Americans are overwhelmingly polarized over ongoing presidential election campaigns. The choice is going to be between Donald Trump – an oligarch accused of disregarding the interests of minorities, and Hillary Clinton – an utterly disgraced public servant too unqualified and incompetent to even serve at the lowest possible grade in the US State Department. But, between the two, one has already clearly […]
Various US Republican candidates have threatened to ignore or even stop the Iran deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – signed with Iran if they become President.
Whatever they may say, the so-called deep state in the US has already committed itself to the deal with Iran. That means the entrenched political-military bureaucrats who truly determine US “national security” policy have already made up their minds. The people at the Pentagon support the deal with Iran and the people at Langley support the deal with Iran.
Considering this above fact, it is likely that any promise to break the Iran deal cannot be kept by GOP candidates if they actually succeed in becoming President. Even the US President can’t discipline the deep state, as Obama knows all to well considering his failure to end the Afghanistan War or close Guantanamo. The deep state does what it wants, it is the real regime.
I would consider the GOP candidates saying they would tear up the Iran deal, warmongers. They appeal to war to make themselves look tough in front of the public. This is quite different from hawks, however, which is probably a term they would prefer over the former.
A hawk differs from a warmonger in that a hawk at least tends to know what he’s doing, and does not fly into a wall. Warmongers on the other hand are fundamentally irrational and cannot tell the difference between a policy that would produce victory and one that would produce mass suicide and defeat. When not privy to the right amount of classified information and briefed by generals, someone with a fetish for military solutions is automatically a warmonger, not a hawk.
Some, such as Senator John McCain, are in an adequate position to be hawks, but are simply too stupid to actually read or understand the intelligence files on their desk. They are too busy thinking about what a “war hero” they might have been. Too busy thinking of ways to act out Rambo movies to bother reading anything of merit. Despite the fact he has access to classified intelligence of the kind I can only dream of, John McCain’s suggestions about how the US should beat Russia in Syria fail to observe basic information that is already in the public domain. An example of McCain’s classified unintelligence is as follows.
Syrian rebels already have many “Stinger” missiles and have found them ineffective against the Syrian Air Force, but McCain urged giving such missiles to Syrian rebels (in response to their less specific air defence request) as if it would be a game-changer against the Russians. All this can prove is that McCain is an idiot. Whether he is an exceptional American politician in this regard depends on who he is being compared with. It is clear that someone such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are intellectual giants in the pantheon of US politics compared to McCain, who is equal only to Sarah Palin.
But supposing the warmongers of the campaign trail come to power and defeat the hawks of the deep state against all odds? If idiocy prevails over expertise, and the goal to stop the Iran deal is achieved, what then?
The Republican view at this time seems to be that the Iran deal was signed bilaterally between the US and Iran, rather than between six world powers (five of which don’t answer to the US or its President) and Iran. Even worse, they view the deal as being signed by President Obama against the interests of the US, which is tantamount to saying the deal is illegitimate.
In the view of the international community, for the US to disregard to the JCPOA would mean that the US has violated the deal signed with five world powers (three of which are its allies) and Iran. It would reduce the US to the rogue state disobeying the international community and acting capriciously, and any ensuing efforts by the US against Iran would be met by America’s European allies with silence, disgust and refusal to cooperate.
Of course, such a disgrace would not be unprecedented for the US, if we remember the global shame it was prepared to endure through its aggression against Iraq in 2003. If there is one good thing about Barack Obama, it is that he would not repeat that disaster on his watch, and he would have no kind words for any future President who would.