Reader TTS

“The American role in post-war Iraq actually will be fairly minimal”: that was John Bolton, then US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, in late

2002.  “Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear programme”: John Bolton a few weeks before the international nuclear deal was signed in 2015. (He believed a military strike on Iran’s

nuclear facilities was needed). He is a firm supporter of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), listed officially by the USA from 1997-2012 as a terrorist organisation. He apparently sees this

bizarre authoritarian Muslim cult as the future government of Iran, once the ayatollahs are overthrown. Such were the views that led to his appointment as National Security Adviser in April

2018, following the departure of the much decorated Lieutenant-General Herbert McMaster, who lasted 13 months in the job. In the Trumpian universe such disdain for facts and poor judgement

are qualifications for office. And since the future US Secretary of Defence, Patrick Shanahan, is at present only Acting Secretary until Senate confirmation, Bolton ‘the moustache’ has

virtually taken over US policy towards Iran. President Trump has already sent an aircraft-carrier battle group and four nuclear-capable B 52s to the eastern Mediterranean on Bolton’s advice.

He now appears willing to send 120,000 US troops to the region as a warning to Iran. The belligerent John Bolton, who for over a decade has been pushing for a military strike on Iran’s

nuclear facilities, avoided any experience of war – in Vietnam – by opting for a few months service in the national guard. He has no in-depth experience outside the USA, let alone in the

Middle East. If he had seen the acres of graves along the road from Tehran to Ayatollah Khomeini’s large mausoleum, he might have reflected that after the Iran-Iraq war, the senior ranks of

the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would be experienced and tenacious in battle – and he might have perceived the significance of the deep divisions over the _velayat-e-faqih_, the rule

of the Shi’a clerics, for US foreign policy. If Bolton had put aside for a moment his belligerence (and contempt for the United Nations) he might also have understood that ruining the

Iranian economy by ever more effective sanctions; tearing up the nuclear deal (a hard-won international treaty), and punishing President Rouhani for his compliance, played into the hands of

Iran’s own extremists. Rouhani has complied with the world’s most comprehensive IAEA’s (International Atomic Energy Agency) verification regime. The IAEA has reported on ten occasions on

Iran’s nuclear facilities and production of enriched uranium since the deal was signed and verified that Iran is compliant. Rouhani took a considerable risk in signing JCPOA and his position

has been undermined. What is the risk now of a major war breaking out between Israel/USA and Iran? First, the two key military leaders, US General Kenneth McKenzie, CENTCOM (Central

Command) Commander for the Middle East region and Major-General Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guards, are both new to their jobs, appointed only a few weeks ago; both need to

prove themselves in their new roles. Salami says that Iran stands “on the cusp of a full-scale confrontation”. McKenzie threatens Iran with “an experienced, ready, battle hard force with the

best equipment and training in the world”. Each side has branded the armed forces of the other as a terrorist organisation. Rhetoric from both sides at the moment – but dangerous rhetoric.

  On the plus side, neither the US nor the Israeli Intelligence services are keen on plunging the Middle East into a further war which might close the Strait of Hormuz to vital oil supplies.

Meir Dagan, a former MOSSAD chief, has made it clear that he thinks a military strike on Iran would lead to a regional conflagration. President Trump has on a number of occasions broadcast

his intention to bring home US troops from the Middle East, to avoid another Iraq-type war – and he recently has asked President Rouhani to give him a call. Trump believes that increasing

the pressure on the Iranian regime, together with his miraculous deal-making skills, will solve the Iran problem. But the problem is his own rejection of an international treaty signed by

the USA and five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, China, France, the UK, plus Germany and the EU) and the pressure this puts on President Rouhani. For the moment we are

in a classic smoke-and-mirrors game. John Bolton as Under-Secretary for Arms Control was adept during the prelude to the Iraq War at politicising and manipulating intelligence on Iraq’s

alleged weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion. Recent news feels like an action replay: vague reports of new Iranian threats to the US in Iraq, denied by Major-General Chris

Ghika, the British deputy head of Operation Inherent Resolve (US-led against Da’esh in Syria and Iraq); international discord concerning what to do – about Revolutionary Guard activity in

Syria and Iraq together with Iranian support for Hamas in Gaza and Hizbollah in Lebanon. And what about those “sabotaged ships” off the coast of the UAE reminiscent of the Gulf of Tonkin

incident in August 1964 – the supposed attacks by North Vietnam on the USS Maddox, used to justify the deployment of US conventional forces in a war against North Vietnam. A surfeit of

rhetoric and fake-news can lead to war by accident. A senior adviser to President Rouhani, Hesameddin Ashena, recently tweeted to President Trump: “You wanted a better deal with Iran. Looks

like you’re going to get a war instead. That’s what happens when you listen to the moustache”. All part of the game. But with someone as erratic and unfocussed as Donald Trump, who most

commentators believe is genuinely no warmonger, it is a game in which anything can happen.