods? This is social and political suicide. Not to mention the *fact* that war will ensue, with the biggest powers coming to iran’s side.
All I can say, Benjamin, is please read and learn the consequences of Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” treaty with Adolf Hitler to understand that negotiating with Jew-hating socialists will again deliver 45 million dead including 6 million Jews as in WW2. And I repeat, if Biden-Harris had not wrecked North America’s energy self-sufficiency, neutralizing the Iranian global terrorists would have been achieved without any of the hyperbolic consequences that frighten you so, and even with Biden on his knees to energy dictators, the transient price hike will pass with manageable consequence.
"Trita Parsi, vice president of the neo-isolationist Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft"
Surely the author knows that Parsi is one of the most prominent mouthpieces of Tehran's interests.
Even more puzzling is reporting that "They say the agreement....would have neutralized Tehran’s nuclear capacity," without mentioning that the agreement merely postponed the date at which Iran was permitted to have nuclear weapons.
"What does Kamala Harris believe...?" Who the hell knows.
I'll think about giving Harris some credibility or respect on the day that she sits for a 90-minute unscripted unlimited interview with a qualified and unbiased investigative journalist. There are several such among the FP staff and contributors.
Bari, make the call, and tell us what her handlers say.
I think it’s fair to say she has no strong political beliefs. That’s not necessarily bad. It means she’ll make decisions based on domestic political pressure.
I want to be real for a moment: most Americans do not give a damn about Iran, the nuclear deal, or where it's even located on a map.
We're only meant to care to the extent that Israel and its lobbyists are threatened by Iran. This country is a big topic in Washington, but you'll *never* see some Midwestern guy or some suburban stay-at-home mom talking about Iran.
It's always weird to see Iran-focused articles trying to sell everyday Americans the idea that we should care even a minutiae about the Middle East.
I suggest you look at a map of the Middle East and ask yourself: does it matter that a sworn enemy of the US , that calls for the destruction of the US, control the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world. Does it matter to the US that the same enemy controls passage of shipping thru the Suez Canal and Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean .
Many empires ( Ottomans, Byzantium) who thought they were so powerful and untouchable have disappeared. It applies to countries too. France in the Second War also thought it was invincible too.
Hubris leads to complacency. May be housewives should be concerned about what happens in the world.
Is it worrisome that they are razor thin from a offensive nuke? Mostly funded by the USA. If they fire one at Israel, will we be drawn in? The current administration is feckless. Did you skip over the part that the Iranians are in the Pentagon? Iran has just hacked the RNC platform along with info on Vance. Nah, we should not worry about what Iran is doing. Although, they are the WORLD'S LEADER IN STATE FUNDED TERRORISM. Wake up!
Seems to me that democratic administrations have done poorly regarding foreign policy. If the US is not going to be the leader then don’t complain when the new leader does something you don’t like. The Iran nuclear deal was a joke with Iran constantly skirting inspections. People have lousy memories.
Yes, but also a joke in the sense it pretended to limit Iran, when it was always meant to strengthen Iran and realign the power balance in the Middle East.
Millennium of proof that Gordan's and blinken's foreign policy won't work but yet, they still believe they can civilize radicals. How many tens of thousands of children have died over the world, and our southern border, due to joe's and anthony's failed foreign policies?
If you’re Jewish and you vote for Harris you have lost my sympathy. I told my best client, a Jewish guy, I’ll wear a Yalmuke with your daughter thru Penn’s campus as security for her. I support my Jewish brothers and sisters, however you vote Democrat you know what your getting, and you have lost my sympathies.
Anyone who still believes that expanding trade and commerce with a despotic regime will naturally result in the liberalization of its policies in other areas seems to have totally missed the biggest story in international developments over the last three decades with the ascendance of China. Supposedly accepting China into the WTO was going to lead to society wide changes and hopefully to democratization. We have seen how that works, i.e. it didn’t. It merely lead to a more powerful despotic regime. And this guy who is going to be the leader of international policy in a Harris administration believes that Iran would be any different? It is another example of elites and so-called experts holding stupid and dangerous views.
A carefully worded investigative report presented without drawing unwarranted conclusions. Instead the author has asked some pointed questions of the players which have, to date, gone unanswered.
If you have a well-informed, evidence-based alternative to an expensive (lives/dollars) forever-war with Iran, please reply here with your ideas:
You don’t need a forever war, you don’t even need a war. You impose sanctions, dry up the oil like Trump did and wait for the popular revolution or make it clear to Iran, that you will under no circumstances, permit them to gain an atomic bomb.
Learning from the past, critical thinking, forward looking ideas, very very useful. Spewing criticism, not at all useful. Who has some good ideas?!
Right on! First, the neocons gave us the stupidest war in our history, the utterly disastrous war to “protect” Israel from Iraq. For dessert, now Bibi and AIPAC are doung all in their power to blow lots more blood, treasure, and international goodwill by going to war to “protect” Israel from Iran. This Israeli tail trying to wag the American dog has to stop. Israel is Exhibit A of the profound wisdom of Washington’s warning that America must never allow itself to get so entangled with the affairs of another nation that its interests come to override our own. America would be crazy to go to war with Iran. If Israel wants war with Iran, let it fight its own battles. I’m heartened that Harris is listening to Gordon.
Good lord, Gordon's policymaking ideas regarding Iran are what led to war in the first place. Without a "relaxing", or non enforcement of sanctions against Iran, Iran would not have had the funds to arm or train Hezbollah or Hamas or the Houthis attacking international shipping.
So what involvement do you think the US should have in that region, if any?
Have a B52 bomb them back to the stone age.
10 B-52s, as the final blow after fully disabling their air defenses. Utterly destroy Iran's ability to build nukes. This is how I would deal with this monster.
Exactly
The real question is why are you so hell-bent on believing that giving Iran money and loosening sanctions is a good idea. The Middle East is living through a crisis caused by doing exactly this. If these policies continue, kiss the Abraham Accords, which would give the Middle East a pathway to long peace, good-bye.
Didn’t we give sudan $1B to fund their war as part of the abraham accords? Isn’t that giving away money (it will likeky not be repaid)? And is that really a path to long peace if funding war?
Sudan and Iran aren't remotely comparable. Iran has been a US adversary since 1979, and has been responsible both directly and through proxies with attacks on American troops and personnel stationed overseas.
Nothing Sudan does or doesn't do is similar to this.
The current Iranian regime has been in power since the Shah was deposed in 1979. The Shah had been in power since 1953, but was installed after an Iranian communist was elected by Iranian citizens. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan should not be taken to be representative of the only way to achieve regime change, or a political outcome preferred by the US and other western nations. An Iranian regime that fails to provide a desirable standard of living for Iranian people could be an Iranian regime that falls on it's own, without the US needing to fire a shot. The Biden administration's decision to suspend enforcement of sanctions that were creating the kinds of economic pressures in Iran that also contributed to the dissolution of the USSR and to communism in the Warsaw Pact nations in 1989 was catastrophically stupid. We are now more likely to end up in a hot war with Iran as a result of Philip Gordon's thinking than if Mike Pompeo was still secretary of state.
The dissolution of the USSR hasn’t created a US friendly Russia. Assuming sanctions brought iran down as you suggest, how would you engineer productive relations with a new Iran regime ongoing?
Actually, the dissolution of the USSR created a Russia that was on good terms with the US throughout the 1990s, and also largely eliminated any threat of Russia creating satellite states within central America, Africa and parts of Europe that had not previously been a part of the Russian empire under the Romanovs.
Regarding Iran, if the US took the same approach that it did to defeating the Soviets in the 1980s, it wouldn't require much to cultivate good relations with Iran. The Islamic regime took power 45 years ago with popular support aided by useful idiot Iranian leftists who opposed the shah, and subsequently had to seek refuge in Europe, mostly Scandinavia after the Shah was deposed. But it's not at all clear that the Islamic regime in Iran enjoys popular support any more than an impoverished, hypothetical American regime subject to massive international sanctions and run by Pat Robertson would.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was in the same high school class in Paris (École Jeannine Manuel) with.... Robert Malley - the Iranian spy and appeaser who crafted the JCPOA for Obama. The JCPOA is what unlocked billions of dollars for Iran. Money used to fund proxy attacks on Israel. All for the low low price of Iran "pinky swearing" to not build a nuclear bomb.
Know the players.
Great reporting. Reading between the lines one can sense that people like Gordon either: sympathize with Iran, hate America, hate Israel and Jews, think Iran and America are morally equivalent, or are just so naive and really think if we are just nicer to our enemies than they will be nice back. Scary that Harris falls into the category of not understanding the enemy
When has Harris understood anything except going with the flow and saying what is necessary?
What’s the proven template for dealing with enemies in your opinion, that’s actually worked (cost vs benefit) in the past, that we can carry into the future?
Neal gave a great answer. I think that number one you have to be strong when dealing with enemies. The Dems are just too anti-America to defend America. They sympathize with the enemy and our enemies know it.
It’s kinda silly to think there’s a single template for dealing with enemies. Every enemy has different strengths, weaknesses, constraints, and capabilities.
I think it’s easier to make cases about what doesn’t work. Our experience in the Middle East I think demonstrates that military-led forced regime change doesn’t lead to positive outcomes. I think every time we’ve tried to appease enemies it’s led to bigger problems down the line.
Regarding Iran, the motivations of the regime seem to sincerely be religious in nature: kill Jews and expand Islam. If nothing else, it’s hard for a regime to chant “Death to Israel, death to America” and then negotiate in good faith for mutual benefit while maintaining credibility at home.
Yes, you nailed it, it’s easy to say what doesn’t work, and important to recognize. But moving forward requires productive solutions and ideating.
Let’s spend the next 10 years ideating over solutions. That’ll really get us somewhere. Two simple things, restore the sanctions and make it clear to Iran about the cost if it continues process of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
So having Tulsi Gabbard shadowed by sky marshals and the TSA while Gordon, Tabatabai and Malley are at the least known appeasers to our mortal enemy and Tabatabai is allowed to continue to hold an ultra sensitive position in the Pentagon? Is our federal government run by idiots or are they just foreign agents peddling influence for Iran?
Based on what we know today the havoc that Iran is creating for Israel, for our international shipping costs and all the mischief they create globally makes you wonder why State Department officials continue to pursue a deal that shows weakness to Iran and allows them to get a nuclear weapon? We can act like appeasing morons but the second before the Iranians can weaponize a nuclear devise Israel will take it out in what ever manner it sees fit. The difference between our respective foreign policy strategy is that Israel believes Iran when they threaten Israel’s existence, we keep hiding our head in the sand.
The argument Gordon is making to reach a nuclear deal with Iran is similar to the one made to allow China into the WTO. Membership in the organization has actually helped China acquire power and fund its military. It certainly has had no positive impact on the population or on the regime; in fact, it has strengthened the regime.
Instead of learning from the West's mistake in allowing China to join the organization, Biden and Obama are repeating the same mistakes with Iran. The policies they pursued have empowered Iran. Is it possible that they believe an Iran in control of the Middle East will lead to peace in the region? Can they be so clueless and naive about the nature of the regime? Do they really think that Iran will abide by any agreement it makes with the U.S.?
There seem to be a whole class of elites with Ivy League professorships and PhD‘s who have no idea how the hard countries and the hard people view the world. we have Neville Chamberlain, instead of Winston Churchill.
Economic sanctions and precision strikes could bring Iran and all its terrorist proxies to their knees. Denied the ability to export their oil and gas by sea, Iran's revenue and cash reserves would dry up. How many ports does Iran have for exporting their oil and gas? Hitting those few ports would instantly stop the cash flow to Iran, although maybe Biden and Obama's shipments of billions in cash to Iran would help cover their losses and keep cash and weapons flowing to the various Iranian terrorist proxies. Democrats are the new Quislings.
How would the US maintain the inoperability of said ports on Day 2 and beyond? How much would that cost in lives and dollars?
Day 2? No, maybe Year 4. Workers at the oil- and gas-exporting ports would be warned to get out and then the unmanned missiles would destroy the infrastructure. No boots on the ground. Rinse and repeat as necessary. The cost would be borne entirely by the Islamic terrorists running Iran and their proxies around the world.
The only price paid by the West would be a temporary increase in oil and gas prices until the US and Canada regained the energy self-sufficiency and energy export levels they had under president Donald Trump, and destroyed by 4 years of the Biden-Harris idiocracy.
Define temporary? Have you done the math on how much and for how long prices will skyrocket, shipping is shut down due to fuel shortages, bringing the world financial system to its knees? How will the common person afford goods? This is social and political suicide. Not to mention the *fact* that war will ensue, with the biggest powers coming to iran’s side.
All I can say, Benjamin, is please read and learn the consequences of Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” treaty with Adolf Hitler to understand that negotiating with Jew-hating socialists will again deliver 45 million dead including 6 million Jews as in WW2. And I repeat, if Biden-Harris had not wrecked North America’s energy self-sufficiency, neutralizing the Iranian global terrorists would have been achieved without any of the hyperbolic consequences that frighten you so, and even with Biden on his knees to energy dictators, the transient price hike will pass with manageable consequence.
"Trita Parsi, vice president of the neo-isolationist Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft"
Surely the author knows that Parsi is one of the most prominent mouthpieces of Tehran's interests.
Even more puzzling is reporting that "They say the agreement....would have neutralized Tehran’s nuclear capacity," without mentioning that the agreement merely postponed the date at which Iran was permitted to have nuclear weapons.
Too indulgent a framing to my mind.
Finally some real journalism exposing facts that the left wants hidden and that the MSM will ignore.
"What does Kamala Harris believe...?" Who the hell knows.
I'll think about giving Harris some credibility or respect on the day that she sits for a 90-minute unscripted unlimited interview with a qualified and unbiased investigative journalist. There are several such among the FP staff and contributors.
Bari, make the call, and tell us what her handlers say.
I think it’s fair to say she has no strong political beliefs. That’s not necessarily bad. It means she’ll make decisions based on domestic political pressure.
Oh good. Another political weathervane in the most powerful position in the world. What could go wrong?
I want to be real for a moment: most Americans do not give a damn about Iran, the nuclear deal, or where it's even located on a map.
We're only meant to care to the extent that Israel and its lobbyists are threatened by Iran. This country is a big topic in Washington, but you'll *never* see some Midwestern guy or some suburban stay-at-home mom talking about Iran.
It's always weird to see Iran-focused articles trying to sell everyday Americans the idea that we should care even a minutiae about the Middle East.
I suggest you look at a map of the Middle East and ask yourself: does it matter that a sworn enemy of the US , that calls for the destruction of the US, control the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world. Does it matter to the US that the same enemy controls passage of shipping thru the Suez Canal and Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean .
Many empires ( Ottomans, Byzantium) who thought they were so powerful and untouchable have disappeared. It applies to countries too. France in the Second War also thought it was invincible too.
Hubris leads to complacency. May be housewives should be concerned about what happens in the world.
Is it worrisome that they are razor thin from a offensive nuke? Mostly funded by the USA. If they fire one at Israel, will we be drawn in? The current administration is feckless. Did you skip over the part that the Iranians are in the Pentagon? Iran has just hacked the RNC platform along with info on Vance. Nah, we should not worry about what Iran is doing. Although, they are the WORLD'S LEADER IN STATE FUNDED TERRORISM. Wake up!
What about ukraine? Is that on your map? How about china or Russia?
We cared after 9/11, but that was almost 23 years ago.
Seems to me that democratic administrations have done poorly regarding foreign policy. If the US is not going to be the leader then don’t complain when the new leader does something you don’t like. The Iran nuclear deal was a joke with Iran constantly skirting inspections. People have lousy memories.
Yes, but also a joke in the sense it pretended to limit Iran, when it was always meant to strengthen Iran and realign the power balance in the Middle East.
Why is there an arrow up top if audio is not available for this?
Millennium of proof that Gordan's and blinken's foreign policy won't work but yet, they still believe they can civilize radicals. How many tens of thousands of children have died over the world, and our southern border, due to joe's and anthony's failed foreign policies?
If you’re Jewish and you vote for Harris you have lost my sympathy. I told my best client, a Jewish guy, I’ll wear a Yalmuke with your daughter thru Penn’s campus as security for her. I support my Jewish brothers and sisters, however you vote Democrat you know what your getting, and you have lost my sympathies.