08/18/15 Gareth Porter: the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Hey, Al Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
And if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and they do it well.
They're fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
All right, guys, welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
ScottHorton.org is where I keep all the archives.
Here live, noon to two, Eastern Time, 11 to 1 Texas time on Liberty Radio Network, libertyradionetwork.com.
All right, next up, it's our friend Gareth Porter.
Hi, Scott, I'm fine.
Thanks for having me again.
I'm very happy to have you here.
So you wrote a thing, and that's why I wanted you to come on the show so you could talk about the thing that you wrote, Don't Expect Much Change in Post-Vienna U.S. Middle East Policy by Gareth Porter.
I'm not so sure if I mind that because change could be for the worse anyway.
But let's see.
You go through quite a few different statements by the president recently, beginning with his big speech at American University in favor of the deal, analyzing what it is that Obama says and doesn't say about the future of America's relationship with Iran.
So go ahead.
Right.
And you know, I mean, a lot of people in Washington, this is the premise of my piece, Scott.
A lot of people in Washington who are not who are strong supporters of this agreement, you know, would like to think that Obama is going to once this is safely approved by Congress and he doesn't have to follow the script that is written essentially by the Israeli lobby and by the Saudis, that he can then and will begin to talk like a rational head of state and talk about what needs to be done to reduce these conflicts and knock heads together diplomatically, so to speak.
So my piece is really looking at the evidence and saying, well, no, I'm sorry, the evidence really doesn't show any sign that this is about to happen in a couple of months, two or three months, if this agreement, as we all hope, does in fact go through.
And on the contrary, his words starting, as you correctly began the question with the speech at American University, seems to suggest the absence of any clear cut conception of any role the United States might play after the Vienna agreement.
And the American University speech, I thought, was particularly telling, because, you know, if you're going to ever say anything that's going to be suggesting the intention of playing a role as peacemaker of changing the direction of U.S. policy in the Middle East, then certainly, you know, the 52nd, I guess it was, anniversary of or was the 53rd anniversary of the American University speech by JFK would be the time to do it.
But as I read that speech, I find absolutely nothing suggesting that he has any thought of acting in the spirit of JFK's American University speech and its general central notion that it's time to move from confrontation to a negotiation with the main foe, that that's going to be applied to the Middle East.
And on the contrary, it seems to me all that he did was to say, you know, we're going to be better off with this agreement than we would be without it.
It was entirely devoted to defending the agreement, per se, and not a word of it really went beyond that.
Yeah.
Well, then again, maybe it's just never mind comparisons to the USSR back when or whatever in this current climate, trying to, you know, mix any other issues with the nuclear deal is a deal killer.
And so let's just deal with this and then we'll worry about, you know, the fact that we're fighting for Iran in Iraq again, still this whole time anyway, whether we're working with them directly or not.
Right.
Like what?
Who cares whether Odierno actually has Soleimani on the phone?
You know, our government is at their service.
Well, I think I think that's correct.
And you're the key point that you made, I think, was to to emphasize that, you know, it's the climate, it's the political climate that determines what Obama is is able and willing to say about regional politics and policy in the Middle East.
And that political climate is so much more decisively right wing today than it was in 1963.
I think I would argue that that that does, in fact, impose very tight constraints on what we can expect reasonably from President Obama.
And I know I wasn't around, but really, as far as I look, I mean, I'm not I'm not suggesting that it was a liberal climate in 1963 by any means.
And let's bear in mind that maybe just a little bit more grounded in actual facts rather than pure propaganda like, you know, the war party now.
Well, I mean, you know, one can one can say that there are a lot of parallels between 1963 and today in the sense that Kennedy felt it necessary to subvert his own administration's policy toward Vietnam, for example, as I document in my book about how the United States went to war in Vietnam.
Right.
So.
So that definitely is a parallel.
But but I think that the present constraints go even farther than that.
All right.
Well, hold it right there, Gareth.
We got to take this thing break and then we'll be back.
It's Gareth Porter.
Check him out at original that antiwar dot com slash Porter.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's Fascism versus Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton at Audible dot com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty from medieval history to the Ron Paul Revolution.
Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan fascism versus capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes or just click in the right margin of my Web site at Scott Horton dot org.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Gareth Porter.
We're talking about what all the Iran deal really means in terms of the rest of America's relationship with the Middle East.
And my thing is, Gareth is I don't really want the U.S. to get along better with Iran other than just to stop threatening them with aggressive warfare all the time.
Stay within the NPT and we're cool.
And in fact, even then they got the right to withdraw from the NPT.
What the hell do I care?
I want America to just completely bought out.
And I'm afraid that if we do start, we if the U.S. government does start getting along better with their government, that means fighting for, you know, the the Da'at Party, the Supreme Islamic Council and the Bata Brigade, just like before, again, more.
And in fact, probably in a way that would just make the problem with the Islamic State worse if everything we do just plays directly into their narrative, that it's the Americans, the Shiites and the Jewish Israelis lined up against them.
And that they're the American Christian, you know, North American crusaders and whatever.
And if all our government is doing is proving that they're right about us, according, you know, in the way they frame it in their rhetoric, then doesn't that just make them more powerful?
And if Iran wants to fight the Islamic State, shouldn't we just put the hell out rather than work with them on such a project?
Well, you know, frankly, I don't differ with you very much with regard to the issue of within Iraq of the U.S. cooperating militarily to defeat to defeat ISIS.
I think that is that is a dangerous notion, dangerous situation.
But I would just point out that the Middle East also involves Syria and Yemen and Lebanon.
And that, in fact, what we're talking about here is a region wide situation where the Saudis are on a rampage.
They have a Sunni coalition of states that is in one fashion or another sort of going along with, if not actively, as in the case of Yemen, militarily participating in a war that is wrecking that country and, you know, carrying out a humanitarian disaster of massive proportions.
So, I mean, I think we're talking here about a situation in the Middle East which, you know, demands a diplomacy that does not have to do with military cooperation at all, but rather is the opposite.
It has to do with the United States playing the role of saying, look, Iran and Saudi Arabia, it's time to cut out the bullshit or the expression and sit down and get this done, have an understanding that is going to end these conflicts.
And that means, you know, leaning on the Saudis very heavily.
So, you know, it's necessary really to stop the demonization of Iran.
That's the minimum requirement for this kind of policy to emerge.
And what I'm suggesting in my article, although I don't go into it in detail, is that the rhetoric that we're getting from Obama is really still moving in the opposite direction.
It's still moving in the direction of the demonization of Iran.
And so that's really the problem that we face.
You know, some people might read, as I suggest in the article, some of the ambiguous, extremely ambiguous or impossible to penetrate rhetoric in a couple of the interviews where he says, well, you know, if everybody in the region were to shape up and realize that their main problem is chaos and ISIL, that would be great.
And we should we should welcome that, which is, you know, I'm not exactly sure what that means.
I don't think it means anything.
One might optimistically read that as meaning that he's really intending to play that role diplomatically once he's free and clear of the danger of losing the vote in Congress.
I doubt that because of the weight that he gives to continuing the demonization theme.
There's simply no let up on that.
You know, his main argument in defending the agreement is that, you know, we're better off in a region where the Iranians are continuing their their misbehavior without nuclear weapons.
And that that has become the primary argument now to to for him to combat the attack on the agreement from from AIPAC and its friends.
It's certainly a very dangerous game to play there, buying into the war party's narrative 90 percent, but then with a different conclusion.
That's why we ought to do it my way.
You know, it's this or war rather than it's this or, you know, hopefully they'll still remain within their safeguards agreement in the NPT.
And then and maybe we could work out a better agreement later someday or something, you know.
The other angle that I want to mention is that without a shift in the diplomatic posture of the United States toward the region and particularly toward Iran and Saudi Arabia, the United States is still going to be defending whatever the Saudis do, whatever the Saudis clients do in order to make sure that we can hold on to our military bases.
In other words, the tight linkage here between the the fealty, if you will, to the Saudi line in the Middle East on one hand and the interests of the national security state and making sure that we're going to hold on to those bases throughout the region, which are all in the Sunni, Sunni Arab states, which in one way or another are affiliated with or associated with the Saudi strategy.
That is going to continue.
Yeah.
Hey, by the way, and I'm sorry, because I don't think you've written about this or anything and I don't know whether you know, but I hope you do.
The last good thing that I read about America's role in the Yemen war was in The Wall Street Journal like six weeks ago or something saying more or less that, yeah, America's running the thing.
It's it's our they don't say our planes and ships, but they say it's our spies picking the targets and our officers are the the command and control.
They're the the air traffic control for the the the Saudi coalition, which does include a lot of different countries have sent bombers to go and help them in their war over there.
But can you tell me to what degree Obama owns that war?
The U.S. the D.O.
D. owns that war over there?
Absolutely.
There's no question about it.
This has become not an American war per se, but but a war that the United States is up to its neck involved in and supports has said nothing up to now has not said one word to indicate that it frowns upon is worried about or intends to pull the plug on this terrible war that the Saudis are waging in Yemen.
So I think that that is a is part of the price that Obama is prepared to pay to maintain the close alliance with the Saudis.
And you know, that's really where the rubber hits the road.
Is he going to be willing to put distance, real distance between himself and the Saudis in order to have an independent diplomatic posture in the region?
So far, no sign of it.
Yeah.
And by the way, here it is.
It's in The Washington Post today.
And parts of Yemen rebels have lost control.
No one else has it yet.
Yeah.
Huh.
Al Qaeda.
Right.
Right.
Exactly.
I mean, there's no question.
Al Qaeda is taking advantage.
Nobody's really doubting that.
Nobody's expressing this.
I mean, you can read it.
We right here.
All right.
Thanks for your time.
Got to go.
Thanks, Gareth Porter.
Everybody.
Manufacture Crisis is the book.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, Scott.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
You 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's coffee dot 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's coffee dot com.
Use promo code Scott and get free shipping.
Darren's coffee dot com.
Don't you get sick of the Israel lobby trying to get us into more wars in the Middle East or always abusing Palestinians with your tax dollars?
It once seemed like the lobby would always have full spectrum dominance on the foreign policy discussion in D.C.
But those days are over.
The council for the national interest is the America lobby standing up and pushing back against the Israel lobby's undue influence on Capitol Hill.
Go show some support at council for the national interest dot org.
That's council for the national interest dot org.
I love Bitcoin, but there's just something incredibly satisfying about having real fine silver in your pocket.
That's why commodity disks are so neat.
They're one ounce rounds of fine silver with a QR code on the back.
Just grab your smartphone's QR reader, scan the coin, and you'll instantly get the silver spot price in federal reserve notes and Bitcoin.
And if you donate 100 bucks to the Scott Horton show, he'll send you one.
Learn more at Facebook dot com slash commodity disks.
Commodity disks dot com.