Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

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.