The Iran Nuclear Deal – All In Vain?

                   by David Parmer / Tokyo

The above photo shows then Secretary of State John Kerry addressing reporters on July 14, 2015 in Vienna and announcing that, after years of arduous negotiations, an agreement had been reached between the West and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program. This agreement officially knows as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has since become to be known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”  

Certification for the JCPOA is due on May 12, 2018, and Donald Trump may decide to pull the U.S. out of the deal. Trump has been attacking the agreement since he was running for the presidency in 2015. In his typical “you wait and see” manner he has not said clearly what he will do, but all signs and hints indicate that he will not certify the agreement this time.

Trump has his allies on this including his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The shared narrative is that this is a bad deal, and that it must be fixed or re-negotiated and several unrelated issues (such as Iran’s missile program and Iran’s behavior in its region and in Syria) must be added on to the agreement. One more “requirement” to a new deal would be the inspection of Iran’s military bases.

Iran’s answer to this call for re-negotiation is a firm and unequivocal “no.” In an interview with US network NPR, on April 24, 2018 Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said:

“I believe Europe has said that they are not prepared to renegotiate this agreement and I think it’s very prudent, because anybody who participated in the negotiation of this deal would tell you that opening this package would be tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box, and we’ll never be able to close it.”

The question now is whether there is any “plan B” possible or available to the parties to the agreement. The “Europeans” mean France, Germany, Great Britain, and the EU. Other parties are China, Russia, Iran, and the USA. If the US pulls out of the agreement where does that leave everyone else? There seem to be a couple possible scenarios.

1) The Europeans and Russia and China continue to move forward without the US and the JCPOA continues without the US. Pulling out of the deal would mean that the US would re-impose sanctions in order to get Iran to the table regarding its missile program and its support of its clients in Yemen and Syria. It is doubtful that Iran would be in any mood to negotiate these issues or to change its position in any way.

2) Iran could pull out of the deal completely. No compromise with the Russians, Chinese or Europeans. A unilateral (actually bi-lateral) withdrawal. And while Iran has repeatedly stated that it has no intention to build nuclear weapons, this might just push them over the edge. They might find themselves in the same mental space as the North Koreans: surrounded by enemies intent on destroying them, the only answer is to produce and maintain nuclear weapons.

In either of these two scenarios, the Trump-Israel-Saudi coalition might just decide to act preemptively by attacking Iran to effect regime change. They might start by bombing or attacking Iran’s nuclear sites to “prevent” Iran from getting a bomb to put on their missiles. This would inflame the Middle East, lead to war, and have a massive negative effect on the world economy.

Whatever happens regarding the May 12 certification will not be good. The best case scenario would be for the US to sign on again for another period, but this is not likely to happen as Trump has staked his credibility with his followers on either getting what he wants (impossible) or pulling the US out of the agreement.

A cynic might say that since Trump won’t get his war in Korea, he will have to settle for Iran. Let us hope that such is not the case.

Iran FM Zarif’s interview on NPR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo: U.S. Department of State via flickr

Indian PM Narendra Modi To Head To China Again

                  by David Parmer / Tokyo

This week India’s PM, Narendra Modi heads to China for a fourth times since 2014. On April 27-28 Mr. Modi will meet with China’s President Xi Jinping in the cities of Wuhan, Hubei Province for an “informal summit.” While improved relations with one’s neighbors is a good thing, generally speaking, expectations seem to be fairly modest for this Modi-Xi meeting.

Items on the agenda include re-opening a route to Tibet’s sacred Mt. Kalish and information sharing on hydrological data relating to the Brahmaputra and Sutlej rivers. The other stated aim of the meeting is to reduce any lingering tensions from last year’s 73-day Doklan/Donglang standoff along their border.

The real purpose for the “summit” seems to be obscure. What exactly does each side expect to gain, or what message do they want to send to the world? Maybe Mr. Xi, who seems to view things in the long term as well as the short term, sees it in China’s long-term interest to have better relations with India.

China has always been stronger in its border confrontations with India, that is obvious. On the other side of the coin, China is weak in the Indian Ocean where it has to bring its assets thousands of miles south and west to project power. So China might have the upper hand on land, but it is apparent that the sea, particularly the Indian Ocean will go to India.

For Mr. Modi, maybe going to China, dealing with a troubling situation, and perhaps getting some concessions from the Chinese, may make him look good in the eyes of Indian voters. So going to “the Chinese court” every year may just gain Mr. Modi some real benefits for his country and for his own re-election in 2019.

Please log in and give us your thoughts on this matter.

Photo: Narendra Modi 2016 flickr

Truth, Lies, and James Comey

 

By Bill Lee

James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Donald Trump, is a unique public figure in America for being reviled by both liberal Democrats and Trumpian Republicans. He’s hated of course by Clinton Democrats for announcing 11 days before the presidential election that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Clinton’s e-mails, thus generating enough adverse publicity against Clinton to tip the election to Trump, or so Clintonites believe. Trumpians hate Comey because he revealed that Trump tried to make him end the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn, that, and his subsequent firing, possible causes for obstruction of justice charges against Trump,

So who is James Comey? In his recently published book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, Comey portrays himself as an apolitical civil servant whose only interest is preserving the integrity of the FBI and the values at the core of the American enterprise. He prosecuted Martha Stewart for insider trading because she lied, and resisted the George W. Bush administration’s torture policy because it was inhumane. He announced the reopening of the Clinton e-mail investigation because concealing it would have been unethical.

Comey can be a good story teller. His narratives describing his youth, career as a prosecutor, and defense of the then Attorney General John Ashcroft as he lay seriously ill in a hospital bed from the attempts of Bush administration officials to make him sign an authorization for continuing their torture policy are compelling and read well. He does less well with his sermons about the majesty of the FBI. However, Comey comes across as quite believable. Despite his showmanship, which he himself recognizes, Comey seems like a pleasant, honest fellow, whose accounts of his meetings with Trump are surely more believable than Trump’s denials. There is much to recommend in the book, not the least of which are his descriptions of Trump’s manic, egocentric, stream-of-consciousness discourse. The key theme in the book is leadership, what it is and what it isn’t. Comey makes clear that Trump is the antithesis of a true leader. Comey prides himself on his leadership of the FBI; don’t be surprised if he tries for a run at public office as an independent.

Leave a comment.

Photo by Daily Brian via Flickr

Their Man In Havana–Miguel Diaz-Canel

                   by David Parmer / Tokyo

“I assume this responsibility with the conviction that all we revolutionaries, from any trench, will be faithful to Fidel and Raul, the current leader of the revolutionary process,” (Miguel Diaz-Canel, Inaugural Address)

On April 19, 2018 Cuba inaugurated its first non-Castro leader since 1959. Miguel Diaz-Canel, a Communist Party of Cuba stalwart was elected as President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers by an overwhelming majority. Raul Castro (86) will step back from the spotlight, but will not disappear just yet. Castro is still head of the Cuban military and Communist Party of Cuba.

Diaz-Canel (57) is a lifelong Communist. Trained as an electrical engineer, he served in the Cuban military then entered politics. In 2003 he was party leader in Villa Clara Province and subsequently party leader in Holguin province. In 2009 he was appointed Minister of Higher Education, and in 2013 he became First Vice President of Cuba.

In his inaugural address Diaz-Canel acknowledged the continuing leadership and guidance of Raul Castro and promised the continuity of the Cuban Revolution. He ruled out a return of capitalism to Cuba.

Some observers suggested a no-change policy in Cuba would be the norm during Diaz-Canel’s presidency. U.S. Vice President Mike Pence tweeted about the US standing with the Cuban people and about free and fair elections etc. etc.

What cannot be denied is that Cuba is having a smooth transition of power from its first generation of revolutionaries to the next generation of Cubans born after the revolution. There is much to be said for such a bloodless and orderly transition of power despite its lack of glamor and entertainment value.

What is next for Cuba? If the past is anything to rely on, Mr. Diaz-Canel will find his footing, consolidate his power base, and make his mark on Cuban history and politics. Media reports suggest that the economy is the big concern of the Cuban people. The question is what reforms will we see under the new president?

Now it is true that he is watched over by a Castro, but a Castro who has shown himself to be cautiously reform-minded. Will President Diaz-Canel, in the coming years, be able to create something like “Socialism With Cuban Characteristics”? It seems there is a good chance that this just might happen.

Please log in and let us know what you think.

President Diaz-Canel speech (Spanish)

Photo:  President Diaz-Canel, Sierra Maestra Newspaper

Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

By Bill Lee

Is hoping for the best but preparing for the worst always the best mindset? Doing so lessens shock, so when you go for a medical exam hoping for a clean bill of health but are prepared to hear you have an incurable illness and only six months to live, you’re not completely devastated. But this mindset is deeply pessimistic and can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the case of Donald Trump, hoping for the best means praying he’ll be removed from office as soon as possible, and preparing for the worst means realizing he could be president for another six years. But in this case, hoping for the best seems the most realistic path. In America, the mid-term elections in which all seats in the lower House of Representatives chamber and one-third of the upper Senate chamber seats will be up for election are coming up in November. The Democrats’ chances of winning a simple majority in the House of Representatives are very good since they only have to win 24 seats, and with the announced retirements of many incumbent Republicans, including House speaker Paul Ryan, Republicans seem almost to be giving up on retaining their control. The Senate will be a harder challenge for the Democrats since, because of a skewed election map, many more Democrats will be up for reelection than Republicans, putting them at greater risk of defeat. Still the Dems only need to gain two more seats to grab a majority.

If the Democrats control the House, they can initiate impeachment proceedings, and with the help of several discontented Republicans, Trump could be impeached and thus removed from office.

Is that an overly optimistic prediction? Some would say so, particularly if the US economy continues to grow. But Trump’s personal scandals — including the probable arrest of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen — and chaotic administration may drag the Republican party, which Noam Chomsky has called the most dangerous organization in the history of humankind, down.

So continue to hope for the best and prepare for the best of the worst.

Leave a comment.

 

Who Wins, China or the US?

By Bill Lee

Is a trade war between China and the United States looming? For all his switching  of positions, Donald Trump has been very consistent for decades in decrying America’s trade imbalances, which he views as unfair to America and a lessening of its strength. In the area of tariffs, liberal Democrats are with Trump because the tariffs, presumably, protect American blue-collar workers. Republicans like free, no-tariffs trade. Rather than a battle between liberals and conservatives, though, right-wing nativist and Trump supporter Steve Bannon sees this as a battle between “globalists” and “nationalists.”

The debate now is about which side would win a trade war, the United States or China. Those who claim China would win cite the likely loss of lucrative value-added exports from America to China such as Boeing jets or iphones as well as agricultural products like soybeans and beef. Walmart products like clothing and electrical goods would also become more expensive for hard-pressed American consumers.

Those who claim America would win a trade war with China assert as reasons the great dependence China has on the US market, the fragility of the Chinese economy relative to the US economy, and the greater size of the American economy. Those opposed to those views say that China can simply sell its electronic and other mid-tech goods to developing regions like India, Latin America, and Africa. 

The key point seems to be that China could weather and possibly prevail in a trade war with the US but that it would require a redirection of Chinese exports, which will be feasible in the long run but hard work in the short term. In other words, rather than risk a trade war, China could simply make a few concessions to the United States about its own tariffs on American goods, knowing full well that it will more than make up for any short-term temporary losses in the long term.

Leave a comment.

Photo by   via Flickr

Afghan Wakhan Corridor And China’s Security

                      by David Parmer / Tokyo

In November 2017, RG21’s own Bill Lee posed the question: “Where will China’s next overseas military base be?” The answer seems to be Afghanistan, and the explanation is a bit complicated.

The next “base” will probably be in Afghanistan’s Wakhan corridor, a 350km-long and 13-65km wide valley that separates Afghanistan’s Badakhshan Province from Tajikistan in the north and Pakistan in the south.

What makes the Wakhan corridor of vital interest to the PRC is its 92km border with China at the eastern end. In recent years, the far West of China has had significant unrest with its Uighur minority. Xinjiang is a real worry to Beijing, mainly because of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a separatist Uighur group that is on the US Terrorists Exclusion List. In addition to ETIM there is the TIP or Turkestan Islamic Party, a similar jihadist group.

Uighur fighters and their families have been involved in the Syrian conflict and Uighur Foreign Fighters (UFF) are reported to be active in Southeast Asia in countries including Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. China’s worry is that, one day, radicalized and military-savvy Uighurs will return to Xianjing and greater China. ETIM has also allied itself with the Taliban.

(In February 2018 US forces under NATO conducted an airstrike on Taliban and ETIM facilities in Badakhshan causing significant damage.)

Which brings us back to the Wakhan corridor. Now Beijing and Kabul are reportedly in talks to build an Afghan army base in the Wakhan. China will supply equipment, training, and weapons for an Afghan mountain brigade that would deal not only with the Taliban, but also with ETIM in the region. Despite denials, there are also persistent reports of Chinese troops, patrols, and vehicles in Afghan territory. Before too long we may see a significant number of Chinese “trainers” in action in Badakhshan. Kabul’s footprint has been light in Badakhshan province, an area where the Taliban extorted funds from the gems and drug trade.

A “base” in the Wakhan corridor serves China’s interests in its war on terrorism and can add security to its Belt and Road initative. The bolstering of Afghan control of one of its most remote regions can also be considered a very good thing, something that the NATO mission as well can only appreciate.

Photo: PLA on patrol in Xianjiang. China MOD

Map: Wikipedia

US forces attack Taliban and ETIM

 

 

Back by Poplular Demand: Russia’s S-400 In The News Again

                  by David Parmer / Tokyo

In February 2017 we reported about Russia’s “killer app,” the powerful S-400 Triumf missile system. The Triumf is back in the news and reports are showing that it is getting not only a lot of interest, but firm orders from countries around the world. Countries mentioned include India, China, and Turkey. Military.com (21 March2018) reports that there is also interest from the Gulf states of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in an area that has traditionally been a US arms preserve. In 2017 Iran’s Tasnim News (28 August 2017) quoted a Russian official in charge of arms exports as saying at least 10 orders for S-400 systems were being processed.

Business Insider (19 January 2018) reports that delivery of S-400 systems to China is now ongoing. Placing these missiles in Fujian province will give the PRC coverage of the Taiwan airspace, a significant leg-up if armed hostilities develop between Taiwan and the PRC down the road. Negotiations for sales of the system to India and Turkey are ongoing.

So why the interest in the S-400? Well, the answer might be found in a somewhat-gloating article in Russia’s RT news (21 March 2018). The S-400 is the best anti-aircraft, anti-missile system available today for export. It far out-performs its nearest rival, the venerable American Patriot missile system which has been around for about 30 years. The Triumf’s missiles are faster, can fly higher and can be launched much quicker.

Russia has also been deploying these missiles to Syria since 2015. Besides supporting its client state, and intimidating America and its clients, this could also be seen as a way to collect performance data in an active combat zone.

Right now American and European hi-tech manufacturers must be engaged in some serious catch-up to try to come up with powerful and versatile equipment to match what Russia has already fielded. In the meantime, Russian cash-registers will ring-up sales, and this most-lethal system will be seen in more and more places around the globe.

Do you have any thoughts on this? Please let us know.

Russia RT News article on Triumf

Photo: Russia Ministry of Defense

 

Buying American

By Bill Lee

It looks as if Japan is giving up the domestic development of its next-generation fighter jet to replace its aging F-15 fighters. Reuters first reported in November last year that the Ministry of Defense was having doubts about domestic development of an F-3 air superiority fighter. It reported that the MOD would delay a decison until 2018 or beyond, which would be the death knell for domestic production since such a project could not be included in the next five-year defense plan starting from 2019.

The dropping of the plan for domestic developmen will be a blow to Japan’s domestic defense industry, particularly to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. There were apparently three options for MOD: develop a 5th-generation fighter domestically, jointly develop a fighter jet with an internatinoal partner, or upgrade the current F-2 fighters. The first option would involve staggering costs (a $40 billion dollar initial price tag) and the technical challenge of developing systems for a next-generation fighter aircraft. Reuters quoted an official as saying, “All we have now is a flying box,” without the necessory weapons and avionics systems. The second option will basically mean reworking an existing foreign, i.e., US or European, fighter plane. The third option is not attractive, given the obvious caps on performance capability.

Japan strongly wanted the F-22 Raptor, which has unparalled stealth and performance capabilities, but the US wouldn’t sell them to Japan. Now that the Chinese have unveilied their J-20 stealth fighter jets, Japan is under pressure to procure high-performance next-generations fighter jets that can ensure air superiority as well as have top-notch anti-ship capabilities.  It looks as if Japan will acquire more F-35As, which have good all-around capabilities, with some STOLV F-35Bs also in the mix.

Leave a comment.

Photo by AiirSource  via Flickr

The Art of the Deal by Kim Jong Un

By Bill Lee

In his new book, The Art of the Deal, Kim Jong Un will undoubtedly posit this as the first rule for a successful negotiation: In order to ensure victory, negotiate with someone desperate to negotiate.

According to news reports, when the South Korean security officials were briefing President Trump at the White House and relayed Kim Jong Un’s supposed invitation for a meeting, Trump immediately accepted without asking for details, stunning the South Koreans.

Every political leader knows that when things become sticky for them, the best way out is to distract. In Trump’s case, the bad headlines were strangling his presidency, including the failure of son-in-law Jared Kushner to get a top security clearance, the firing of a valuable aide for spousal abuse, and, of course, the simmering scandal of the porn actress, Stormy Daniels.

If Trump, by meeting Kim Jong Un, can, like some idiot savant, bring about an amazing denuclearization of North Korea and peace on the Korean Peninsula, he deserves a second term as president and maybe the Nobel Peace Prize.

But what will he have to give up? The North Korean leaders have always said that they want to negotiate directly with Washington and want a guarantee from the United States that America won’t attack them. That means signing a peace treaty. Concluding a peace treaty would naturally mean establishing diplomatic ties with North Korea, which means recognizing the legitimacy of the Kim dynasty and thus avoiding any interfence in their domestic affairs, such as their human rights abuses.

Trump is likely blissfully unaware of the complexities involved in these negotiations with North Korea, including coordinating the conditions being negotiated with the harsher conditions Trump is demanding for the Iran nuclear deal, which he has called “the worst deal ever.”

With the naming of Mike Pompeo as the new secretary of state, who is very hawkish towards North Korea and Iran, it is even more unlikely that real progress will be made with North Korea, or that a Kim-Trump summit will happen any time soon.

Leave a comment.

Photo by PhotoAtelier  via Flickr