01/19/16 – Gareth Porter – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
All right, y'all, welcome back.
Gareth Porter wrote the book Manufactured Crisis, the truth behind the Iran nuclear scare, where he just debunked every last accusation against it.
Not because he's a pro-Iran partisan, just because all the accusations were lies.
That's pretty easy.
It's a really great book.
I do hope you'll read it.
It will go down in history, definitive on this issue, as definitive on this issue.
I'm starting to talk like a Fox News anchor.
I watch too much.
Will Iran nuclear deal?
I'm starting to talk like a Middle East Eye headline writer.
Will Iran nuclear deal change U.S.'s Middle East politics?
Welcome back to the show, Gareth.
How are you?
Thanks very much, Scott.
I'm glad to be back, and I'm fine.
Good.
Forgot to put my earphones on.
Now they're on.
All right, now, so, okay, let me ask you this, article writer.
What changed in American politics that made them decide to pass this nuclear deal in the first place?
Because it seems like the obvious answer to your question is, no, it's not going to change.
America's allies are the axis of Saudi and Israel in the region, not Iran.
And, you know, it would be a huge change to turn that around.
What are they going to do, turn right around and start treating the Ayatollah like he's our pet, the Shah, or something like that?
That's never going to happen.
And so why in the world did they even do this deal with Iran?
Because it wasn't just Obama did the deal.
It was some major portion of the American national security state and establishment, but also just establishment, decided that now is the time, at least for this nuclear deal, if not some other major change.
So why?
What gives?
Well, it's a very it's a very appropriate question and one that I certainly agree has not been answered in the in the news media or or the literature thus far.
And I think the answer is pretty clear that this was not the agreement that was originally envisioned by the Obama administration when it came in.
You know, yes, they were going to use diplomacy eventually, but only after they had softened up the Iranians with basically a combination of various kinds of threats and pressures so that that Iran would then be willing to make the concessions that were politically desired by the Obama administration.
And, of course, mainly and overwhelmingly important was the concession to give up the whole idea of enriching uranium.
I mean, that was that was the whole point of of Iran's of Obama's Iran diplomacy.
It was to get the Iranians to give on the question of its enrichment program.
So so it was never supposed to be a kind of of equal agreement whereby Iran limited its nuclear program, but clearly was not going to give it up, whereas the United States would lift sanctions.
It was supposed to be a clear demonstration of the of the power of the United States in world affairs and particularly power over Iran.
Yeah, but it turned into this whole other thing where America is at least half ass bringing them in from the cold.
Right.
On a Qaddafi 2003 type level, at least.
No, it did turn into that.
And I'm and I'm getting to the point.
Sorry.
Which is important because I think people need to understand that that this was not simply something that Obama decided out of the goodness of his heart or because he suddenly became an Iran lover or became, you know, soft on Iran or whatever.
Contrary to that idea, what actually happened was that that the whole, you know, pressure on Iran strategy, this this coercive diplomacy strategy, as I've called it, failed, failed abysmally.
It was a it was an utter failure.
What happened instead of Iran giving way to these pressures was that Iran built up its nuclear program, built up the number of centrifuges enormously from the time Obama took office and began to even go beyond the three point five percent enriched enrichment of uranium.
The sort of minimal level of of enrichment of uranium that it had stuck to up to 2000 2010 and began to enrich uranium, as you know, well, at the level of about 20 percent.
And then this, of course, all this fed into a very severe political diplomatic problem for the Obama administration, because then it was under pressure, intense pressure from the Israelis particularly to do something about it.
Well, what are you going to do about this?
You know, and of course, we both know and I think all of your listeners know that what the Israelis really wanted was a military confrontation between the United States and Iran.
And they actually had high hopes of being able to accomplish that at some point after 2011.
But but of course, what actually happened was that Obama was not ready to go to war with Iran.
And so instead, he had to come to terms because he had a very severe political problem on his hands.
And so I think that's really the the simple answer to a very big and difficult question, an important question.
Well, and after all, it should very much be stated here and never take it for granted to go without saying an argument like this, that they have conceded a lot.
And as you said all along, hey, they're building up their 20 percent so that they can negotiate it away.
They're building up calm so that they can negotiate it away in exchange for normalization to a degree.
And that's really the thing I'm trying to get to here, too, is that this isn't just a nuclear deal.
It's at least a half assed peace deal with Iran here.
No.
Well, it is a peace deal with Iran in effect.
You know, I am not saying that that was the intent by Obama to begin with, that what he really wanted above all else was peace with Iran.
I mean, in the sense of peace going beyond not having to fight a war with Iran, he didn't want to fight a war with Iran, but he was not trying to reach a detente with Iran, which is in the same vein as detente with the Chinese.
For example, during the Nixon administration.
So so I think his his view was not to go to war, but to exercise the power the United States had through its threat of military action through the threat of Israeli military action.
Even more than that, the cyber threat, the attack on Natanz and then ultimately in 2012.
Let's not forget that in 2012 there was another round of attacks, not on on Natanz, but on the oil and gas industry.
This this is not as nearly as well known, not very well known at all.
And then, of course, the the the pressure from the threat and ultimately the actual implementation of what they expected to be crippling sanctions, sanctions that would force the Iranians to the table.
So, I mean, this is it's terribly important for people to understand just how much of a diplomatic defeat this was for for Obama.
And also, as you just put it, that that what the Iranians were doing in rapidly building up their the number of centrifuges that they were producing, building and putting, you know, putting in place in their facilities was not to try to rush for a nuclear weapon, but but simply to put diplomatic pressure on the United States.
And it was very effective.
And by the way, I mean, I've made the point I've made the point, Scott, that that the Obama administration knew perfectly well that that's what the Iranians were doing, that it was, in fact, a ploy to to put diplomatic pressure to to have diplomatic negotiating chips with the United States and a form of political pressure on the Obama administration.
And so so it was, in that sense, a more complicated game that was going on.
OK, now, on the other side of this break, we're going to get to just how much of a victory it was for the Iranians, even as it was a defeat for the American position.
It's the great Gareth Porter writing at MiddleEastEye.net.
Hey, all Scott here.
If you're like me, you need coffee, lots of it.
You probably prefer taste good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee Company at Darren'sCoffee.com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world.
All specialty premium grade with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darren'sCoffee.com.
Use promo code Scott and get free shipping.
Darren'sCoffee.com.
Hey, y'all, guess what?
You can now order transcripts of any interview I've done for the incredibly reasonable price of two and a half bucks each.
Listen, finding a good transcriptionist is near impossible, but I've got one now.
Just go to ScottHorton.org slash transcripts, enter the name and date of the interview you want written up, click the PayPal button, and I'll have it in your email in 72 hours, max.
You don't need a PayPal account to do this.
Man, I'm really going to have to learn how to talk more good.
That's ScottHorton.org slash transcripts.
All right, y'all, welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, Scott Horton Show.
Gareth Porter patiently hanging on the line as usual.
Will Iran nuclear deal change U.S.'s Middle East politics?
And that's really what I want to get to here now, Gareth.
I'm sure I probably was overstating it here.
Oh, for people catching up on the news, they've implemented the deal.
They've implemented the deal.
The Iranians have already abided by all of it, scaling back their everything and expanding all the inspections and everything they had to do, closing the PMD file and everything they had to do to get the sanctions lifted.
And now the West has lifted the sanctions, like in the deal.
And so here we are.
But so I think I was probably, because I was being positive and optimistic about something, I'm sure I was wrong.
I was probably overstating just maybe how much of a deal this really is.
I mean, as we've talked about for years, Gareth, this is the nuclear issue.
It doesn't matter that it's a fake manufactured crisis.
What matters is that it's a nuclear weapons crisis.
And it has been this huge, fake, outstanding issue, outstanding enough to prevent any kind of real rapprochement between America and Iran this whole time.
But so is the opposite the case, then, that will now, without this gigantic fake issue to disrupt everything, that now things can begin to get back to normal?
Or is it no, just a nuclear deal and the status quo is going to basically reign?
It's the latter, Scott.
I mean, unfortunately, I mean, you know, one would think that logically this kind of enormously high profile international agreement between the United States and Iran, of course, you know, there are others involved.
But essentially, it was a it was a negotiation between those two parties that that would, in fact, change the face of the relationship between the two between the two countries.
And indeed, even have huge impact on the politics of the Middle East.
But, you know, the evidence to the contrary is simply overwhelming.
And I would point to something that I didn't even cover in my article because it has happened essentially since I wrote it, since I submitted the article last week.
And that is that the within 24 hours of the lifting of the sanctions under the JCPOA implementation on implementation day, the United States, the Obama administration imposed new sanctions in the form of what they call designations of 11 Iranian Iranians or Iranian entities for their connection with the Iranian ballistic missile program.
Now, you know, that is in and of itself, of course, a gesture of hostility toward Iran.
And, you know, I mention it simply because it underlines the enormous weight, the enormous burden of the past that lies on U.S. policy toward Iran.
It has been now well over three decades since the U.S. basically adopted a hostile policy toward Iran.
And in the meantime, over those three decades, you know, the the ways in which the hostility toward Iran has been embedded in American domestic politics, law and policy are simply enormous.
I mean, it's the too many ways in which that has happened to even begin to try to summarize them.
But, you know, we all know about the way in which the Clinton administration began the whole phenomenon of imposing economic sanctions on Iran beginning in 1994, 95.
And that has continued and simply continued to grow over the intervening years.
And of course, the Israeli lobby was behind that and continues to quarterback every change that takes place through its minions in Congress.
And that constitutes an enormous obstacle to any change in U.S. policy.
And that's that's just the beginning of of the numerous ways in which U.S. policy is freighted with all of these relics of the past.
But then these relics of the past are constantly being renewed and transformed and strengthened.
And now, you know, I've talked about this on your show and in my articles, you know, the the U.S. military and the Pentagon have enormous stakes in maintaining a relationship of, you know, an adversary relationship with Iran because it is the rationale for so many important programs, including arms sales to the Saudis and other Gulf shakedowns.
Based on the idea that that Iran is a threat to them, as well as anti-missile systems that are being sold to the region and the big kahuna, if you will, the the idea of an anti-missile system in the United States on the U.S. mainland, which is largely justified these days and has been for a long time by the alleged threat of ballistic missiles to the United States itself.
And so therefore, the other story that I didn't talk about in my article, which I'm going to write about now, my next article is going to be about how the U.S. has really imposed these sanctions, not on the grounds that that the ballistic missile test in last October was for for nuclear weapons or capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
They're not even saying that anymore.
What they're saying now is that Iran should not have and cannot have, as far as we're concerned, a ballistic missile program.
So how much more fundamental can hostility between one country and another country be than for the bigger power to say to the smaller country, you cannot have the most fundamental defensive measures that are possible for you and the one thing that could deter a foreign attack on you?
And now, isn't it right, Garrett, that the the U.N. resolutions that say you can't have these missiles are based on the faux scandal over the fake smoking laptop, the Israeli Ford smoking laptop about how they were trying to prepare obsolete missiles they don't even have anymore for delivering nuclear warheads that they never were making?
Yes, of course.
I mean, the premise of that 2010 United Nations resolution that was going to be the the basis for, you know, more designations against Iranians was indeed that that the Iranians had a nuclear weapons program and you can never tell.
Maybe they still have one.
But that has been overtaken by events now because that U.N. resolution no longer exists.
It ceased to exist on implementation day.
So what did they do?
They turned around.
The Obama administration turned around and came out with new designations based on an entirely different rationale.
And, you know, it's so I'm sorry.
I thought that they had claimed that they were just enforcing the U.N. resolutions here.
Well, you know that I was just about to say that news media reports have, in fact, suggested that they've suggested an unnamed official has has said that.
But Obama, in his remarks the day before yesterday on implementation day and about all these recent events, did not say that.
On the contrary, he very, very strongly implied that this move to impose more sanctions against these individuals was was simply because we are opposed.
We're going to continue to oppose Iran's troublemaking in the region and their ballistic missile program.
So it's very clear that they are harking back to a position that they were taking all along, which was that Iran cannot have a ballistic missile program.
This is verboten by the United States and its allies.
It's an absurd position to take from every point of view.
We don't have the power to enforce it.
We don't have any way of enforcing it.
And at the same time, we have no right to maintain that position.
It's just an insult.
So to prevent a good day from staying good.
It's politically good for the administration to deal with the Israelis and the Saudis and the Republicans.
So, you know, it works for them.
All right.
I'm sorry.
I have to mention this.
And it is something that we've been talking about for nine years in a row on this show.
You and me.
America has been fighting a war for Iran in Iraq since 2003 for 13 years.
We've been doing the Ayatollah's bidding in Iraq.
And to this day, we got Marines on the ground right now killing people in Ramadi for the greater glory of the Shiite revolution.
And then and then we got the entire American War Party crying their eyes out all day long, like a little girl who lost their dolly over the slightest Iranian anything.
And we still have absolutely no recognition of this in any discussion of Middle East policy whatsoever.
Well, I'm not sure if you if you actually mean, Scott, that you believe that they're doing this for the Iranians.
I don't think you do.
Well, not deliberately because they love the Ayatollah, but they certainly are his ridiculous little tools.
No doubt about that.
You could make that you could make that argument in the case of the of the 2003 invasion.
I mean, I'd be perfectly prepared to say that that's a perfectly reasonable way to characterize the U.S. policy at that point.
But it's not it's not the same today.
I mean, you know, after all, the the reason they're doing that is that that ISIS suddenly became this huge, you know, massive political military movement in Iraq.
And, you know, they had already, you know, basically staked out the whole notion that the United States is is not going to allow Qaeda to gain such such a foothold anywhere.
And so, again, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you.
I think that the real reason here, the reasoning is that they have to do this simply because it's expected of them because they have pledged they're going to do something about terrorism.
Well, I'm not talking about the reasoning.
No, no, no.
Of course, the reasoning.
Don't misunderstand me, anybody.
The reasoning is never, boy, we love obeying the Ayatollah Khomeini or Sistani or anything like that.
It's just that everything they do is, at least in Iraq, is fighting on the same side as Soleimani and the IRGC has been since 03.
When did it stop?
I guess they took a pause there for a minute.
But it's on the same side.
But, I mean, again, I think the fundamental point is that it's all about domestic politics from beginning to end.
It's not about Iran at all.
It's about domestic politics that that is certainly the case with the Obama administration.
Yeah.
Oh, I understand that.
I'm not again.
I'm not saying that anyone making policy in the U.S. is putting Iran first in their wishes or anything like that.
I'm just saying the idea that they're going to sit here and cry their crocodile tears about Iran all day long when it's the American empire that has done the most.
And I'm not talking about the Iran deal.
I'm talking about the Iraq and for that matter, the Afghan wars has done the most to secure and enhance Iran's power and interests in the Middle East.
At the very same time, it's kind of intolerable to me.
You know what I mean?
Somebody has to smack all of these people and say you're the one who keeps doing the Ayatollah's bidding.
So how come you're the same ones crying about him?
Just as we have been the ones who have done the most to promote al-Qaeda in the in the Middle East.
I mean, of course, it's the same principle, isn't it?
Right.
We use that.
We use that constantly as a whipping boy to to get more.
We meaning the the U.S. national security state uses that threat from al-Qaeda to to get more resources.
And at the same time, they continue to do everything that helps the al-Qaeda and now the Islamic State to to gain more to gain more popularity, more ground.
Yep.
Great.
So, hey, guess what?
I'm warning you now that you're going to have to read my book before I submit it to the publisher.
I started I finished the proposal yesterday, so it's going to be a little while, but I'm going to I'm going to need a checkmark from Gareth before I.
Well, congratulations on on getting the manuscript done.
It turned out once I was not the manuscript, but just the proposal.
But the proposal, but it includes, you know, 14 chapter summaries.
And I realize that this is easy.
I can finish this.
You know, the only hard part was where to shut up and move on in the in the summaries.
You know, I assume you're going to write a very popular book.
Yeah, we'll see.
We'll see how that goes.
But I'm going to make sure that you make sure it's right before I go show it to anybody else.
All right.
Well, thanks so much for your time again, Gareth.
You're the best man.
Thanks, Scott.
Thanks, Scott.
Bye bye.
All right, y'all.
That's a great Gareth Porter, because this is the Scott Horton show.
MiddleEastEye.net.
Will Iran nuclear deal change U.S.'s Middle East politics?
Hey, y'all.
Scott here.
The thing is, I need you guys to help me to get these download numbers up.
So do me a favor and sign up for the podcast feeds of this show.
You can choose the whole show or just the interviews at iTunes and Stitcher.
All the buttons you need are at the top of the right margin at ScottHorton.org.
The more subscribers I have, the more iTunes and Stitcher will help promote the show to new listeners.
If you're a hardcore fan, brand new or from way back, please leave them customer ratings and reviews, too.
Trying to get these wars ended.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for NPV Engineering.
This isn't for all of you, but for high-end contractors specializing in industrial construction and end users who own and operate industrial equipment.
NPV offers licensed professional consulting on chemical and mechanical engineering for your projects.
Tanks, pressure vessels, piping, heat exchangers, HVAC equipment, chemical reactors for oil companies or manufacturing facilities, as well as project management support and troubleshooting for those implementing designs.
NPV will get your industrial project up and running.
Head over to NPVEngineering.com.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself.
WallStreetWindow.com