Q: We had a great deal in place with Iran prior to Trump backing out of the JCPOA. Iran committed in writing to promises, and signed a legally binding document; Sec. Kerry also vouchsafed them. Isn’t imagining a combined nuclear threat just paranoid?
SJMB: Oh yes, of course, based on the past century of US engagement with the Iranians and Russians and Chinese, those three nations have proven to be among the most trustworthy on the face of the planet! We should probably now draw a little “/S” on this transcript for those readers who have so lost the way that they no longer recognize sarcasm.
Speaking seriously, the concern that seems to be emerging is, now that Russia has been confirmed as having interfered in the 2016 U.S. election– which is something Russia has always done but has now been made graphically and globally public– Russia is casting about for any number of options to save political face amongst their populace and allies, and perhaps even win over some potential or actual adversaries; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Remember, Russia has only recently become a, “democracy”, a term we should use most loosely, so their political system is far more fragile and less robust than that of the U.S. Russia went from a Czarist monarchy, to violent revolution, to quasi-socialism, to fascism, to communism, to small-scale mafia law in a post-communist purgatory, and, resilient as they are, have now clawed their way to inhabiting what we may most aptly call an oligarchical democracy.
Tying this into the topic du jour, when a U.S. drone under the ultimate command of President Trump splattered Gen. Suleimani all over the Baghdad airport— and I mean this literally, because it is now common knowledge that they had to identify QS by a ring that he was known to wear; they found a piece of the hand with the ring still attached to the finger— the Russians publicly condemned the attack due to their important strategic alliance with Iran. Russia certainly did not condemn the attack on the basis of moral or ethical obligations, as Russia has, for many, many, many years, proven to be one of the leading perpetrators of political and economic assassinations.
I would reach this far—and perhaps this is teetering on what some may consider a wildly speculative and precarious limb—that Russia would be willing to go as far as helping Iran secure a nuclear weapon, or at least secure fissile nuclear material, and then stop-gap that play by way of heavy restrictions and threat of irrecoverable sanctions upon Iran as a future-bound checkmate against Iran ever actually using the weapon. Such a move would have to be the ultimate in foreign relations hedged risks; if things did not land in Russia’s favor, be that economically, militarily, and politically, it would surely, irretrievably and irreconcilably fracture their relationship with the United States. The same goes for China. Russia and China will have to decide in whom they wish to invest their long game equity. Their individual decisions contain within them the possibility for a divergence from one another which leaves them both weakened.
In my view, no matter how you slice it, Iran under the current leadership is always going to be a bad investment. However, Russia and China, individually or collectively, may decide that gaining a near-permanent foothold in the region is worth the risk. And to do that, they’ve got to offer Iran something very big.
Q: If you had the President’s ear, what would you recommend as the U.S.’s next steps?
SJMB: Simple. Contain Iran. Don’t confront Iran. Allow the now-reestablished deterrence to work. And the moment it doesn’t, hit hard, hit fast, and keep hitting until full and utter submission of Iran to the U.S. dictates is rooted in place. There is no mercy available, here. The mercy is that, with as little intervention as possible, we protect U.S. interests throughout that entire region, the Iranian people, and the remainder of the world from the Iranian threat and do so in a way which never commits us to having to place troops on the ground across an indefinite timeframe. No more Benghazis. No more Afghanistans. Not one more American cent nor one more American life should be lost in service to that region. America First because America alone possesses the capability to lead, with the support of its allies, in containing, and then securing that region. Once contained and secured, get out and stay out.
Think Again 