Follow us on social

google cta
Screen-shot-2022-09-07-at-3.59.03-pm

Iran derangement syndrome season is here again

With the rebirth of the nuclear accord seemingly within reach, those who’d rather have war are turning their hysterics into overdrive.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Washington foreign policy circles heated up a bit in recent weeks with rampant speculation that the United States and Iran were on the verge of agreeing to terms on reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear accord that Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018. 

While the mania has dialed down a bit as both sides appear farther apart than it seems they were just over a week ago, it’s worth noting that the frenzy was created solely by those who oppose Washington’s return to the JCPOA. And by “frenzy” I’m referring to a total barrage of lies, half-truths, misdirections, misleading claims, myth peddling, dishonesty, distortion, deception, fabrication and even a little bit of slander. 

Iran hawks have to lie about the JCPOA because they know it’s unpopular, if even a bit taboo, to be completely up front about their preferred course of action: war to bring about regime change or collapse. The roots of this dynamic lie in two competing visions for U.S. policy toward Iran. 

While JCPOA proponents believe that the regime in Tehran is bad and that Iranians would be better off with a more democratic one that doesn’t threaten to destroy its neighbors and respects human rights, generally their preferred method for achieving that end is more of a long game which includes chipping away at a key pillar of the Islamic Republic — anti-Americanism — and helping to create the conditions that would facilitate change by Iranians themselves.

Hawks, however, want regime change now, and the nuclear weapons issue provides the best pretext for justifying the war they need to achieve that end. Therefore, the reason they’re so hysterical about the revival of the Iran nuclear deal is because they know it works in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and thus avoiding their war. 

This also explains why Iran hawks have no viable alternative to the JCPOA and their criticisms of it boil down to outcomes that were never achievable even under the most favorable diplomatic circumstances. 

All that said, here’s a sampling of the absurdities JCPOA opponents have thrown out in recent weeks:

They’ve claimed that the Biden administration is giving Iran billions of dollars — perhaps even a trillion! — which will be then used to kill you. But of course President Biden isn’t handing Tehran a check for $500 billion in U.S. taxpayer money. What’s really happening here is just that Iran will be allowed to sell things again — like oil — without the threat of sanctions, and people outside Iran will pay for those things without the threat of sanctions. 

When Iran hawks have tried to tackle the JCPOA’s substance, there’s hardly ever a discussion of what it actually does — like the myriad ways it prevents Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Instead they have focused on what it doesn’t do — the aforementioned unachievable outcomes — like curbing Iran’s missile program and its support for its regional allies or … overthrowing the regime.

The reason it doesn’t do any of those things is because it was never intended to. The JCPOA is and always has been narrowly focused on one issue: blocking Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon. That’s it. Many experts argue that the deal can then provide a basis on which good faith negotiations can take place to address these other difficult issues.

There’s also a critique of the deal that, at least on the surface, sounds as if it’s grounded in some kind of legitimate appraisal: that several key provisions of the JCPOA will “sunset” or expire soon. This is actually true. But, of course, JCPOA opponents then use that truth to suggest yet another lie that the entire deal sunsets in the near future. The key follow-on point to this is that there are also many important provisions of the agreement that do not sunset — like establishing an estimated six-month timeline that Iran would need to develop the nuclear fuel needed for one bomb should it choose to, and reimposing a constant and comprehensive monitoring of all its nuclear-related facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

This sunset criticism is also particularly galling, because with regards to the policy that JCPOA opponents prefer, i.e. the one that Trump implemented and is currently ongoing, the sun has already set, as one National Security Council official recently put it. In other words, as it stands right now, and because of Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018, there is nothing currently preventing Iran from moving closer to a nuclear bomb.

There are many other outlandish claims about the JCPOA that are almost too ridiculous to address, such as the charge that President Biden “intends to give a nuclear arsenal to Iran” or that he is “practically building a nuclear weapon for them,” and that Iran will “be allowed to assassinate former US officials,” or that “thousands of people will die,” or that it’s “more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Seriously, these are actual quotes from prominent deal critics.

Another whopper is the one where they actually blame President Biden for Iran advancing its program and amassing nuclear material beyond the JCPOA’s limits, as if Trump, acting on JCPOA opponents' urgings, never pulled out of the deal in the first place. Trump’s move, of course, handed Iran the pretext to then advance its program to the point where most experts believe it will have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a bomb within just a few weeks. Iran hawks don’t care about the hypocrisy of blaming Biden for the outcome of their own policy preference. They just need a reason to start a war.

These are merely just a few of the dozens if not hundreds of false and misleading statements that have been or will be made about the JCPOA since this debate began. (Groups like NIAC and J Street have recently addressed the most serious of them) 

It is an out-of-control firehose of lies that is meant to obscure the fact that the Iran nuclear deal is not only a great deal, but also one that will play a big role in averting another costly, devastating war in the Middle East, which is exactly what most, if not all, JCPOA opponents want.


Photos: Mark Dubowitz, Screen grab via Fox News/YouTube; Mike Pompeo, State Department; Ted Cruz, lev radin via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
US foreign policy
Top photo credit: A political cartoon portrays the disagreement between President William McKinley and Joseph Pulitzer, who worried the U.S. was growing too large through foreign conquests and land acquisitions. (Puck magazine/Creative Commons)

What does US ‘national interest’ really mean?

Washington Politics

In foreign policy discourse, the phrase “the national interest” gets used with an almost ubiquitous frequency, which could lead one to assume it is a strongly defined and absolute term.

Most debates, particularly around changing course in diplomatic strategy or advocating for or against some kind of economic or military intervention, invoke the phrase as justification for their recommended path forward.

keep readingShow less
V-22 Osprey
Top Image Credit: VanderWolf Images/ Shutterstock
Osprey crash in Japan kills at least 1 US soldier

Military aircraft accidents are spiking

Military Industrial Complex

Military aviation accidents are spiking, driven by a perfect storm of flawed aircraft, inadequate pilot training, and over-involvement abroad.

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D- Mass.) office reported this week, the rate of severe accidents per 100,000 flight hours, was a staggering 55% higher than it was in 2020. Her office said mishaps cost the military $9.4 billion, killed 90 service members and DoD civilian employees, and destroyed 89 aircraft between 2020 to 2024. The Air Force lost 47 airmen to “preventable mishaps” in 2024 alone.

The U.S. continues to utilize aircraft with known safety issues or are otherwise prone to accidents, like the V-22 Osprey, whose gearbox and clutch failures can cause crashes. It is currently part of the ongoing military buildup near Venezuela.

Other mishap-prone aircraft include the Apache Helicopter (AH-64), which saw 4.5 times more accidents in 2024 than 2020, and the C-130 military transport aircraft, whose accident rate doubled in that same period. The MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter was susceptible to crashes throughout its decades-long deployment, but was kept operational until early 2025.

Dan Grazier, director of the Stimson Center’s National Security Reform Program, told RS that the lack of flight crew experience is a problem. “The total number of flight hours U.S. military pilots receive has been abysmal for years. Pilots in all branches simply don't fly often enough to even maintain their flying skills, to say nothing of improving them,” he said.

To Grazier’s point, army pilots fly less these days: a September 2024 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that the average manned aircraft crew flew 198 flight hours in 2023, down from 302 hours flown in 2011.

keep readingShow less
Majorie Taylor Greene
Top photo credit" Majorie Taylor Greene (Shutterstock/Consolidated News Service)

Marjorie Taylor Greene to resign: 'I refuse to be a battered wife'

Washington Politics

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia’s 14th district, who at one time was arguably the politician most associated with Donald Trump’s “MAGA” movement outside of the president himself, announced in a lengthy video Friday night that she would be retiring from Congress, with her last day being January 5.

Greene was an outspoken advocate for releasing the Epstein Files, which the Trump administration vehemently opposed until a quick reversal last week which led to the House and Senate quickly passing bills for the release which the president signed.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.