Are the U.S. and Iran careening toward war? - Yonah Jeremy Bob -
A series of events this week has increased the tension and saber-rattling between the US and Iran. Will both sides back down?
What seemed like a series of low-tension events this week has led to more formal signs of escalation between the US and Iran, which could be a prelude to a sudden deterioration into war.
US National Security Advisor John Bolton has said Iran was "almost certainly" behind the attack of four US-allied oil tankers on May 12. Next, a rocket was fired near the US Embassy in Baghdad on May 19 and Houthi rebels from Yemen escalated attacks on Saudi Arabia.
What followed was: June 14 mortar attacks on Balad Air Base in Iraq; a June 17 rocket attack against a camo in Iraq where US forces are stationed; a June 18 in Mosul; and a June 19 attack on oil facilities in the Basra area.
So will there be war?
The Jerusalem Post has been regularly evaluating the issue, with access to top Israeli and US current and former officials, including US Iran czar Brian Hook, US State Department counterterrorism official Nathan Sales, IDF intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Tamir Heiman and ex-Mossad and IDF general Amnon Sofrin.
In some ways, predicting that the outcome will end up being war would make a lot of sense.
There are hard-liners (or - as Wendy Sherman, a former top Obama administration Iran negotiator dubbed them on Wednesday in a New Yorker interview - "hard-hard-liners") in both the US and Iran who are spoiling for war, now that the nuclear standoff is reaching the later innings of the game.
Some of the recent moves each country has made have made war and the possibility of minor skirmishes escalating more likely. The latest act, Iran's shooting down of a US drone, may have upped the ante to an all new level and lead to a harsher US response.
But in some ways, predicting that the outcome will end up being war would make no sense. It seems apparent that neither US President Donald Trump nor Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei actually want war.
They are both very much in charge and have both made several recent moves that showed restraint to avoid escalation. So if they do not want war, logic would dictate that there will not end up being a war.
One problem is that both leaders are instinctively proud and risk-takers who are willing to go to the brink in any standoff just to try to get the other side to blink.
A related problem is that both leaders have set processes in motion which are designed to multiply tension on an increasing basis unless something dramatic intervenes. So if neither side blinks and no third party has an innovative compromise idea, the natural result would be gradual deterioration into conflict.
Having been afraid of Trump for some time, the Islamic Republic has been tossing pie in the US president's face repeatedly now for weeks and is convinced, from the fact that he has uncharacteristically turned the other cheek, that he will eventually back down.
The metaphorical pie has been the alleged multiple rounds of Iranian attacks on US assets or allies, especially as related to the oil market.
Though some Western analysts do not want to publicly jump to conclusions lest they give Trump a pretext for war, when Sherman and US Democrat House Intelligence Committee chief Adam Schiff, as well as England and some German officials, confirm Tehran's involvement, the only real question is how to understand the Islamic Republic's actions.
Assuming Iran carried out the most recent naval attacks, it means that it intentionally attacked a Japanese vessel, while Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was visiting so he could help achieve a diplomatic compromise.
Wow.
And Iran thought that because doing so was such a crazy idea, it would then succeed in denying its involvement by pointing out how crazy it would be to do such a thing. (Or at least the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps thought so, if you accept the theory that sometimes Iran's actions are not part of a unanimous strategy.)
Double wow.
This is where the most hard-core Iran hawks in the US return to the point that Iran is a completely irrational messianic theocracy, and that regime change (read: using force) is the only solution.
Sherman would say that it is a partially irrational messianic theocracy, but that, paradoxically, some top Iranian leaders can still be reasoned with in a limited context.
She has suggested that if Trump puts something on the table, a compromise could be reached.
Presumably, this compromise would involve at least partial sanctions relief.
In some ways, this might not be hard for Trump. He has introduced partial tariff relief in every one of his trade wars.
Maybe he could do so now and claim victory, since Iran's oil imports have been eviscerated and its funding of terrorism in the region has been cut back. He could also say the sanctions relief is temporary, for 90 days or some other set period, in order to reach a bigger deal, with the option of snapping back sanctions if there is no deal.
But then he loses his momentum, and Trump likes his momentum. Also, Trump cannot cut a final deal and remove sanctions permanently, unless the Islamic Republic deals him something new.
The US has asked for: extending the nuclear restrictions; freezing ballistic missile tests; reducing Iranian terrorism in the region; wider International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, to include military facilities; and greater limits on advanced centrifuge research.
Could it live with one or two of those items being added to the deal, without getting some of the rest? Which one or two?
Or maybe a compromise deal is a smaller kick-the-can-down-the-road kind of agreement.
One of the signs that time for diplomacy is running out is that the European Union is finally doing something. England, France and Germany are making a unified loud push to get Iran not to breach the 300 kilogram enriched uranium limit on June 27, as it said it would this past Monday.
Rumors are flying around that after 13 months of stalling, the EU may finally make a significant transaction with Tehran through its INSTEX vehicle to avoid US sanctions.
Will that be enough for Khamenei to claim victory and back off of the June 27 and July 7 deadlines he set for Europe to help out?
Will the US take the gift, sigh in relief that it did not need to directly make a concession and look the other way?
Inject into all of this a significant decision about Iran's finances and access to international banking, which is coming this Friday from the Financial Action Task Force, a powerful intergovernmental organization which leads global efforts to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.
Will the FATF finally penalize Iran for an extended three-year failure to fully complete the checklist it was assigned to carry out to come into compliance with banking industry standards to avoid criminal transactions? Or will FATF give Tehran more time, as it has before?
Some more context is needed. Israel joined the FATF in December. Add that to the fact that the current FATF presidency is held by the US, with Friday's meeting and announcement in Orlando, and there had been raised anticipation that this past February's meeting or this Friday's meeting would lead to a heavier crackdown on Iran.
FATF'S mixed message that came out in February meant that Tehran was not yet under increased pressure, but it gave Iran a June ultimatum which was more specific and threatening than the typically mild-sounding statements that the organization tends to put out a few times a year.
Since the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, FATF has generally given the Islamic Republic more breathing space, taking its cue from its EU members who are still trying to hold the deal together despite US opposition.
Given this context, does increased Israeli and US influence and the ultimatum about June make a FATF crackdown on Iran finally more likely? Or will concerns about the Islamic Republic's June 27 and July 7 deadlines lead the FATF to back off again at the last second, under pressure from its EU members?
Incidentally, if the FATF does back off, it will be a clear indication that the EU members will do everything they can to avoid having to confront Iran, even if Khamenei orders more extreme violations of the 2015 nuclear deal on June 27 and July 7.
Those are some scenarios of finding a compromise.
THE GOING-TO-WAR perspective is much more straightforward.
Former Israeli national security chief and major-general Yaakov Amidror has essentially said that the US is getting smacked around and simply needs to decide whether it will punch back or back down. He prefers to punch back and views the region already as being in a state of war.
He is also not worried about Israel being drawn in, believing that Israeli deterrence of its neighbors is far stronger than US deterrence, because the neighbors view the Jewish state as a chronic overreactor.
If the US leans into this perspective, all it needs to do is to fire back at the next Iranian act of aggression, possibly with US Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's idea of eliminating aspects of Iran's navy or some of its oil refineries.
A bigger escalation would be a targeted strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Any of these acts would likely either quickly lead to a broader war or lead to Tehran suddenly backing off.
There is an ongoing debate about whether such an attack would put Iran back months or up to a few years, but no one says that a onetime attack would end the nuclear threat.
So it seems that even if there is a military conflict, eventually there will need to be a deal.
Whether the US and Iran think that deal will be better or worse than what they can get without military conflict will likely determine whether there will be war.
Iran is dragging the Middle East into a dangerous standoff - By Yaakov Lappin - https://www.jns.org/iran-is-dragging-the-middle-east-into-a-dangerous-standoff/
Tehran has been threatening its Arab neighbors, the international oil market and Israel as it attempts to squeeze out of the choke-hold of U.S. sanctions.
In recent weeks, Iran and its proxies have begun operating under a new directive best described as a policy of controlled escalation. Still, the potential for miscalculation and region-wide conflict has grown considerably.
Responding to the choke-hold of U.S. sanctions put in place by the Trump administration, Tehran, together with its non-state militias and terrorist entities, initiated a series of aggressive acts throughout the Middle East.
These include the targeting of oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman with mines by a naval Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) squad, and last month, the targeting of oil tankers docked at a United Arab Emirates' port in the Strait of Hormuz.
Such attacks are a clear threat, aimed at showing off Iran's ability to disrupt international oil-shipping traffic. In addition, IRGC forces fired a missile at a U.S. intelligence drone. Meanwhile, Iranian proxy militias in Iraq and Syria were likely behind the firing of rockets recently at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and at Israel's Golan Heights.
In addition, the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen launched cruise-missile and explosive drone attacks against sensitive targets in Saudi Arabia, hitting airports and oil facilities.
Behind all of the actions is a single message. If U.S. sanctions continue to damage the Iranian economy, the Islamic Republic is prepared to wreak havoc in response. Iran is demonstrating its ability to threaten oil exports by Washington's Arab allies. It is effectively holding the global oil market hostage, in addition to implicitly threatening to step up attacks on Israel.
According to a Hebrew-language report published on Sunday by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Iran has used terror factions in Gaza to send threatening messages in response to its standoff with America.
Examples include speeches delivered by Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar and Palestinian Islamic Jihad secretary-general Ziad Al-Nakhleh. Both released threatening statements outlining what the next conflict with Israel would look like and boasted about growing rocket arsenals at their disposals. Both terrorist leaders praised Iranian support for their respective organizations.
Sinwar and Al-Nakhleh delivered their speeches in a manner designed to line up with Iran's Quds Day, held on the last Friday of Ramadan, in which the regime in Tehran organizes rallies to call for Israel's destruction.
MEMRI interpreted the speeches by Sinwar and Al-Nakhleh as "a threatening message from Iran, via its proxies, against the U.S. and its allies, after the failure of indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. over the Iranian nuclear program." The statements echoed similar statements that came out of Iran itself on Quds Day, in what looks to be a coordinated influence campaign.
Planning to increase uranium enrichment
The Iranians are not rushing into war and are aware of America's superior military might. The Iranians have also tasted Israel's advanced capabilities in the form of large numbers of precision airstrikes in Syria that have destroyed many of their assets.
Instead, Iran wishes to frighten the international community, divide it and intimidate Europe into finding ways for protection from American sanctions.
The European Union has already tried (and failed) to set up a special financial mechanism to allow companies to bypass the sanctions; however, the threat of U.S. penalties has been overwhelming, and this effort failed.
European countries still have time to defend Iran from American sanctions, but they must act immediately, the spokesman for Iran's nuclear agency, Behrouz Kamalvandi, warned on Monday. His statement is an indication of Iran's short-term end game. Iran has given Europe until July 7 to do this.
After that, more severe Iranian violations of the nuclear agreement should be expected.
A longer-term objective for Iran seems to rest on waiting to see whether U.S. President Trump is re-elected in 2020 before taking any truly irreversible decisions.
In the meantime, the Iranians are preparing the option of leaving the nuclear agreement and restarting its nuclear program.
On Monday, Iran warned that it could begin enriching uranium to 20 percent, significantly higher than the 3 percent it is allowed under the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal. Tehran also increased the rate of uranium enrichment and stopped shipping excess uranium abroad, as it is obligated to do.
Between the lines, Iran's warning seems stark. If a strained economy causes instability at home, the Islamic Republic could prefer plunging the region into war in order to save itself, and in doing so rally Iranians around the flag. The calculation behind such a move is that the Iranian regime would likely survive a U.S. air campaign, despite the massive damage it would incur. But it might not survive an uprising at home.
This, then, is Iran's response to the massive economic pressure it is under. After America cancelled waivers to countries that import Iranian oil, Tehran took the decision to embark on a policy of controlled escalation.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC seem to be controlling Iran's posture, rather than the reformist camp and President Hassan Rouhani. The reformist camp's proposal to rescue the Iranian economy from sanctions and isolation by signing a nuclear deal with the international community in 2015 has been discredited in the eyes of Khamenei and the IRGC.
As tensions in the Persian Gulf rise, they also project outwards, to other areas of the Middle East. Iran controls powerful, heavily armed proxies, and it could activate any number of them as part of a new escalation.
Israel, for its part, has made it clear that it will not tolerate a situation in which Iran restarts its nuclear program.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said should that happen, the international community will have to immediately activate snap-back sanctions, and "in any case, Israel will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons."
The prophetic implications of Iran's aggression - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
Last week, two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman and Iran is thought to be the culprit. This has prompted President Donald Trump to send an additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East and put American military resources in the area on even higher alert. Meanwhile, Iran is using the tanker incident as a propaganda tool to gin up its population against America, by saying it destroyed the tankers and drowned everyone aboard them. In addition, Iran is contemplating pulling out of the nuclear accord that the previous US president gave them billions in cash on pallets for its participation. It hasn't adhered to the agreement anyway. These events may have serious prophetic implications toward the end times.
In the end of days, Iran will need to be in submission to Gog of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (all in Turkey), for the fulfillment of the Ezekiel 38 prophecy of Gog leading a coalition of Persia (Iran), Libya; and Ethiopia (Sudan) against Israel. When we see Iran being brought into such a coalition with Turkey and these prophetic nations aligning against Israel, we know this time is near. One question is how Iran, which competes for supremacy in the region with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, comes into submission to the end time beast figure, Gog, emanating from Turkey. There are several scenarios that could be played out based on the current situation.
Iran is conducting a proxy war in Syria. Major terrorist actors are involved such as Hamas, Hezbollah, what's left of the Islamic State, and several lessor groups. Major end time players also are involved-Turkey, Iran, Syria-in addition to the United States and Russia. It is a complex cluster of competing interests, ultimately aimed at Iran trying to control the region and positioning to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth (Iran's stated intentions). Now Iran is not only fighting in Syria, but also thumping the US on the chest in a dangerous multinational chess match over supremacy. We know through prophecy, however, that Iran must come into league with Turkey for the end time battle led by Gog.
We understand a few things about these prophecies. Isaiah 17:1 says, "Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." Verse 17:7 says, "At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel." Phrases like "at that day" in the context of end time prophecy usually refers to the Day of the Lord. We see a similar verse in the chapter explaining the Gog of Magog attack on Israel. Ezekiel 38:23 says, "Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord." The rumblings in Iran, especially with so many end time nations impacted, likely accelerates the prophecy clock. Watch and pray.
US, Iran tensions tangling with prophecy - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The New York Times, which has a proven track record these days of distorting the facts, is reporting that the Trump Administration called off a retaliatory attack against Iran for shooting down a $140 million US drone in international airspace. Apparently, the attacks were to target Iranian radar and missile stations, but were called off in their early stages. The Times reports, "Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security advisor; and Gina Haspel, the CIA director, had favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region."
AFP took a more analytical approach to the Times report, "The US president had struck a combative tone in his public comments before rowing back. "Iran made a very big mistake!" he tweeted in response to news Iran had shot down the Global Hawk surveillance aircraft. "This country will not stand for it, that I can tell you," he said later at the White House. But as the pre-dawn incident whipped up fears of open conflict between the United States and its declared foe Iran -- sending crude oil prices soaring -- Trump moved swiftly to dial back tensions. "I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth," Trump said. "I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it." The president's mixed message left the world unsure what Washington's next move would be." Oil prices eased thereafter.
The Middle East is a hotbed to say the least. Iran's vassal state Syria is a war zone of many opposing forces, including terrorists, Russians, Americans, Turks, Syrians, Iranians, Israelis and probably others we haven't heard about. The powder keg left by the previous administration there was one of the remnants of the Arab Spring Muslim Brotherhood attempted takeover of the entire region for a revived Islamic caliphate. From a prophetic standpoint, this all bears watching and praying. The US and Iran tangling in a war could ignite a series of prophetic events leading to Biblical proportions, laying the ground work for perhaps the rise of the end time king as prophesied in Daniel, the beast/antichrist.
Keep in the mind the end-time chronology given by Christ in Matthew 24. In verses 4-8, he says, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that you be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." While we have seen types and shadows of these beginnings, we have not arrived in these times as yet. A major confrontation, such as the one reported by the Times, with one or more of the nations mentioned in prophecy may be a catalyst. Then again, the New York Times is a proven vehicle of deception.
THIS IS NOT SPAM...CHECK OUT MY BUSINESS.... THIS IS AMAZING!!!
I RELAX EVERY NIGHT WITH ESSENTIAL OILS. GO TO WWW.YOUNGLIVING.COM. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, CONTACT ME VIA THIS EMAIL, AND I WILL GIVE MORE DETAILS. I PROMISE YOU THAT YOU WILL ENJOY THIS AS MUCH AS I DO. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.... CONTACT INFO:
TERRY SEEMAN - DISTRIBUTOR # 16084320
TERRY SEEMAN - DISTRIBUTOR # 16084320
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.