The Trump administration continues to threaten Iran after blaming it, without evidence, for the recent bombing of Saudi oil facilities. Trita Parsi argues that President Trump has an easy path to resolve the standoff: rejoin the Iran nuclear deal that he abandoned and negotiate additional issues with Tehran.

Guest: Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute and the author of “Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy.”

“Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply,” declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Putting America’s credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom’s oil production, 5.7 million barrels a day.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear, in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:

“There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!”

Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.

Pompeo dismissed their claim, “There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”

But while the Houthis claim credit, Iran denies all responsibility.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo’s charge, that the U.S. has simply replaced a policy of “maximum pressure” with a policy of “maximum deceit.” Tehran is calling us liars.

And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on the Saudis’ crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation, leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.

Tehran being behind Saturday’s strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.

U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.

According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.

But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.

Given Pompeo’s public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly’s annual gathering next week may be a dead letter.

The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the call for a commensurate response is put directly to our “locked-and-loaded” president.

If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?

For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country attacking them.

Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi war in Yemen.

If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?

What about Iran itself?

If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday — shutting down about 6% of world oil production — imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy.

In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?

Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of war?

Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran’s oil refineries to “break the regime’s back,” while Sen. Rand Paul contends that “there’s no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran.”

Divided again: The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.

How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.

John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

creators.com

Maybe. But maybe that is entirely wrong. Maybe the Iranian leadership no longer believes in ‘deals’ with Washington. Maybe they simply have had enough of western regime change antics (from the 1953 coup to the Iraq war waged on Iran at the western behest, to the present attempt at Iran’s economic strangulation). They are quitting that failed paradigm for something new, something different.

The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism, but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a ‘clock being played out’, it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is running down, and not the ‘clock’ of US domestic politics. The old adage that the ‘sea is always the sea’ holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last.

And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades’ long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential ‘waivers’ needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – ‘waived’ or not – are, as it were, ‘forever’.

If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy ‘process’ in the hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an incumbent President).

But more than just a long chapter reaching its inevitable end, Iran is seeing another path opening out. Trump is in a ‘China bind’: a trade deal with China now looks “tough to improbable”, according to White House officials, in the context of the fast deteriorating environment of security tensions between Washington and Beijing. Defense One spells it out:

“It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. US chip giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese entities. The Department of Commerce halved the number of licenses that let US companies assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering projects.

“[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America’s technology leadership, policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks.

“The key driver of this shift has not been the President’s tariffs, but a changing consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its citizens personal data, and the country’s technological advantage”.

Trump’s China ‘bind’ is this: A trade deal with China has long been viewed by the White House as a major tool for ‘goosing’ the US stock market upwards, during the crucial pre-election period. But as that is now said to be “tough to improbable” – and as US national security consensus metamorphoses, the consequent de-coupling, combined with tariffs, is beginning to bite. The effects are eating away at President Trump’s prime political asset: the public confidence in his handling of the economy: A Quinnipiac University survey last week found for the first time in Trump’s presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say the president’s policies are hurting the economy.

This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump’s China ‘bind’ can also be Iran’s opportunity …).

No wonder Pompeo acted with such alacrity to put a tourniquet on the brewing ‘war’ in the Middle East, sparked by Israel’s simultaneous air attacks last month in Iraq, inside Beirut, and in Syria (killing two Hizbullah soldiers). It is pretty clear that Washington did not want this ‘war’, at least not now. America, as Defense One noted, is becoming acutely sensitive to any risks to the global financial system from “sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy”.

The recent Israeli military operations coincided with Iranian FM Zarif’s sudden summons to Biarritz (during the G7), exacerbating fears within the Israeli Security Cabinet that Trump might meet with President Rouhani in NY at the UN General Assembly – thus threatening Netanyahu’s anti-Iran, political ‘identity’. The fear was that Trump could begin a ‘bromance’ with the Iranian President (on the Kim Jong Un lines). And hence the Israeli provocations intended to stir some Iranian (over)-reaction (which never came). Subsequently it became clear to Israel that Iran’s leadership had absolutely no intention to meet with Trump – and the whole episode subsided.

Trump’s Iran ‘bind’ therefore is somehow similar to his China ‘bind’: With China, he initially wanted an easy trade achievement, but it has proved to be ‘anything but’. With Iran, Trump wanted a razzmatazz meeting with Rohani – even if that did not lead to a new ‘deal’ (much as the Trump – Kim Jung Un TV spectaculars that caught the American imagination so vividly, he may have hoped for a similar response to a Rohani handshake, or he may have even aspired to an Oval Office spectacular).

Trump simply cannot understand why the Iranians won’t do this, and he is peeved by the snub. Iran is unfathomable to Team Trump.

Well, maybe the Iranians just don’t want to do it. Firstly, they don’t need to: the Iranian Rial has been recovering steadily over the last four months and manufacturing output has steadied. China’s General Administration of Customs (GAC) detailing the country’s oil imports data shows that China has not cut its Iranian supply after the US waiver program ended on 2 May, but rather, it has steadily increased Iranian crude imports since the official end of the waiver extension, up from May and June levels. The new GAC data shows China imported over 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Iran in July, which is up 4.7% from the month before.

And a new path is opening in front of Iran. After Biarritz, Zarif flew directly to Beijing where he discussed a huge, multi-hundred billion (according to one report), twenty-five-year oil and gas investment, (and a separate) ‘Road and Belt’ transport plan. Though the details are not disclosed, it is plain that China – unlike America – sees Iran as a key future strategic partner, and China seems perfectly able to fathom out the Iranians, too.

But here is the really substantive US shift taking place. It is that which is termed “a new normal” now taking a hold in Washington:

“To defend America’s technology leadership, policymakers [are] upgrading their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks … Unlike the President’s trade war, support for this new, expansive definition of national security and technology is largely bipartisan, and likely here to stay.

… with many of the president’s top advisers viewing China first and foremost as a national security threat, rather than as an economic partner – it’s poised to affect huge parts of American life, from the cost of many consumer goods … to the nature of this country’s relationship with the government of Taiwan.

“Trump himself still views China primarily through an economic prism. But the angrier he gets with Beijing, the more receptive he is to his advisers’ hawkish stances toward China that go well beyond trade.”

“The angrier he gets with Beijing” … Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have lost the ability to summon the resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian ‘closed book’, let alone a ‘Byzantine’ Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in Washington; a loss of conscious ‘vitality’ to the grip of some ‘irrefutable logic’ that allows no empathy, no outreach, to ‘otherness’. Washington (and some European élites) have retreated into their ‘niche’ consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from having to understand – or engage – with wider human experience.

To compensate for these lacunae, Washington looks rather, to an engineering and technological solution: If we cannot summon empathy, or understand Xi or the Iranian Supreme Leader, we can muster artificial intelligence to substitute – a ‘toolkit’ in which the US intends to be global leader.

This type of solution – from the US perspective – maybe works for China, but not so much for Iran; and Trump is not keen on a full war with Iran in the lead up to elections. Is this why Trump seems to be losing interest in the Middle East? He doesn’t understand it; he hasn’t the interest or the means to fathom it; and he doesn’t want to bomb it. And the China ‘bind’ is going to be all absorbing for him, for the meantime.

US President Donald Trump has evolved a certain shrill maximalist attitude in international relations. It can be coined thus: my way or no way.

One recent example is the imposition of sanctions on Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. That indicates the US cutting off any possibility of a negotiated de-escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s Zarif revealed this week that when he was on a diplomatic visit to the US last month he was told by officials that he was expected at the White House for a meeting with President Trump. If Zarif baulked at the “offer” then he would be put on a sanctions list, he was allegedly informed. The Iranian top diplomat declined under the circumstances of apparent coercion, only to find that he was indeed later slapped with sanctions. What kind of American diplomacy is that? Sounds like a mafia-type offer not to refuse.

This heavy-handed approach to “diplomacy” suggests that there is in fact no diplomacy emanating from Washington. President Trump tweeted last week that his administration was “running out of options” in dealing with Iran over mounting tensions in the Persian Gulf. It seems the White House is “offering” faux attempts for negotiation, while all the while mounting military options to strike at Iran.

Another example of failed diplomacy is the resignation this week of US ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman. He quit his post partly out of frustration over the futility of his diplomatic duty to facilitate bilateral dialogue with Moscow. Huntsman’s job became untenable due to the manic anti-Russian animus now embedded in Washington, whereby any attempted dialogue would be portrayed as some kind of “treasonous act”.

Still another example of US repudiation of diplomacy is Trump’s executive order this week to impose a total trade embargo on Venezuela. The South American country is effectively being starved into submission to accept Washington’s demand that elected President Nicolas Maduro stand down, according to US dictate, in order to allow a US-backed dubious opposition politician take the reins of power in Caracas.

These examples, among many more, demonstrate that Washington has no intention of seeking diplomatic discourse with other nations, and is fully intent on issuing dictates – or else; in order to achieve its geopolitical aims.

The appalling and dangerous thing is that Washington is operating on a basis of zero-sum ultimatum. The premises for its dictates are invariably unsubstantiated or irrational. Russia is treated like a pariah state over outlandish allegations of interference in US elections; Iran is treated like a pariah state over hollow claims about Iranian aggression; Venezuela is treated like a pariah state over allegations against an elected president. China is vilified over claims it is a “currency manipulator”. Europe is allegedly “taking advantage” of US trade terms. And so on, and so on. It is tyranny run amok.

The standard of international law and norms of diplomacy are being trashed in the most willful and wanton ways, purely on the basis of American whim and self-serving agenda for domination.

This is an extremely dangerous global situation whereby American political bias, and irrational bias to boot, is being made the standard instead of principles of international law and sovereignty of nations. There is absolutely no diplomacy. Only the writ of American demands for obeisance to Washington’s irrational dictate to satisfy its demands for hegemony.

There seems no other way to describe the present global lawlessness of American presumed power and self-righteousness other than to call it a form of rogue-state fascism on steroids.

When diplomacy, negotiations, dialogue and respect for sovereignty are so utterly disrespected by Washington – whose only response is sanctions and military aggression – then we should know that the present description of American power is not hyperbole. It is a lamentable description of reality whereby American diplomacy is no longer extant. It is becoming way past the possibility of conducting normal relations with this paranoid, lawless rogue regime. A nuclear rogue state, too, capable of destroying the planet on a whim or paranoid rush to its sick brain.

Can American citizens rein in such an errant, irrational regime? Time will tell. But one thing seems for sure, world peace is continually endangered by the regime in Washington which is operating in its own realm of fantasy and criminal megalomania.

Of course US diplomacy is an utter failure. Because in the twisted warmongering megalomania of Washington, diplomacy seems to have become totally irrelevant. Is that not fascism?

Last week, Pompeo told US media he was willing to go to Iran despite the Americans having no diplomatic relations with Tehran. Pompeo was not intending to suddenly meet with Iranian officials. Instead he wants a putative visit to Tehran to be an occasion to get on state media and address the Iranian people “directly”.

In response to a question about whether he was prepared to go to Tehran, the American top diplomat said: “Sure. If that’s the call, I’d happily go there… I would welcome the chance to speak directly to the Iranian people.”

“I’d like a chance to go [to Tehran], not do propaganda but speak the truth to the Iranian people about what it is their leadership has done and how it has harmed Iran,” he added.

That’s not diplomatic outreach. It is simply about seeking the chance to pontificate in Tehran. Despite claiming he would “not do propaganda”, the talking points that Pompeo would regurgitate on Iranian media would be the usual baseless slander that has become Washington’s standard depiction of Iran. A depiction that Pompeo as well as President Donald Trump have personally propagated.

Iran, according to Washington dogma, is an evil terrorist-sponsoring regime that ruthlessly represses its 80 million people, fueling conflict all over the Middle East, and secretly building nuclear weapons. Typically, the Americans never provide any evidence to substantiate their caricature of Iran. It’s merely a “truth” solidified by relentless repetition of hollow allegations. In short, propaganda.

And Pompeo wants to insult the intelligence of Iranians by being given a pulpit on Iranian state media.

By saying he wants to “speak directly” to the Iranian people, Pompeo is adverting to the real US agenda of fomenting regime change.

America’s official arrogance and hypocrisy are boundless. Every malign activity that Washington accuses Iran of can be thrown straight back at the US with manifold more accuracy of facts. The US has destroyed the Middle East with numerous criminal wars and covert regime-change operations, has sponsored terrorists as its proxies, and has fueled the danger of nuclear war by illegally arming Israel with hundreds of weapons of mass destruction.

President Trump has sinisterly alluded to potentially using WMD against Iran in recent weeks, threatening to deploy overwhelming force “to end the regime”.

Admittedly, the American president has at times said he is open to talks with the Iranian government. His “offer” is unconvincing of an intention for genuine dialogue. Trump expects Iran to come to the negotiating table in an act of surrender and self-debasement to accept his terms of “disarmament”. All the while using the threat of annihilation as a bargaining tool.

Moreover, Pompeo expressed his entitlement to lecture the Iranians and urge them to liberate themselves from a “theocratic tyranny” because, he said, the Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javid Zarif is allowed “the freedoms of the United States to come here and spread malign propaganda”.

Pompeo was referring to an official visit to the US earlier this month by Zarif who was attending the United Nations in New York City for a diplomatic conference. All foreign diplomats have a sovereign right to attend the UN. Pompeo’s remarks indicate a presumption that the US government has dominion over the UN and international law.

The alleged “malign propaganda” that Pompeo accused Zarif of spreading was an interview he conducted with the NBC news channel at the Iranian ambassador’s residence. During that interview, Zarif did not unload on the litany of factually verifiable war crimes that the US is culpable of.

What Zarif said was a model of restraint and diplomacy. He said that if the US lifted crippling sanctions off Iran, then the “door is wide open” for future negotiations.

Calling for the avoidance of war, the Iranian diplomat pointed out that it was the United States, not Iran, that had undermined diplomacy by walking away from the 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and world powers, reported NBC.

“It is the United States that left the bargaining table. And they’re always welcome to return,” Zarif added.

What Pompeo calls “malign propaganda” many other people would view as an accurate, if restrained, telling by the Iranian diplomat of how it really is.

Given the unlawful aggression that the Trump administration is wielding against Iran in terms of economic warfare on the country’s vital oil trade and in terms of military force buildup in the Persian Gulf, including nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, what Iran is demonstrating is an immense discipline to maintain regional and world peace.

Iran’s conditions for possible negotiations are eminently reasonable. They include being respected as a sovereign nation and entering into dialogue as a mutual party where discussions can be held on the basis of facts and international law.

Pompeo’s supreme arrogance about America’s presumed exceptional entitlements and superiority are, unfortunately, a sign that Washington is incapable of being a normal state. The real “theocratic tyranny” is in Washington where it has the perverse belief that it has divine right to destroy other nations if they don’t grovel sufficiently at its feet. But those feet are made of the proverbial clay signifying a doomed power, as Iran’s dignity and defiance is revealing.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif is to travel to Beijing, Moscow and then Brussels to discuss how the remaining signatories to the accord can maintain it despite America’s attempt at upending.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel is due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday in the Black Sea city of Sochi where they will emphasize their support for preserving the Iran nuclear deal.

Trump’s illegal withdrawal last week from the 2015 international treaty known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was vehemently reproached by all other signatories – Iran, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, the European Union and the United Nations.

Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA has been repeatedly confirmed by the UN monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency. So Trump’s claims that Iran is secretly building a nuclear weapon – as one of his reasons for breaching the accord – are baseless.

Perhaps one of the most significant consequences of Trump’s action is the damage he appears to have inflicted on the seven-decade-old transatlantic alliance between the US and Europe. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was among several European officials who deplored the unilateral disregard by Washington towards Europe’s interests over the nuclear accord.

The Trump administration’s threats of increasing sanctions on Iran also include secondary sanctions on any other nation doing business with the Islamic Republic. This extra-territorial application of US laws is being viewed as an unacceptable heavy-handed intrusion on the sovereign affairs of other countries.

Since the signing of the JCPOA three years ago and the lifting of erstwhile international sanctions on Iran, European nations have invested in substantial commercial cooperation with Tehran. European companies like German-Franco Airbus, Britain’s Shell, France’s Total and Peugeot, and Germany’s Volkswagen group are just some of the firms that have made multi-billion-dollar commitments in Iran.

Trump is now threatening to scuttle Europe’s vital commercial interests in Iran, as well as jeopardizing its interests of maintaining security in the Middle East, which most observers say the JCPOA was underpinning.

The American president’s boorish dismissal of European concerns over the Iran deal is just the latest in a series of snubs from Washington to its EU allies. Trump’s bullying over NATO spending, his shredding of the Paris Climate Accord and browbeating over trade tariffs have already vexed the Europeans. His attempt at torpedoing the Iran deal and sinking European strategic calculations is perhaps the last straw.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Der Spiegel that Trump has poisoned the transatlantic relationship. He also warned that Berlin would take a tough line on Washington to defend its national interests.

The stakes are therefore dangerously high for the US if, in pursuing its hostile policy towards Iran, Washington ends up alienating Europe.

To that end, it appears that the US and its regional partners, Israel and Saudi Arabia, seem intent on ratcheting up tensions with Iran, stoking conflict and using false-flag provocations to undermine Tehran.

Trump’s sabotage of the Iran deal appears to be coordinated with Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The week before the American withdrawal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made spectacular claims of Iranian secret nuclear-weapons ambitions. Netanyahu’s claims were widely dismissed as grandstanding, but Trump cited those claims in his White House address nixing US adherence to the nuclear deal.

Two days later, Israel claimed that Iran had launched rockets from Syrian territory on Israeli military forces occupying Syria’s Golan Heights. Israel then promptly carried out scores of air strikes on Syria, said to be in “revenge” for the alleged Iranian rocket attack.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia condemned a Houthi missile attack from Yemen on its capital Riyadh as “act of war by Iran”, alleging that Tehran is supplying weapons to the Yemeni rebels.

Then the US announced new sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for what Washington said was “malign behavior” in the region.

For its part, Iran denied carrying out the rocket attack on Israeli positions in the Golan Heights. Tehran condemned Israel for “aggression” on Syria based on “false pretexts”.

There is something of a hall of mirrors here. Israel has carried out as many 100 air strikes on Syria over the past few years, yet Israel is never condemned by Washington, Europe or the UN. Israel is illegally occupying Syrian territory in the Golan Heights since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, yet when its illegal positions are fired on it is Syria or Iran that is condemned.

We don’t know who fired the alleged rockets last Thursday into the Golan. As noted Iran denies any involvement, and Syrian sources said that the fire may have actually been Israeli shelling of the Syrian side. That is, a false flag provocation.

However, is was lamentable that Germany’s Merkel in particular was quick to categorically denounce Iran for the rocket attack.

Merkel and other European leaders are calling for calm in mounting tensions between Iran and Israel. But the EU seems to be mute when it comes to rebuking Israel over what is brazen and repeated aggression towards Syria and Iranian forces legally present in that country.

What appears to be underway is connivance between Washington, Israel and Saudi Arabia to intensify efforts at framing Iran for “malign behavior”.

The connivance takes on greater urgency this week as international signatories to the JCPOA engage in shuttle diplomacy to salvage the accord.

If the Europeans in particular hold strong to their vested strategic interests, the rebound of a salvaged nuclear deal could play very badly on Washington, especially if the Europeans move towards closer cooperation with Russia and China to block American abuse of international finance for its extraterritorial sanctions. In defending their interests, the Europeans will have to, by necessity, create financing and legal mechanisms that will ultimately undermine the US dollar and Washington’s control over international banking.

Regardless of Trump’s stated belief in Netanyahu’s anti-Iran fantasies, Washington probably knows deep down that Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA is in fact irreproachable. That would mean the Europeans and all others having strong incentive to maintain the nuclear deal and make it work.

That then leaves the only other option for sabotaging the deal as inciting conflict with Iran, or provoking Tehran into military action which will suitably be distorted by Western media as “malign behavior”. If that cynical outcome can be achieved then the Europeans will likely withdraw their support for the Iran deal.

There is a real danger that a false flag “atrocity” will be carried out this week by the US and its client regimes in order to incriminate Iran and blow up the international nuclear accord.

The document is signed by Russia, the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany with an authority from the UN to close the nuclear dossier. This year the United Nations Organization turns 70. For many years the most important international body has failed to prove its ability to influence the world events and offer solutions worked out at the round table to prevent the use of force. It has proven this ability now and this is the main result to take notice of.

After ten years of international isolation Iran is back on the international arena. It has avoided a war with the West and its regional allies. Washington will lose its main argument for confrontation with Iran, the European Union and Japan will get rid of American pressure making them refuse fruitful economic ties with the Islamic Republic. Israel and Saudi Arabia have already started to prepare for drastic changes in the Middle East. Syria, Yemen and Iraq stand to benefit from Iran’s newly acquired ability to influence world events using diplomatic leverage. Now what about Russia?

According to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the parties have agreed on a comprehensive plan of action. A draft resolution will be submitted to the United Nations Security Council for approval. The Minister said Russia would take an active part in the process of implementation. The agreement fully meets the foreign policy concept of Russia which considers the relationship with Teheran to be an issue of great importance. This fact has been proven by the Kremlin’s stance during the negotiations.

The deal is the result of hard effort. Tehran considered Russia as the most reliable partner. The relationship was bolstered by nuclear cooperation. The both sides have close views on the Middle East problems. Moscow and Tehran stand up to the US foreign policy aimed at global hegemony. The expectations have been met. Russia played a key role in the process. At the same time it avoided confrontation with the United States. The principles expounded by Russia laid a foundation for the agreement. Moscow softened the tough stand taken by the West at the talks. Iran preserves its right to peaceful nuclear program, including uranium enrichment, in case it is conducted under strict international control. 

The sanctions against Iran will be lifted. The international community recognizes the Iran’s right to implement a nuclear energy program in return for guarantees that the research will not be conducted for military purposes. There will be restrictions but peaceful research will continue. It suits Tehran and Moscow. Some commentators say the deal may have negative consequences for Russia. No longer a rogue state, will Tehran refuse constructive dealing with Moscow? There is no ground to believe it may happen. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said on many occasions he did not trust the United States, no matter if there was a deal or not.

The lifting of sanctions against Iran and the restoration of its economic cooperation with the West does not threaten Russian companies. They conduct activities in the fields where the West has never been a competitor. France is interested in auto production. Germany and Italy will export technology and industrial equipment like they used to do. These sectors of Iranian economy account for no more than 5% of all Russian exports to this country. Russia is to launch the construction of the Bushehr-2 Nuclear Power Plant this year. This is a multi-billion contract. 

The agreement reached in Vienna does away with many hindrances on the way of its implementation. The whole process, including the use of equipment and nuclear fuel, will be monitored by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and fully correspond to regime of non-proliferation. Some experts believe that Iran will become dependent on Western energy majors making it act against the interests of Russia. For instance, in May-June this year Royal Dutch Shell and Italian Eni held talks with Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh over investment in Iran's energy industry in the expectation of a deal to lift international sanctions. Actually, the economic deals were not the main topic on the agenda. The issue in focus was the debt the companies owe to the National Iranian Oil Company for crude oil which they had taken delivery of but were unable to pay for due to sanctions. 

The time has come to get back to business with Iran and foot the bills. Russia has no debts to pay off. The Iranian energy is under government control. The national top leadership has emphasized that it has no trust for European companies that joined the US-imposed sanctions. The return to economic cooperation with Iran will not be a bed of roses for Europe. Russia concluded a number of agreements with Iran in 2014-2015. The sanctions were the only obstacle on the way of their realization. The Iran’s access to SWIFT has already been restored. 

Russia and Iran applied great effort in Vienna to reach an agreement on arms embargo. Some time ago Russian President Vladimir Putin took a decision to deliver S-300 air defense systems to Iran according to previous agreements. Now the ban on arms supplies will be partially lifted. Tehran insisted on the right to supply its regional allies with defensive weapons. The agreement envisions the right to supply arms to other countries so that they could fight extremism and terrorism. Now Iran can openly deliver military aid to Syria, Shia self-defense forces in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen if these activities do not contradict the United Nations Security Council resolutions. 

The US-Iran bargaining was decisive for the whole negotiation process. No matter all the concessions, Tehran managed to defend its position defined by Ayatollah Khamenei who has said that Iran will never refuse its right to conduct peaceful nuclear program. According to him, Iran must be ready to fight enemies. 

President Rouhani addressed the nation. He and his foreign minister Javad Zarif look like winners in the eyes of Iranian people. Two predecessors of Rouhani had taken part in the talks before he took office in the June of 2013. Rouhani promised to counter the US efforts standing in the way of Iran’s economic progress. He and the government he led believed that its prime mission was to restore the economy damaged by sanctions, normalize the relations with the West and put an end to international isolation. The mission has been accomplished.

Now Riyadh is irritated by the fact that personal close relationship with the Prime Minister does not guarantee Pakistan’s participation in the operation against Yemen. The talks about the Pakistan’s role in the military campaign have been dragging on since March 2015. When will Pakistan join and what forces will it assign? With the operation in Yemen launched Saudi Arabia wanted a definite answer. In response Navaz Sharif was engaged in high skill political maneuvering. After making loud and bellicose statements in support of the Operation Decisive Storm he referred the issue to the parliament. The debates have been dragging on for more than a week looking more like a breeze shooting session than talking shop. Pakistani MPs appear to be dragging time in the hope that either Riyadh would abandon its plans to launch a ground operation or Yemeni belligerents would reach a deal. 

A 22-member strong Iranian delegation headed by Foreign Minister Javad Zarif visited Pakistan and discussed the issue on the situation in Yemen without receiving any clarification on the Pakistan’s position related to the Decisive Storm. Riyadh is in the same situation. The Pakistani PM expressed his support for the intervention and said the security of the country which hosts two major Islamic holy sites is of paramount importance. But these words never transformed into deeds. 

Evading saying anything in concrete terms Pakistan took a decision to stay aside keeping away from taking part in real actions. It would make worthless declarations and avoid anything that could influence his successful policy of balancing between Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

The military and political alliance between the kingdom and Pakistan is a unique phenomenon. It’s a process of long duration – something unusual for the countries of the region. In 1967 the partners launched a program of bilateral military cooperation. The relationship has been tested a number of times to prove its effectiveness and durability. 

In 1969 there were skirmishes between South Yemen (the People’s Democratic Republic of South Yemen) and Saudi Arabia for control over Mount Vadiya inside the province of Sharoora in Saudi Arabia. A number of Pakistan army and air force personnel were deputed to Jordan to push the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) led by Yasir Arafat out of the country. The PLO wanted to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty and establish a state of its own. The Pakistani participation was paid for by Saudi Arabia. 

It’s a common knowledge that Saudi Arabia helped Pakistan to go nuclear and offered assistance to counter the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan financially supported and armed Afghan mujahideen.

In December 1982 the Organization of Saudi-Pakistani Armed Forces was founded, headquartered in Riyadh. In addition to training professional personnel and Pakistani military equipment maintenance specialists serving in Saudi Arabia, the agreement included a provision for joint cooperation in the field of defence production and scientific research. Since then about 700-1000 Pakistani security experts are constantly present in the country which hosts the holy sites. Unlike US military companies, Middle East private military contractors act clandestinely keeping their activities away from public eye. They are happy to have Pakistani military, intelligence and special operations veterans on the payroll to make them carry out missions of delicate nature in the interests of Riyadh and the whole “holy alliance” of Persian Gulf monarchies. 

Islamabad is the Saudi Arabia’s third trade partner. The Saudi’s formal financial aid to Pakistan was equal to $1, 5 billion in 2014 not counting the donations of various Pakistani funds allocated for social and economic development. There are over two million Pakistani legal migrant workers in Saudi Arabia as Pakistan has to face financial austerity and unemployment. The money they send home to the families in Pakistan is an important factor to bolster the bilateral relationship. 

There is something else. Since a long time Saudi Arabia has been viewing the Pakistani armed forces as a factor in military planning. The kingdom spends more than 10% of GDP on military, including arms procurement. There are too many weapons systems in the inventory and not enough personnel to man them. Pakistan is relied on to provide skilled manpower in contingencies. 

On April 9, religious Sunni organizations and madrasah students held a large rally in Islamabad to support of the operation conducted by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. 

Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the leader of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa political organization, said if MPs don’t support the Operation Decisive Storm, they will lose the next elections. He said Sharif may forget about the kind attitude he and his family received from Saudi Arabia, but Pakistani people do remember the assistance they got from Riyadh helping Afghan mujahedeen, the Saudi humanitarian help after the earthquake in 2005 and a $1.5 billion grant received from the kingdom. 

Pakistani authorities, the military and secular opposition remain deaf to such arguments. Pragmatism and political realism prevail over the feeling of gratitude and allegiance to the alliance. Islamabad takes into consideration the fact that active participation in Decisive Storm may evoke Beijing’s discontent and irritate Iran. The number of irritants dividing the countries is growing to include the gas issue and border disputes. 

Pakistan has also internal reasons to distance itself from the coalition. The fight against Islamists in the tribal areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (formerly the North-West Frontier Province) escalates to require more money and effort. The deterioration of the situation made Pakistan launch the Operation Khyber-2. No matter the regular armed forces superiority, the rebels made the military retreat from its positions in the Tirah area. 

The fact that 30-40 million (out of 190 million of Pakistani population), or one fifth of Pakistanis, are Shia Muslims is the main reason behind the unwillingness of Islamabad to join Saudi Arabia in Yemen. The fear of opening an old wound by aggravating the contradictions between Sunnis and Shiites outweighs the Saudi promises of increasing investments and credits granted without interest rates. Senator Mushahid Hussain said it would be a folly to send troops to Yemen. Senator Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah said Pakistan should not send troops. “It’s not our war”, he said. The majority of Pakistani politicians said Pakistan was ready to render any support to Saudi Arabia to defend its territorial security, stability and territorial integrity. But they don’t think that the military adventure in Yemen justifies the Pakistan’s involvement. 

In the United States President Obama is called «dangerous and naive dilettante» whose ambitions undermine the national security of the country and its allies. On March 23, 367 House lawmakers signed an open letter to President Barack Obama warning him that any nuclear deal with Tehran will effectively require congressional approval for implementation to prevent any chance of going nuclear. The document is signed by bipartisan majority of House lawmakers exceeding two thirds of votes needed to override a presidential veto, if need be. It means Obama has lost the support of his own party. Democrats are ready to join Republicans in their opposition to lifting the sanctions. The Capitol Hill hopes Iran will find the agreement conditions unacceptable and the negotiation process will be stymied.

The lawmakers are acquainted with the March 20 statement released by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year. He said that sanctions relief must be part of any nuclear agreement. As he put it, "Removal of sanctions is a part of the negotiations and not their result; therefore, as the honorable president (Rouhani) has clearly stated, the sanctions should be removed immediately after the agreement». Referring to remarks from U.S. lawmakers that an agreement could be reversible, the spiritual leader said, «They thought that by the crippling sanctions the people will stage protest against the government, so they engineered the sanctions to divide the people and the government». In his comments on the Obama’s Nowrouz message, Ayatollah Khomenei criticized the US stance on the issue. According to him, Iran does not oppose the idea of agreement but it rejects pressure. He emphasized that, «We will not negotiate with the US on domestic, regional and arms issues at all since the US policy in the region is based on stirring insecurity and confrontation with the regional states». «It is the United States administration that is in dire need of nuclear talks and not Iran», the spiritual leader added.

Indeed, the bilateral relationship is not centered on the nuclear issue only. To great extent the regional stability depends on Iran. It is a leading power in the Middle East. Iran stands up to the threat coming from the Islamic State. It’s impossible to find a solution to the Syria’s crisis without Tehran. For instance, the fate of Iraq greatly depends on Iran. The main threat to the United States military deployed in the region is posed by the rivalry between the Persian Gulf monarchies and Iran. America wants the regional influence of Iran weakened. Actually, that’s what Americans have been doing since the revolution in Iran took place 36 years ago. Israel and Saudi Arabia remain to be the leading regional allies of United States. They represent the main forces opposing the agreement between P5+1 and Tehran. With sanctions lifted and international isolation ended, Iran becomes a regional superpower. The population of Iranians has reached 80 million. The country is rich in minerals. Iran is a leading regional economy and military power. It can rapidly leave the regional competitors far behind. The nuclear program has no direct relation to it. Iran does not want to go nuclear. The nuclear program is important because Iran believes that the peaceful use of nuclear energy is an inalienable legitimate right of all sovereign States. All the differences with the international community should be resolved at the round table. Technical parameters should be in focus. The priority should be given to assessments of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN agency in charge of nuclear inspections, not intelligence reports submitted by the Central Intelligence Agency or Mossad, the national intelligence agency of Israel. 

Americans assumed the leading role at the nuclear talks pushing the International Atomic Energy Agency to the sidelines. Routine checks of Iranian nuclear facilities are not conducted anymore, the opinion of the organization’s experts is not taken into account as the negotiations between P5+1 and Iran proceed. The tough opposition to the nuclear deal in US Congress made Obama remember the International Atomic Energy Agency existed. The 2015 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference took place March 23 and 24, 2015 in Washington, DC. It brought together over 800 experts and officials from more than 45 countries and international organizations to discuss emerging trends in nuclear nonproliferation, disarmament, deterrence, and nuclear energy. Yukiya Amano, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, addressed the conference saying his organization is unable to ensure that all of Iran’s nuclear material is intended for peaceful purpose. «We are still not in a position to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is [for a] peaceful purpose,» he told the participants. «Progress has been very limited in clarifying issues with possible military dimensions». According to him, the organization could not provide evidence of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program. If the head of International Atomic Energy Agency cannot do it, then who can? US Congress? 

The West European members of the «big six» interpret the position of the Agency differently. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond talks about «Certain points are yet to be resolved». France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius says that his country wants an agreement over Iran's nuclear program that was sufficiently robust to guarantee that Tehran could not acquire an atomic bomb. "France wants an agreement, but a robust one that really guarantees that Iran can have access to civilian nuclear power, but not the atomic bomb," Fabius told Europe 1 radio on March 21. The both ministers say they don’t want a «bad deal». After meeting with his British, French and US opposite numbers on March 21, Federal Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier issued a statement that reads, «We are not talking about a choice between a good and a bad agreement. What we need from the negotiations is a reasonable outcome which prevents Iran from gaining access to nuclear weapons technology comprehensively, durably and verifiably». 

Iran has already agreed to submit its program to monitoring. The International Atomic Energy Agency is to exercise the control without changing the Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Iran has given its consent. What else is needed to provide evidence? Now the Agency is to do its routine job. The results should be taken into consideration by international community, first of all by the United States of America, France, Israel and Saudi Arabia, the states that oppose an agreement so strongly.