1992: Congress passes the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, which prohibits the transfer of controlled goods or technology that might contribute “knowingly and materially” to Iran’s proliferation of advanced conventional weapons.
Dr. Paul R. Pillar: “The Extraordinary and Well-Known Role of Israel in American Politics Explains This Inconsistency”
"What’s the best way to deal with Iran? The nuclear agreement Trump ditched. "From Friends to Foes: How Israel and Iran Turned Into Arch-enemies "TRUMP APPROVES STRIKES ON IRAN, BUT THEN ABRUPTLY PULLS BACK"""
May 27 ,2018
BY Mohsen Abdelmoumen
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: In your book Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, you have criticized the reform of US intelligence services. Can you tell us why?
Dr. Paul R. Pillar: Following the 9/11 terrorist attack, there was a huge public appetite for "doing something" that would assure Americans that a horrible event like that would not happen again. Such assurance seems to require the notion of an identifiable, fixable problem that, once fixed, will mean Americans will now be safe. And when we don't have better ideas for a fix, the usual Washington response is to reorganize. Such was the popular and political mood in the years right after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission responded to that mood with a reorganization scheme, involving moving around boxes on the intelligence community's organization chart, that supposedly would improve counterterrorism. The main result was instead just to move boxes on the organization chart. All of this rests on misunderstanding or misrepresentation both of the sources of terrorism and the capabilities of intelligence.
As an intelligence specialist, do you consider that there has been a strategic failure of intelligence management in the United States, especially after 9/11?
Management issues have rarely been the main cause of intelligence failures. Such issues do little to explain either successes or failures of intelligence. It is inevitable to have some such failures no matter how the relevant part of the bureaucracy is organized. That inevitability stems from the nature of the intelligence target and the intelligence task, not from anything having to do with intelligence management.
What is the view of the CIA veteran that you are about the evolution of these services and do not you think that the appointment of Gina Haspel at the head of the CIA is a political error on the part of the administration Trump?
It appears that Ms. Haspel will win confirmation in the Senate. If so, the White House probably will conclude that it did not make any political error at all. As director, Ms. Haspel is unlikely to have a high public profile, and the controversy surrounding her nomination probably will fade quickly. The most unfortunate thing about her confirmation process is how the issue of past interrogation techniques overwhelmed attention to just about everything else. There will be no more torture over the next several years, whether Ms. Haspel becomes director or not, so that's not what was at stake. The really important issues regarding the conduct of the CIA director during the next couple of years will instead involve the problem of how to run an intelligence service under a president who shows no respect for the truth.
In your view, should not the CIA become an intelligence service like any other and cease to be a state in the state?
The CIA is not a state within a state, or anything close to one. Even in the one area where that agency departs from its focus on the core mission of collection and analyzing intelligence--the area known as covert action--it operates, by law, solely under the direction and supervision of the political authorities and specifically the president.
Your book Why America Misunderstands the world: National Experience and roots of Misperception explains that Americans are struggling to understand the world. Do not you think that all the wars that the US has provoked are only the consequences of this misunderstanding of the world?
They certainly are not provoked only by that, but the misunderstandings are important contributors. Just to cite one example, World War II was such a formative experience that Americans tend to think all wars in which they engage will follow a similar model in having a clear division between good guys and bad guys, and in having a clear ending that involves total victory for the U.S. side. But as we have discovered to our chagrin, many wars in which the United States has become engaged do not have those characteristics.
In your opinion, does the American people have any interest in all the wars their leaders are waging around the world?
American public opinion can operate in different ways at different levels when it comes to foreign wars. Americans like to think of themselves as peace-loving people who will resort to war only for very strong reasons. They also tire of war after conflicts that are long and not terribly successful, such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. But they can quickly become agitated and militant about particular adversaries, especially if there are politicians stirring the pot. We have seen some of these conflicting tendencies with Donald Trump and how he plays to the crowd. He won many votes in 2016 by portraying himself as less likely than his opponent to become mired in Middle East wars. But today he is stoking hatred against Iran and stirring up the public in a way that would support a war against Iran.
What is your analysis of the rapprochement between Trump and Kim Jong-un?
We should wish those leaders well and hope that they find some formula that eases tensions on the Korean peninsula. I am pessimistic about any breakthroughs being achieved. The Trump administration has set expectations so high regarding denuclearization that it is hard to see how the Kim regime could meet those expectations. North Korea is not about to give up its nuclear deterrent short of sweeping changes in its political and security environment that probably go well beyond anything that the Trump people are planning or even thinking about.
In your article The Bolton-Pompeo Package, you have criticized John Bolton, the National Security Advisor. Do not you think John Bolton is a very dangerous character?
He is dangerous in terms of his substantive views, in that he has never met a war he didn't like. He still thinks even the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea, despite the immense costs and instability it engendered. He also is a danger in terms of process--especially important given his current job--in that he tries to brush away or bully away the truth when it does not fit with his preferences.
In your article The terrorism Label, you mentioned Israel's tradition of terrorist attacks abroad while it is Iran, Cuba, Hamas, etc. that are on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In your opinion, why can no one say that Israel is a sponsor of terrorism?
The extraordinary and well-known role of Israel in American politics explains this inconsistency, as well as many other double standards in which Israeli policies are not held to account in the same way the policies of other states would be.
Do not you think that the Trump Administration's decision to transfer the US embassy to Jerusalem is a risky adventure that will further destabilize the Middle East?
Nothing good can come from that move, even it would be hard to distinguish some of the effects from the effects of everything else that contributes to instability in the Middle East. Trump's decision kills whatever slim remaining hope there otherwise would have been that the United States could operate as a credible mediator in seeking resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I mentioned the American-Saudi relations with Bruce Riedel .. https://ahtribune.com/politics/1275-bruce-riedel.html .. , former CIA and president Obama's security adviser. The heir to the Saudi throne, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, confessed that Saudi Arabia had spread Wahhabism, which is the matrix of terrorism. How do you explain that the United States is the ally of the main genitor of terrorism?
Although U.S.-Saudi cooperation is longstanding and dates back to Franklin Roosevelt and Ibn Saud during World War II, the current relationship is best explained in terms of the Trump administration's rigid division of the world into friends and foes and how increasingly narrow the circle of friends has become. In the Middle East, the administration's approach seems to be defined almost totally in terms of hostility to Iran. Saudi Arabia gets the favorable treatment seen now, despite the issue of its export of extremism, because it is a local rival of Iran.
Do you not think that the exit of the Iranian nuclear agreement is a strategic error of the Trump administration?
This is one of the biggest strategic errors Trump has made so far. The agreement was a major advance on behalf of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. It has successfully done exactly what it was intended to do, which is to close all possible pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon. If Trump's move leads, despite the current efforts of the other parties to the agreement, to death of the accord, then that means Iran would be free to ramp up its nuclear activities and we would be back where we were before negotiations began. Even if a version of the agreement without the U.S. survives, Trump's move has other damaging effects. It has caused severe damage to relations between the United States and Europe, to the point of escalating to economic warfare. It has discredited pragmatists and strengthened hardliners in Iran. It has destroyed U.S. credibility with Iran and killed any prospect for a follow-on agreement, on nuclear matters or anything else, with Tehran. It has increased tensions and the risk of a new war in the Middle East.
Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen
Who is Paul R. Pillar?
Dr. Paul R. Pillar was a nonresident senior fellow in the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, and is a nonresident senior fellow of the Center for Security Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a contributing editor at The National Interest.
He retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community, in which his last position was national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia. Earlier he served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units at the CIA covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. Dr. Pillar also served in the National Intelligence Council as one of the original members of its Analytic Group. He has been executive assistant to the CIA's Deputy Director for Intelligence and Executive Assistant to Director of Central Intelligence William Webster. He has also headed the Assessments and Information Group of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, and from 1997 to 1999 was deputy chief of the center. He was a federal executive fellow at the Brookings Institution from 1999 to 2000. Dr. Pillar was a visiting professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University from 2005 to 2012.
Dr. Pillar received an A.B. summa cum laude from Dartmouth College, a B.Phil. from Oxford University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is a retired officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and served on active duty in 1971-1973, including a tour of duty in Vietnam. He is the author of "Negotiating Peace: War Termination as a Bargaining Process" (Princeton University Press, 1983); "Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Brookings Institution Press, 2001; second edition 2003); and "Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform" (Columbia University Press, 2011).
He writes a blog at nationalinterest.org.
Dr. Pillar’s writing chiefly addresses Middle Eastern and South Asia affairs, U.S. foreign and security policy and the policy-making process, counterterrorism, and intelligence. He is a frequent guest in broadcast discussions on programs such as the PBS NewsHour, The Diane Rehm Show, and To The Point. He also has given testimony as an expert witness in congressional hearings, including those of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Armed Services Committee. He currently is working on a book on the historical, cultural, and political roots of American perceptions of the world abroad.
Donald Trump withdrew from a multi-lateral agreement we made Iran, and last month literally threatened any of our allies that didn't back him. (Kim Jong Un is presumably exempt I would guess) P - He is literally trying to starve them to death. P - He is trying to provoke hostile action on their part. I would not be surprised at all if it were them. (I also wouldn't be surprised if it were the Saudis or Mossad). P - I can tell you if it were me he was trying to starve to death, you wouldn't need to wonder. P - But here's a question. No one's attacked a US vessel, or shed a drop of American blood. Who are we planning to go to war for? And why? https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149415521
Iraqi Shiite figures warn US-Iran war could ‘burn’ Iraq
"What’s the best way to deal with Iran? The nuclear agreement Trump ditched.[/i]"
By BASSEM MROUE and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRAMay 21, 2019
[...]
The office of Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of a coalition of Shiite paramilitary forces backed by both Baghdad and Tehran, released a statement calling on Iraqis to work together “to keep Iraq and the region away from war.”
“If war breaks out ... it will burn everyone,” al-Amiri warned.
Analysis /Experts: Natanz Explosion Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by More Than a Year
"What’s the best way to deal with Iran? The nuclear agreement Trump ditched. "From Friends to Foes: How Israel and Iran Turned Into Arch-enemies "TRUMP APPROVES STRIKES ON IRAN, BUT THEN ABRUPTLY PULLS BACK" " "
Yesterday i heard an expert say he didn't believe Iran was interested in building a nuclear bomb (we've been told that by many others for years), and that any work which suggests they are is just for show. He also said he believed the inspection regime set by Obama's Iran Deal was working very well. That deal is, of course, just one of the deals Trump has withdrawn from, and hopefully will be reentered into by Biden.
Middle East News | Iran
It's unclear if the explosion and other incidents that occurred in Iran over the past week were connected, but there is pressure mounting on Iran to respond. In the meantime, Israel is keeping quiet on whether it was responsible
IMAGE A building after it was damaged by a fire, at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility some 200 miles (322 kilometers) south of the capital Tehran, Iran, July 2, 2020. Credit: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran via AP
Amos Harel Published on 08.07.2020
Simon Henderson is a veteran researcher, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In an article he published on Monday in The Hill, he says: “It looks as though a ‘nuclear war’ of sorts has started in the Middle East.” Many people, Henderson writes, say that Israel was behind the explosion at the Iranian centrifuge plant in Natanz on Thursday. Satellite photos of the site show that the facility was mostly destroyed in the blast.
Between 2009 and 2013, a debate raged among top-level policy and security officials in Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke in favor of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. But Netanyahu, who acted for most of that time with the support of his defense minister, Ehud Barak, encountered wall-to-wall opposition from Israeli security officials.
IMAGE Satellite image from Planet Labs Inc. annotated by experts shows a damaged building after a fire and explosion at Iran's Natanz nuclear site, , July 3, 2020. Credit: Planet Labs Inc., James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Middlebury Institute of International Studies via AP
The controversy focused on the model of action – a “loud” aerial strike that Israel could not deny. Senior Israel Defense Force, Mossad and Shin Bet security service officials feared that an assault would only delay the nuclear program for a relatively short time, and could become complicated and lead to war with Iran and Hezbollah. This would in turn severely affect the Israeli home front, and would lead to an unbridgeable rift with the Obama administration. We know how this ended: Netanyahu backed down and the assault was shelved. In 2015, President Barack Obama led the signing of an agreement with Iran .. https://www.haaretz.com/misc/tags/TAG-iran-nuclear-deal-1.5598931 .. to freeze its nuclear program.
Today there is a different president in the White House. If Henderson and others are right, then Israel, obviously with the knowledge and backing of the United States, has found a roundabout solution to the problem in light of Iran’s renewed progress with its nuclear program. Instead of an aerial assault with a low signature, there was a mysterious explosion occurred, and the chain of command behind it is not entirely clear.
The damage is the same, but the price might be much lower. This is certainly not the end of the nuclear program, which is intentionally spread over many sites, some of which are deep underground. But a main artery may have been hit.
the explosion in Natanz was not the result of a cyberattack, but a bomb that was smuggled into the facility. Whoever was operating there scored a triple achievement: Good timing (before the advanced centrifuges were brought to a protected underground facility), excellent intelligence and rare operational capability. This requires impressively deep infrastructure.
Only two and a half years ago Israel made a rare announcement of an achievement parallel in character: The theft of the Iranian nuclear archive in a complex Mossad operation.
The explosion in Natanz was the key event in a series of explosions and fires that occurred in Iran over the course of a week, a mysterious series of incidents in which, according to reports, a missile production facility, a clinic, a factory and a power station were hit in various and distant points within the country. Israel did not officially respond to any of the reports. Netanyahu ignored a question on the matter at a press conference on Thursday. Defense Minister Benny Gantz said that Israel was not necessarily behind every incident in the region.
IMAGE An unidentified International Atomic Energy Agency inspector at the Natanz facility, south of Tehran, January 20, 2014 Credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS
The impression is that there is not necessarily a connection between all the incidents or a common source of responsibility for them. But the resounding nature of their sequence is exerting pressure on Iran to respond. In any case, Iran is in tough straits: The sanctions led by the Trump administration have paralyzed the economy, and the coronavirus and the oil crisis have devastated it. And Tehran still has not managed to respond to the American assassination of Revolutionary Guard chief General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in January.
At the end of last week, the former head of Military Intelligence, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, mentioned possible Iranian responses, including cyberattacks.
In the fall of 2019, Iran demonstrated impressive capability of its own when it launched sophisticated attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities with cruise missiles and drones. But these are apparently weapons that need to be moved closer to Israel in order for them to be used as threats. It may be assumed that Israeli intelligence is following any such movement to prepare accordingly.
Until a week ago people were intensely preoccupied with the possibility that Netanyahu might lead an annexation of West Bank territory, which would ramp up tensions in the region. Now it seems that annexation has gone into deep freeze, but the regional temperature only continues to rise. This is happening because of the tension between Israel and Iran, with an unprecedented economic crisis in Lebanon in the background.
Hezbollah is under huge public pressure there. Military friction with Israel seems like the last thing that Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah needs or wants, but one can’t always foresee the direction of developments.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
