Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Iran threatened [last] Wednesday to enrich its uranium stockpile closer to weapons-grade levels in 60 days if world powers fail to negotiate new terms for its 2015 nuclear deal, raising regional tensions as a U.S. aircraft carrier and bombers headed to the Middle East to confront Tehran.” AP News
The left worries the strategy of ‘maximum pressure’ is not working, and about the risk of escalating tensions leading to armed conflict.
“There can be little doubt that the administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ policy is inflicting considerable economic harm on Iran… To date, however, there is no sign that either Iran’s regional policies are shifting or its leaders are willing to come back to the negotiating table and submit to the Trump administration’s demands. Nor is there any hint that economic hardship has triggered popular unrest of a magnitude that would threaten the regime’s survival…
“The one thing Tehran would find more intolerable than the crushing impact of sanctions is raising the white flag because of them… [The US should step] back from maximalist demands, and [use] sanctions as a scalpel, not a chainsaw.”
Ali Vaez, The Atlantic
Some are asking, “Can Europe save the Iran deal?... Europe could take small but symbolically important steps to signal to the Iranians that it is committed to maintaining the nuclear deal [without running afoul of US sanctions]… It won’t be easy to walk this thin line, but the stakes are high: If the deal falls through, it will increase the risk of American military action to curb Iran’s nuclear program.”
Ariane Tabatabai, New York Times
Others point out that “attempts by some European Union countries over the past year to circumvent renewed American sanctions have come to nothing. The commercial reality is that they cannot protect energy companies, banks and other businesses seeking to trade with Iran from Washington’s punitive secondary sanctions… The idea that the Europeans will ride to the rescue… [is] far-fetched.”
Simon Tisdall, The Guardian
Regarding the deployment of an aircraft carrier and bombers, many note that the US “has a long history of provoking, instigating, or launching wars based on dubious, flimsy, or manufactured threats… The most egregious case was the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003, which was based on bad intelligence that Baghdad had active weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. The repercussions are still playing out sixteen years (and more than four thousand American deaths) later… The sense of foreboding is tangible.”
Robin Wright, The New Yorker
Trump's “goal, it seems, is to put so much pressure on Tehran that it has no choice but to completely change its behavior — but he could end up leading the countries to the brink of war in the process… Now is typically the time when cooler heads prevail, but it’s unclear if there are cooler heads around… It’s hard to overstate how avoidable this situation was.”
Alex Ward, Vox
The right is not worried about Iran’s withdrawal from the deal, arguing that it was ineffective from the beginning.
The right is not worried about Iran’s withdrawal from the deal, arguing that it was ineffective from the beginning.
“Rouhani’s threats to partially withdraw from the JCPOA will have a negligible effect on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons because the agreement is so weak. The nuclear deal already allows Iran to pursue nuclear-weapons-related activities, permitting it to enrich uranium with 5,000 centrifuge machines while the agreement is in effect. Its inspection provisions are likewise very weak and Iran has violated them by not permitting inspections of military sites. Iran also has refused to fully account for its past nuclear-weapons work…
“Iran’s recent threats and alleged plans to attack U.S. interests reflect the success of President Trump’s maximum-pressure strategy on Iran. U.S. sanctions have isolated Iran and deprived its ruling mullahs of funds to spend on the military, terrorism, and meddling in regional disputes.”
Fred Fleitz, National Review
Dated but relevant: “The agreement was always nothing more than a giant Band-Aid over Iran’s obvious nuclear weapons aspirations – freezing those ambitions for roughly 10 years, but never truly solving the problem…
“[Moreover] while Iran’s nuclear aspirations were at least frozen for a decade under the deal, it faced no restrictions on having an entire decade to research, develop and test ever-more advanced missiles – missiles that could someday carry a nuclear warhead. In the last few years, Iran has tested various new ballistic and cruise missiles, each demonstrating growing leaps in technological sophistication and accuracy… Trump killing [the] deeply flawed Iran deal [was] the right move.”
Harry J. Kazianis, Fox News
“Anyone who suggests that Iran and its proxies don’t constitute a threat to US interests and its allies simply haven’t been paying attention for the last 40 years. That doesn’t mean that war is the inevitable answer, but it should mean that preparing for conflict and ensuring that Iran understands the consequences are at least reasonable responses.”
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
Minority View: “The U.S. went back on its promises of sanctions relief to Iran, and has embarked on a much more aggressive economic war in pursuit of maximalist goals that amount to regime change in all but name. Sanctions cannot provide leverage over the targeted regime if that regime believes it has nothing to gain from complying with our government’s demands. If a regime is being told that it will be strangled now or strangled later, its leaders may decide that they will take their chances and try to outlast the administration that is trying to strangle them.”
Daniel Larison, The American Conservative
New robot will keep plants alive by throwing 'tantrums' when it needs water.
WSET
