Attacking Iran, Part 2
Bob Sheak
May 23, 2018

I focus in this post on Trump’s long-standing bellicose and war-supporting views regarding Iran, views that appear to bring the U.S. closer to waging on war with Iran than ever before. A war with Iran would produce more devastation, death, and instability in the Middle East, with unknown repercussions worldwide, than the U.S. involvements altogether in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Syria, in Afghanistan (which has spilled over into Pakistan), or in its military involvements in Africa, especially in Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen (supporting Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war there). And yet, Trump, his chief advisers, and too many others on the ideological and political right, view it as a walk in the park with everything eventually coming up roses. There is another possibility. They don’t pay attention to the consequences of what they do – and focus on grabbing as much wealth, power, as glory as they can while they can, and be the last ones “walking.”

Trita Parsi, author, expert on Iran and Middle, and President of the National Iranian Council, gives us a dose of realism as he reviews potential destruction associated with such a war (https://www.huffington.com/entry/opinion/parsi-war-with-iran_us_5abd46fde4b055e50acc2e82).

He makes four points. First, he refers to a classified Pentagon study completed in 2002 and costing $250 million that is based on a war game called Millennium Challenge. The exercise “envisioned U.S. Navy facing a coordinated Iranian assault in the Persian Gulf using swarming boats and missiles.” In this scenario, the “Iranians sank a total of 16 American ships – including an aircraft carrier.” Second, Parsi points out that Iran is “estimated to have the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East,” and they are “well positioned to target both ports and airfields in the region” and can make the whole region unsafe. Third, the Iranians can target the tens of thousands of U.S. troops already stationed in the region, pushing “Shia militias in Iraq to renew their attacks on U.S. troops and attacking U.S. personnel in Syria and in the “hundreds of U.S. installations throughout the region – from Jordon, to Kuwait to Afghanistan.” The Iranians know how sensitive Americans are to casualties. Fourth, Iranian forces could close the Strait of Hormuz, which is “a strategic choke point through which roughly 30 percent of the world’s oil supply passes.” This would cause “oil prices to skyrocket” and create turmoil throughout the global economy.

Be reminded that the U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars on wars and military engagements in these regions of the world, and that whole cities and areas have been reduced to rubble, millions of people have died or been maimed, millions have become homeless as internal or external refugees, the governments emerging after U.S.-led or supported-wars have been unable to quell disorder or meet the basic needs of vast segments of their societies, and the conditions arising from all this have created the spawning grounds for the proliferation of networks of terrorists. The record of U.S. interventions, going back at least to Vietnam, has not yielded democracy or justice, but mayhem, bloodshed, and contaminated environments. Indeed, U.S. military interventions have been among the world’s most de-stabilizing forces. Now we are faced with the increasing likelihood that the U.S. will attack Iran. Tom Engelhardt summarizes it well as follows.

“…one thing couldn’t be clearer: the planet’s sole superpower, with a military funded and armed like none other and a ‘defense’ budget larger than the next seven countries combined (three times as large as the number two spender, China), has managed to accomplish absolutely nothing. Unless you consider an expanding series of failed states, spreading terrorist movements, wrecked cities, countries hemorrhaging refugees, and the like as accomplishments” (A Nation Unmade by War, p. 21).

“…the massive destruction of Iraq or Syria; or what it’s meant for the ‘world’s greatest military’ to unleash its airpower from Afghanistan to Libya, send out its drones on assassination missions from Pakistan to Somalia, launch special operations raids across the Greater Middle East and Africa, occupy two countries, and have nothing to show for it but the spread of ever-more viral and brutal terror movements and the collapse or near-collapse of many of the states in which it’s fought these wars” (p. 49).

Alternatives to waging war on Iran?

There are alternatives, but they might as well be in another universe from what the Trump administration and other right-wing forces in the U.S. government want. What are they? Stop threatening Iran with war and burdening the Iranians with horrendous economic sanctions, some of which extend back to 1979. Stop supporting terrorist groups, like the MEK (People’s Mujahedeen of Iran) which has assassinated nuclear scientists in Iran, conducted suicide bombings that blew up civilians, and, according to Medea Benjamin’s sources, “took their attacks overseas, targeting Iranian diplomatic missions in 13 countries” (Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic Of Iran,p. 164). Engage in diplomacy with the representatives of other countries and with Iran to address other concerns about Iran’s foreign activities.

Honor the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which went into force in 1970, then extended indefinitely in 1995, with 191 states joining the treaty, including, among many others, the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France – and Iran, but not Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt). The U.S. may be in violation of Article VI of the treaty which requires that nations with nuclear weapons undertake steps to reduce and ultimately eliminate them.

Alternatives? Take seriously the proposal to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone, which has been endorsed by Iran and most other Arab countries and member nations of the United Nations but blocked by the U.S. with the enthusiastic encouragement of Israel. While the idea of nuclear-free zones may receive virtually no interest among U.S. politicians and little coverage in the media, it does have an international stamp of approval and represents, according to the United Nations’ Office of Disarmament Affairs, “a regional approach to strengthen global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament norms and consolidate international efforts towards peace and security,” and is consistent with “Article VII of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) [which] states: ‘Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.’” There are currently five “nuclear-weapon-free zones in Latin America and the Caribbean, South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central Asia. Mongolia has declared itself to adhere to nuclear-free status. There are three international treaties that prohibit testing of nuclear weapons in Antarctic, prohibit placing nuclear weapons in orbit around the earth, installing or testing these weapons on the moon, or in outer space, and prohibit nuclear weapons on the seabed or ocean floor (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/nwfz).

Bear in mind as well that there are powerful democratic and secular forces in Iran that want peace and that would gain political influence if the U.S. joined other countries in genuine diplomatic negotiations. U.S. bellicosity and efforts to destabilize Iran serve only to strengthen the hardliners in Iran. Elect leaders in our own country who are not so damn hypocritical and deceptive about how they want to bring freedom and democracy to Iran, after they have invaded the country. The record is oh so clear that the U.S. has not only failed to advance freedom and democracy anywhere in the Middle East or Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, etc., but also that the U.S. supports the most authoritarian, religious dictatorships such as the one in Saudi Arabia, lavishing this culturally retrograde country with huge weapons’ agreements. And who benefits in the U.S., but the “defense” contractors and the Pentagon. When you sort it all out, U.S. policies have been about achieving dominance in Middle East with the principal goal of keeping the oil flowing from the region. One obvious alternative is to reduce the need in the U.S. and world for fossil fuels by a major increase in support for renewable sources of energy, as proposed, for example, by economist Robert Pollin in his book, Greening the Global Economy.

U.S. militarism intensified

The military-oriented foreign policy of the U.S. did not begin with Trump and his administration, but they are taking it to unprecedented levels, adopting a reckless and muddling view of what the U.S. military can accomplish, increasing funding for an already bloated “defense” budget bringing enormous profits for military contractors, promoting the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement with Iran), supporting Israeli bombing raids into Syria, continuing the modernization (and expansion?) of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, conducting military exercises on the border of North Korea while threatening to nuke it, and continuing the expansion of NATO into Eastern European countries on the borders of Russia. Additionally, David Cay Johnston reminds us that diplomacy is being further demoted and marginalized under Trump. He writes:

“Donald Trump proposed to cut more than $14 billion from the $50 billion State Department budget, a 29 percent reduction. Only the Environmental Protection Agency would be cut more. The Trump budget would essentially end foreign aid, most of which benefits American companies by buying goods and services from them and giving them to poor countries. While Congress is unlikely to approve such cuts, their significance lies in showing where Trump would put federal money. He asked for $54 billion for the military” (It’s Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America, p. 160).

The recklessness of Trump

Now, the headlines are that Trump has withdrawn from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, appointed a premier foreign policy hawk John Bolton to be his national security adviser, re-imposed (and continued) sanctions, and threatened to attack Iran if it should re-start and increase its capacity for generating nuclear fuel. Bolton has long advocated regime change in Iran, doesn’t pay any attention to the overwhelming evidence that Iran has not violated the nuclear deal, and advances the idea that the Iranian people are waiting for the U.S. to free them from an autocratic regime. Consider what Gareth Porter’s in-depth investigations have found, as quoted here from an article published in The American Conservative on March 22, 2018.
“Bolton’s been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy.”

“More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself—the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson—to get Trump’s ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson.

“It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if Congress and America’s European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump).

Note: The majority of Americans wanted the nuclear deal with Iran to continue

Jake Johnson, staff writer for Common Dreams, reports that a poll finds that the majority of Americans support the nuclear accord and don’t want to risk war with Iran and end up enmeshed in another war of choice. This time, Trump’s choice. Johnson writes:

“With President Donald Trump expected to deliver a huge gift to his administration’s “parade of warmongers, cretins, and outright liars” Tuesday afternoon by withdrawing the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, a new CNN poll shows support for the agreement is continuing to rise, with an all-time high 63 percent of Americans saying Trump should uphold the accord. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/08/trump-set-spark-war-risking-crisis-killing-iran-deal-poll-shows-63-us-support

Rebuttals to the arguments of Trump and his advisers

Trump, Bolton and the others in their corner rest their case on the argument that the nuclear deal is flawed because it does not eliminate Iran’s capacity to produce enriched uranium. But they also posit several additional arguments not included in the nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with Iran, namely, that Iran’s military poses a military threat to the region, that Iran’s leaders supports terrorist groups, and that the Iranian government represses its own people who are said to yearn for America to bring them “freedom.” On May 21, Trump’s new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation where he laid out a long-list of demands, far beyond what the JCPOA required, and that Iran must fulfill them all before the U.S. will lift its sanctions. You can see Jake Johnson’s report on Pompeo’s speech at: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/21/iraq-war-playbook-returns-pompeo-replaces-diplomacy-threat-crush-iran. The point is that the Trump administration is doing all it can to avoid a peaceful settlement with Iran.

The principal argument – the flawed deal. Trump and Bolton make about the nuclear deal is that it allows Iran to continue producing some enriched uranium. Binoy Kampmark quotes Bolton as calling the agreement “fundamentally flawed” and that it “allows Iran to continue technologies like uranium enrichment…” (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/10/withdrawal-symptoms-trump-and-the-iran-nuclear-deal).

There are technical issues involved in this claim. What’s clear, though, is that a country can only produce deliverable nuclear weapons if it has sufficient enriched uranium and the related technological capacity – which has to do with the number of centrifuges and other relevant components. (For a short explanation, go to Science and the article “What’s a uranium centrifuge?” at https://science.howstuffworks.com/uranium-centrifuge.htm.)

The issue raised by Bolton concerns the nuclear technology dealing with the process for enriching uranium. Trump and Bolton want to eliminate all of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium. However, contrary to their interest in total elimination, the agreement permits Iran to produce some, but not nearly enough, to make a nuclear bomb. Bear in mind, that the goal of Iranian’s leaders has always been to build a peaceful nuclear power system designed for civilian, not military, purposes, that is, for the generation of electric power. This is permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is overwhelming evidence substantiating that Iran has complied with the agreement. Consider some examples.

According to 11 investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the agency empowered to undertake regular highly intrusive inspections wherever and whenever it wants, Iran is in full compliance with the agreement. On May 9, 2018, the Director General of the IAEA, Yukia Amano, issued the following statement, affirming Iran’s compliance.

“The IAEA is closely following developments related to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As requested by the United Nations Security Council and authorised by the IAEA Board of Governors in 2015, the IAEA is verifying and monitoring Iran’s implementation of its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA. Iran is subject to the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain. As of today, the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran” (https://www.iaea.org/newsletter/statements/statement-by-iaea-director-general-yukia-amano-9-may-2018).

But it is not only the IAEA that validates Iran’s compliance. In an article for Salon, Paul Rosenberg reports on other corroborating evidence of Iran’s compliance https://www.salon.com/2018/05/13/donald-trump-goes-full-neocon-embracing-torture-and-war-with-iran-why-should-we-be-surprised.

Rosenberg writes: “Trump’s top intelligence officials have likewise confirmed that the Iran deal was working. In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Angus King, I-Maine, asked Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, ‘Is it the judgment of the intelligence community that Iran has, thus far, adhered to the deal’s major provisions?’ Coats replied, ‘Yes. It has been — the judgment is there’s been no material breach of the agreement.’ And, one other example. “During his confirmation hearings last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (then the CIA director) said that ‘Iran wasn’t racing to a weapon before the deal, [and] there is no indication that I am aware of that if the deal no longer existed that they would immediately turn to racing to create a nuclear weapon.’

So, Trump and Bolton are asking for Iran to do more than the agreement requires it to do. This is a specious argument, motivated by the desire to find some reason to justify the imposition of additional crippling sanctions, if not to justify some military action. You can see a more technical analysis of this issue by Scott Ritter at http://truthdig.com/article/the-truth-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal-lies, where, among other points, he notes that the limits imposed by the agreement on Iran’s ability to enrich uranium apply until 2030. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the multilateral deal with Iran, along with the re-imposition of economic sanctions, increases the chances that Trump will use the military option. As I noted earlier, this would have catastrophic consequences for the region and perhaps the world, while costing the U.S. hugely in U.S. military casualties, taxpayer dollars and rising national debt related to military spending, and vast destruction throughout the Middle East and surrounding regions.

For the time being, Kampmark reports that Iran will continue its participation in the nuclear deal but only if Britain, France and Germany continue to honor its terms. That means doing what they can to integrate Iran into the global economic system and not interfering with the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran. At the same time, Iran has the option, if the agreement breaks down, to restore the country’s enrichment capabilities. Kampmark quotes Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani: “I have ordered the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran to be ready for action if needed so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations.’ In a note of mild reassurance, Kampmark adds, Rouhani claimed that the agreement would still remain in place provided its “goals in cooperation with other members of the deal could be achieved.”

Presently, the situation remains uncertain and the future of the nuclear deal depends on the decisions of the other participants to the agreement. There is some good news. Julia Conley reports that the EU and Iranian officials have reaffirmed their commitment to continue their respective adherence to the agreement (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/19/eu-and-iran-will-attempt-to-salvage-nuclear-deal-following-trumps-breach-agreement).

“The European Union and Iran signaled on Saturday,” Conley writes, “that they would not permit President Donald Trump’s deeply unpopular decision to exit the Iran nuclear deal to deteriorate their own involvement in the agreement.” She quotes Manuel Areias Canete, the EU’s top energy official” who told reporters in Tehran that the Europeans “are sticking to the agreement [and] the Europeans will…fulfill their commitment.” The heads of state of Britain, Germany and France independently affirmed their commitment to abide by the deal. Rob Price quotes from the official statement.

“‘Together, we emphasize our continuing commitment to the JCPoA,’ the leaders of Britain, France and Germany said in a joint statement, referring to the deal by an acronym. ‘This agreement remains important for our shared security.’

“‘We urge the U.S. to ensure that the structures of the JCPOA can remain intact, and to avoid taking action which obstructs its full implementation by all other parties to the deal,’ said the statement, provided by British Prime Minister Theresa May’s office after she spoke by phone to France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel.

And China and Russia, the other signatories to the agreement, are most likely to adhere to it – and fill some of the economic gaps left by the withdrawal of the US. One example reflecting such a course of events is reported by Julian Girault, who learned that China is picking up a major gas deal with Iran, after the French oil giant total gave it up because of threats from the U.S. (https://juancole.com/2018/05/picking-frances-dollars.html). Iran is already connected to China in significant ways. Benjamin mentions that China is seeking a partnership with Iran “in implementing its Silk Road Economic Initiative and is trying to build a transportation network that connects China to Europe, bypassing the Red Sea and Mediterranean.” There are mutual benefits. China is a market for Iran’s rich energy resources, while Iran has received “critical investment and help in modernizing its oil and natural gas sector.” And they have together, Medea Benjamin writes, “slowly built a solid military relationship, including weapons sales, training, and joint naval exercises in the Persian Gulf” (p. 191).

Similarly, Russia has shared interests with Iran in Syria and seeing that the Assad regime is not overthrown. They both, Benjamin points out, “want to push back against Sunni extremism globally. They have “extensive trade links.” Russia is also involved in the “development of Iran’s oil and gas fields,” and recently investing in “telecoms and agriculture” (p. 190).

By withdrawing from the nuclear deal, the Trump administration risks alienating America’s European allies and strengthening the influence of China and Russia. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will be able to cripple Iran’s economy through its enhanced system of sanctions or create the conditions that will lead Iran to resume is nuclear capacity. On the one hand, the sanctions imposed by Trump will make it unlawful for U.S. banks and corporations to invest in businesses in Iran and discourage European companies from continuing to operate in the country. On the other hand, some European companies may remain in Iran, China and Russia will increase their economic ties to the country, and perhaps trade and economic relations with other countries will be started, maintained, or be enhanced. For now, the governments of Britain, Germany, and France have pledged to honor the nuclear deal with Iran, as are China and Russia. In the background, however, is the threat by Trump and his advisers that the U.S. will launch a war on Iran.

Argument #2 – Kampmark also reports that, according to a Bolton press briefing, President Trump has made “a firm statement of American resolves to prevent not only Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but a ballistic missile delivery capability” as well (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/10/withdrawal-symptoms-trump-and-the-iran-nuclear-deal). This is another argument that must be put into context. And note, while it is not part of the nuclear deal, it could be open to negotiations without ending the nuclear deal.

The main point is that there are good reasons, sadly, for Iran to arm itself with missiles and to maintain a relatively large military force. Here are three.

First, the U.S. has meddled in Iran’s internal affairs for decades. In 1953, the US helped to orchestrate a coup overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Mohammed Mosaddegh, then installed the Mohammad Reza Shah in power, who built a centralized, militarized state. Benjamin points out that Mosaddegh is “remembered by his people as a nationalist leader in the mold of India’s Gandhi, Indonesia’s Sukarno, and Egypt’s Nasser” (p. 27). In September 1980, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein attacked Iran (with the encouragement of the Carter administration), initiating a war that lasted eight years. Iraq used chemical and biological weapons. Both sides conducted extensive aerial bombardment. Estimates indicate that there were from 400,000 and 1 million casualties (See Benjamin, p. 42). Guess what? And here’s the kicker. The U.S. supplied both sides with weapons and hoped they would destroy one another. Jumping to recent times, Bush Jr. and now Trump have publicly stated they want regime change in Iran. The message they sent to Iran is clear and unmistakable: surrender to our demands or we will crush you.

Second,Iran is surrounded by countries occupied by U.S. troops and Arab countries, most prominently Saudi Arabia, that are antagonistic toward Iran. The point is that, in the absence of peaceful initiatives, it would be foolhardy for Iran not to maintain a strong military force, including advanced weapons systems. Michael T. Klare argues that conditions exist that could easily lead to a “Third Gulf War.” The Middle East is fraught with tension and conflict. And the U.S. is a major factor in this. Consider the main points in Klare’s analysis.

“A Third Gulf War would distinguish itself from recent Middle Eastern conflicts by the geographic span of the fighting and the number of major actors that might become involved. In all likelihood, the field of battle would stretch from the shores of the Mediterranean, where Lebanon abuts Israel, to the Strait of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf empties into the Indian Ocean. Participants could include, on one side, Iran, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and assorted Shia militias in Iraq and Yemen; and, on the other, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If the fighting in Syria were to get out of hand, Russian forces could even become involved. (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/05/14/gearing-third-gulf-war)

Third, Saudi Arabia and Israel, two of Iran’s greatest adversaries, have far greater military forces than Iran. And Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the region. If for no other reason, Iran believes it needs a military force that includes advanced weapons systems, including ballistic missiles for defensive reasons. Though for now, Iran is committed to not developing its capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

The solution is not to threaten Iran with war but to find the diplomatic steps to reduce the hostilities in the region. This may be pie-in-the-sky, but U.S. policies in the Middle East have thus far proven to be counterproductive and threaten to engulf the region in even more death and destruction.

Argument #3 – Iran is said to support terrorist groups and to be responsible for causing instability and turmoil in the Middle East. But there is a big question. Do the groups identified by the U.S. as terrorists deserve to be so labeled? Before addressing this question, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia, a great U.S. ally and the biggest market for U.S. arms’ sales, is the source of much of the extremism and violence in the Middle East. David Cay Johnston offers some evidence on this point, something the Trump administration – and previous ones – fail to acknowledge.

“…the Saudis are the world’ largest sponsor of terrorism, far exceeding the Iranian government that Trump frequently denounces for its support for terrorism. The State Department lists sixty-one terrorist organizations, all but two of which are aligned with Sunnis and the extreme Wahhabi sect that is officially endorsed in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis fund fifty-seven of those terrorist groups” (It’s Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America, p. 157).

And Benjamin adds the following information that challenges the U.S. claim that Hezballah is the main terrorist organization in the Middle East is absurd. Here’s what she writes.

“According to the Global Terrorism Database of King’s College London, more than 94 percent of the deaths caused by Islamic terrorism from 2001 to 2016 were perpetrated by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Sunni jihadists. Iran is fighting those groups, not fueling them. Iran is a Shia nation combatting Sunni jihadists who consider Shia, and Westerners, infidels. Not one Iranian has ever been linked to a terrorist attack in the United States” (p. 201).

Back to the administration’s contention that Iran is the major source of support for groups identified as terrorist by the U.S. In his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo list 12 demands for Iran, including this one: “…Iran must end support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hezballah (sometimes spelled Hizballah), Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.” (See the report by Jon Wolfsthal and Julie Smith for details at http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/21/pompeo-iran-nuclear-plan-is-a-pipe-dream-trump.) I’ll focus on Hezballah.

Hezballah has its roots in the Lebanon Shia community going back to the late 1970s, particularly in the south and parts of Beirut, according to Benjamin. These were areas of Lebanon in which there were thousands of Palestinian refugees and the headquarters of the Palestinian Liberation Army. Hezballah emerged in 1982 and was officially formed in 1985. Benjamin describes some of its activities, which can be viewed from a very different lens than the one used by the Trump administration.

“In 1982, Israel invaded south Lebanon to attack the Palestinian militants. Shia leaders, looking for a way to resist the Israeli occupation, challenged the mainstream Shia Amal movement and formed an armed movement that would later become Hezbollah. Early on, they sought support from Iran, and their targets were the Israelis and their American backers.”

“Hezbollah continued its guerilla war against Israeli forces in South Lebanon, but also began to play an active role in Lebanese politics. While the U.S. portrays Hezbollah as an Iranian agent, for Lebanese it is one of the most popular political parties in the country, where it routinely wins among the highest number of votes in the parliament, and where it is widely viewed as a legitimate political party, with an armed wing that succeeded in liberating and defending the country from Israel twice: in 1982 and 2006” (p. 186).

Hezbollah has also been involved in Syria and, along with the Lebanese Army, “fought a three-year battle to uproot the rebels [fighting against Assad], including ISIS forces, and succeeded in dislodging ISIS from the border areas in August 2017” (p. 187).

Gary Leupp provides more details in an article for Counter Punch on May 15, 2018. Leupp reports on the political popularity of Hezbollah, writing that in the elections in Lebanon on the previous Sunday, “Hizbollah and its allies (mostly Maronite Christians, actually)” won a majority in Parliament, winning 67 out of 128 seats. This doesn’t sound like the accomplishment of a terrorist movement. And, addressing the issue of terrorism directly, Leupp makes the following points.

“Why has Hizbollah been designated a “terrorist” organization by Israel and the U.S., followed (somewhat reluctantly) by the EU in 2013 under U.S. pressure? Germany continues to refuse to designate Hizbollah “in its entirety” as terrorist; like the EU in general it distinguishes between the “military wing” and the political party. Neither Russia nor China see it as terrorist. They realize that Hizbollah is a large political movement based in the Shiite community but enjoying an alliance with Christian and other minorities. It maintains a robust militia, more powerful than the Lebanese Army. It also maintains radio and TV stations, charities, hospitals. It has a genuine social base in Lebanon; that, rather than Iranian aid, is the key to its success. But instead of examining it in its specificities, successive U.S. administrations have simply condemned it while emphasizing its Iranian ties.”

Argument #4 – The Trump administration also asserts that the anti-Iran policies of the U.S. grows out of how the U.S. has a “moral” obligation to free the Iranian people from the authoritarian and repressive government of Iran. This argument may ring a bell, since it is one that was used in Iraq and in virtually every other place that the U.S. military has invaded in the Post-WWII era. While the Iranian people suffer dearly from economic hardships, most due largely to U.S. imposed sanctions, and from oppressive and discriminatory laws, they favor the nuclear deal and fear and oppose U.S. threats of war. Also, it is important to note that Iranian citizens have overall more freedom than the citizens of one of the chief U.S. allies in the Middle East, that is, Saudi Arabia. In short, any claims by the Trump and his advisers that they are concerned about the freedom of Iranians or about bring democracy to their land ring hollow. I’ll expand on these points with quotes from two sources.

In an article for Common Dreams, Trita Parsi puts to rest the idea that Iranians yearn for liberation by the U.S. and that the U.S. failure to lift sanctions and then its withdrawal from the nuclear deal may reduce the likelihood of democratic reforms in Iran (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/05/08/trumps-reckless-decision-puts-us-path-war-iran).

“Perhaps the most absurd aspect of President Trump’s Iran policy is his attempt to claim solidarity with the Iranian people, even as he bans Iranians from the U.S. and his top advisors openly support the MEK terrorist group that is universally reviled by Iranians. The Iranian people overwhelmingly supported the nuclear deal, at least until the sanctions relief that was promised failed to materialize and will be the party most impacted by Trump’s decision.

“Many were hopeful that the nuclear deal would facilitate broader change in Iranian society over time by empowering moderate forces in their demand for social and economic justice. By diminishing the excuse of sanctions and raising expectations for economic improvement, the nuclear deal appears to have added pressure on Iran’s leaders to meet the public’s political expectations. However, a potential opening for accelerated progress in Iran has now been slammed shut by Trump, an action that will redirect attention from the Iranian government to the United States. This will not just empower hardliners, it will force Iran’s political elite to paper over fissures on key social and political issues while cracking down further on any dissent. This is potentially the biggest crime of Trump’s decision – limiting the agency of Iran’s own people to choose peaceful political evolution in order to address their grievances.”

Medea Benjamin compares the social and political conditions of Saudi Arabia with those in Iran and finds less “freedom” in the former than the latter.

“The Iranian government is certainly guilty of many abuses, including gross violations of free speech and assembly, restricting the rights of women, imprisoning dissidents, and executing people for nonviolent offenses. But when juxtaposed with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. ally is far more repressive internally. Iran has flawed elections; Saudi Arabia doesn’t have national elections at all. Iran’s women are restricted, but Saudi Arabia is a much more gender-segregated society. The West applauded the 2017 Saudi announcement that it would allow movie theaters (albeit segregated), while Iran has had a thriving film, theater, and music industry for decades” (p. 3).

Concluding thoughts

The Trump’s thundering against Iran is typical of his militarized foreign policy and of the double-standards, hypocrisy, and immorality of this policy. It is also consistent with the positions of past administrations, though Obama’s did support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, now we are in the worst situation vis-à-vis Iran than we have ever been, as Trump and his advisers actively and with great determination look for reasons to wage what would be a counterproductive and horrendous war on Iran that could easily escalate to the whole region and even beyond. Why? Part of the reason is that they are blinded by false assumption that the U.S. military can triumph wherever it intervenes when it has the full support of the administration, all the resources it needs, including, if deemed necessary, nuclear bombs. There are also geopolitical reasons. Like other presidents going back to President Carter, Trump believes that the fossil fuels of the Middle East should be controlled by allied countries, and the U.S. is prepared to wage war to make it so. And there are increasing concerns in the higher circles of the U.S. that the nation’s power should be used to curtail the growing influence of China in the Middle East – and elsewhere. Destroying Iran through war or extreme sanctions is apparently viewed by those in the White House as one way of achieving its goals. In the meantime, Trump’s policies increase the hardships of Iranian citizens and weaken the influences of those who want diplomacy to succeed.

Getting Ready to Attack: 2006 and 2018

Part 1

THE IRAN DILEMMA:
GOING BEYOND MILITARISM AND NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
For Athens’ People for Peace and Justice
May 8, 2006
Bob Sheak

——————————————————-
Introduction (5-15-18)

I am sending out as the first of a two-part post the following presentation notes, though I compiled them 12 years ago, because they have relevance and provide some background for understanding and opposing the current saber-rabbling of Trump and his war-mongering advisers as they look for an opportunity to justify a military attack on Iran. George Bush II was then in the White House and he and his neoconservative advisers were also looking for an excuse back in 2006 to launch a military attack on Iran. This is exactly what Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, and others close to the president want now. They are contending that Iran cannot be trusted to abide by the unprecedented multilateral agreement signed on July 14, 2015 by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (Britain, France, Russia, China and the US) plus Germany, because, they claim, it has too many loopholes. And, following in the steps of Bush, the present Trumpian White House crew raises other issues designed to demonize Iran’s regime, arguing that the country’ leaders support terrorist groups in Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen, that it supports the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, that the Iran government represses its people, and that it is a threat to Israel and the stability of the region. This is all part of the neocon narrative, which represents the right-wing segment of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. The record of Iran’s government is open to criticism that is factually accurate and in context, but don’t expect that from an administration that creates its own facts as part of a self-serving rationale for war. While Trump’s lackeys claim that Iran has not lived up to its side of the agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified in 11 reports since January 2016 that Iran is complying with the nuclear deal. The IAEA has the responsibility under the 2015 agreement for conducting intrusive inspections of Iran’s nuclear energy facilities. Just one last point. Trump seems closer in 2018 to launching a war with Iran than Bush did in 2006.

I refer in parentheses in a few places to pages from a larger document that identifies the sources and evidentiary support for these notes. If you would like a copy, let me know.

—————————————————-
My 2006 PRESENTATION NOTES

While I am not an expert, I read and try to keep informed about our international policies in those parts of the world where the US government is intervening militarily or threatening to do so. I am also concerned about nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon proliferation, and the cataclysmic specter of nuclear war.

The military intervention and nuclear issues come together in a bellicose response by the Bush administration over what the administration is defining as a major crisis involving Iran’s uranium enrichment program.

I am opposed to any US military intervention against Iran. My reading has led me to believe that it would be foolhardy and very costly to the US economically and militarily, would provide momentum for the further consolidation of an imperial presidency and the stifling of democracy here in the US, would have devastating consequences for Iran, would likely generate more conflict across the Middle East, and would likely strengthen the position of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and across the Middle East.

I think that Iran has a right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop the capability to generate nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Personally, though, I don’t like the idea of nuclear power to generate electricity, because of the dangers of accidents at nuclear plants, the accumulation of highly radioactive waste at these plants, the lack of effective means to dispose of nuclear waste, the contamination of soil and water sources around nuclear plants, the lack of options for what to do with highly contaminated nuclear plants when they are too old to go on operating, the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist attacks, and the increased chance that terrorists will be able to obtain materials for the construction of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the NPT is the foundational document internationally for stopping nuclear weapons’ proliferation and for phasing out the nuclear weapons stockpiles that exist.

As I’ve tried to understand this Iranian crisis, I’ve done what I usually do, that is, I try to identify the main issues, understand how they are logically interrelated, and assemble information on these issues. In the process, I formulate a personal position, one that I feel comfortable in defending, at least until there is persuasive evidence to the contrary.

There are three main sections of the larger outline and notes that I have assembled. At this point, the work is still in need of a careful editorial scrutiny and continual updating. Nonetheless, I think there is some value in its present form. It identifies many key issues in a logical format and thus provides some background for making decisions about what stance and action from peace groups may be appropriate. Here I present a short outline with highlights from the larger work.

The first section of my presentation focuses on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and some related issues. I think that we have to have some understanding of this treaty, since, whatever its limitations, it provides the basic legal framework for limiting, reducing, and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, while at the same time allowing for the development of peaceful nuclear power. (pp. 1-8) [Distribute copies of the treaty.]

• 188 countries have signed it (p. 1)
• The International Atomic Energy Agency is given the authority to monitor the nuclear facilities of signatories
• The NPT has no enforcement provision, although violations may be referred to the UN Security Council for action if there is concern that there is an imminent threat to other countries
• Article IV of the NPT allows signatories to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
• Article VI – the disarmament provision – requires countries with nuclear weapons to eliminate these weapons (p. 2). It can be argued that the US is in violation of this provision.
• There are at least four nuclear powers that have not signed the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The US has diplomatic relations and other relations with three of the four illegal nuclear powers. Even though India is a nuclear renegade, the Bush administration has recently entered into an agreement with India to provide it with nuclear components for its nuclear power plants. India has the capacity to enrich uranium for both peaceful and military purposes. There is no way to keep India using nuclear components for military purposes, even when an agreement prohibits this. And the Bush administration could care less in India’s case.
• The Associated Press reported on Sunday (May 7, 2006) that Iran has threatened to quit the NPT, which it has a right to do under Article X of this treaty.

What stands stand out for me about the NPT and the controversy over Iran’s uranium enrichment program.

• 1) Iran is entitled to develop nuclear energy for peaceful ends, although “it did not declare its uranium enrichment activities and heavy water production, discovered in 2002, to the IAEA” (Thierry de Montbrial, “Bush’s Failure in the Middle East,” http://www.truthout.org May 3, 2006).
• 2) The Bush administration contends that Iran cannot be trusted for various reasons, and therefore Article IV of the NPT should not apply to Iran and the country should be kept from developing a nuclear power capability. In identifying Iran as an untrustworthy rogue state, the Bush administration seeks to divert attention from its hypocritical, double-standard approach to countries that have nuclear weapons.
• 3) The US has been hoping to legitimate its belligerent stance toward Iran within the framework of the NPT and through the UN. Administration officials claim that Iran is hiding its nuclear developments from the IAEA.
• 4) From what we read about the administration’s approach to Iran, it does not matter to Bush and his advisors whether Iran is in compliance with the NPT (Article IV) or not, and, in the final analysis, it does not matter what the Security Council decides. The administration appears determined to use whatever means it can to prevent Iran from having any nuclear capability.
—————————————————————————–

The second, and largest, section of the presentation focuses on the Iran crisis. It begins on page 8 and goes to page 64. There are two parts. The first part (pp. 8-24) provides in a chronology of key developments that have produced the Iran “crisis.” The second part (pp. 24-64), addresses nine questions/issues, some of which I have already touched on.

The chronology – I’ll leave it up to those who have an interest in this to check it out themselves. There are several points about the chronology, especially very recent developments, which are worth quickly referring to. The recent developments include:
• The IAEA has not found any evidence of an Iranian capacity to build nuclear weapons after lengthy and extended inspections.
• Nonetheless, the US is trying to persuade the UN Security Council to invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter and impose sanctions, while keeping open the possible use of military force later. Chapter VII would make compliance by Iran mandatory and punishable by sanctions if violated.
• The Russian and Chinese delegates at the Security Council oppose sanctions or military options.
• The Iranians have improved slightly their ability to enrich uranium for its nuclear power program, but they are still far from having the capability to enrich uranium that would be for nuclear weapons.
• In anticipation of a stalemated Security Council, the US, with Britain, and France are developing an agreement independently of the Security Council to support a resolution to impose economic sanctions on Iran, and to keep the door open to military intervention. In this case, the US would mobilize another “coalition of the willing” to toe the line of US belligerency.

The basic analysis: Nine questions and tentative answers for why we should oppose any US military action against Iran as well as economic sanctions.

1) What is the status of Iran’s nuclear program? Many experts believe that Iran is five to ten years away from being able to build nuclear weapons. Some Israelis think Iran could have nuclear bombs in less than five years. The Iranians are obviously making technological progress and are now able, for the first time, to enrich small quantities of uranium, which moves them closer to the point of being able to produce energy for peaceful purposes. They are still a long way from being able to enrich weapons grade uranium. (pp. 24-25)

2) Within the present NPT framework, does Iran have the right to develop a nuclear power capacity? Yes. Article IV of the NPT is the operative provision.

3) Iran has consistently claimed that it will not divert materials from its non-military nuclear facilities for the development of nuclear weapons. Can we believe them? (pp. 25-26)
• Diversion is possible at some point in 5-10 years to come.
• The US says, if Iran has the opportunity, it will divert. The IAEA say it doesn’t know. How do US officials know? They don’t.
• There is no hard evidence at present that Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself. All of its known activities with respect to nuclear research conform to what is permitted under the treaty.

4) Whatever Iran’s goals for the future, there are understandable reasons why Iran would want to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity at some future point. What are they? (pp. 27-29) Here are just four examples:

• “It is surrounded by countries with weapons of mass destruction: including Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and probably biological weapons capabilities), Syria and Egypt, both of which have chemical weapons, and Turkey, with its NATO-based nuclear weapons and massive military capacities.”
• “There are now [2006] 200,000 US and allied troops in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. The US has military bases almost completely ringing Iran in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgzstan.”
• “…US nuclear weapons deployment in and around the Persian Gulf, especially through the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, represent a constant threat to Iran.”
• “The US declared Iran a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’ in 2002 and claimed it has a right to ‘preventive war’ against such ‘evil’ states. This threat was subsequently carried out in the case of Iran’s neighbor Iraq.”

5) Why do the US and the others insist that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear capabilities? (pp. 29-37). I refer here to a series of contentions being made by officials from the Bush administration and neo-conservatives and refer to commentary and/or evidence that challenge these arguments. Let me refer to just one of them. The contention says that Iran is especially dangerous – a rogue state – “and will use nuclear weapons against Israel once it has them” and/or give them to terrorists to use against the US itself. Randal Mark disagrees with this view and offers the following reasons (source: Randal Mark, “Nonproliferation: From Noble Lie to Pretext for War,” http://www.antiwar.com March 21, 2006) and offers the following rebuttals:

• “…the modern Iranian regime has never invaded any other country”
• “Such support as it has given to Hezbollah and other resistance groups fighting Israel should be compared with US support for the Contras in Nicaragua” – such activities have been very focused and will be evaluated variously depending on one’s perspective.
• [Iran has never transferred any of its more potent weapons to its fighting friends….Hezbollah has received more than 10,000 Katyusha rockets…as well as long-range mortars that can hit Haifa, and even an unmanned aerial drone. These weapons can and have drawn Israeli blood. But the blister, choking and nerve agents in Iran’s arsenal have been withheld, as have longer range, more accurate missiles” (Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh, “Cautious Iran,” The Christian Science Monitor, www,csmonitor.com/2006/0503/p09s02-coop.htm, May 5, 2006).]
• [MSNBC headlines a May 3 report, “Iranian military rejects statement that Israel would be first target if US attacks,” May 4, 2006.]
• “It is a very unpleasantly authoritarian, but moderately democratic and reasonably stable, regime.”

On pages 34-37, I ask the question of what effect the administration’s position has had on public opinion. The most recent poll I have is from CNN (April) found that “Nearly two thirds (63 percent) urged that only economic and diplomatic efforts be undertaken; 21 percent recommended taking no action at all and 3 percent said they had not opinion.” Only 13% of those polled recommended military action now. (p. 37)

6) Does the US have a “hidden agenda”? (pp. 37-40). There is no definitive answer to this question. Nonetheless, I refer to sources that examine plausible reasons for why the Bush administration has not given up the option of military intervention in Iran.

• Divert the public’s attention away from Iraq.
• Control the region’s oil.
• Protect the dollar as the currency for trading in oil
• Ideological zealotry – there is an example on pp. 39-40 from Gareth Porter of how an attempt to develop a formal Iran policy was thwarted in 2002-2003
• [Attempt to eliminate a potential rival to Israel.]
• [Eliminate a state that is defined as unfriendly and prevent it from consolidating its control of a major source of oil and limit its agreements with China to develop some of the Iranian oil fields]

7) What are the near-term options open to the US and others who don’t want Iran to have any nuclear capability? (pp. 40-52). The Bush administration has seemingly already rejected #1, #2, and #3.
• 1) continue diplomatic efforts in hopes of persuading Iran from acquiring any nuclear capability;
• 2) continue diplomatic efforts, combined with inspections and monitoring by the IAEA, with the goal of limiting Iran’s nuclear capability;
• 3) let Iran develop its nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes.

The Bush administration has pretty much given up on diplomatic solutions to the crisis and would like now to have the UN Security Council impose economic sanctions on Iran. However, the Bush administration has not been willing to become directly involved in negotiations with Iran, so it hasn’t put the diplomatic option to a real test. But there are many sources that believe that diplomacy is a viable option. For example, The Nation editors advance this position in the May 22, 2006, issue of the magazine, and “Carnegie Endowment President Jessica Tuchman Matthews laid out in a march 21 New York Times editorial what the US has to do to get negotiations going on the nuclear question; most importantly, dropping preconditions on negotiations and dropping regime change ambitions” (cited in Elizabeth Spiro Clark, “Slouching Toward Tehran,” http://www.tompaine.com/print/slouching_towards_tehran.php).

At the same time, the administration has never given up the military option, which the President believes is a decision he can make independently of the US Congress. This raises serious constitutional questions. With diplomacy all but dismissed, the options of “regime change,” sanctions, and/or some sort of military intervention remain on the table as far as the Bush administration is concerned.

• 4) have the Security Council impose sanctions at some point if Iran fails to convince the IAEA that it has any uranium enrichment capabilities;
• 5) provide support to opposition groups within Iran with the goal of regime change;
• 6) intervene militarily in Iran with selective air strikes;
• 7) intervene militarily with a full-scale attack;

On pp. 42-52, I discuss the evidence that the Bush administration is seriously considering the use of the military option.

• The Bush administration keeps saying the military option for Iran remains under consideration.
• Some evidence that the US military is already making incursions into Iran.
• The Bush administration has not ruled out a preventive-strike against Iran.
• The US is prepared to launch an air attack against selected targets in Iran.
• Some think the US might even use nuclear bombs in an invasion of Iran. There is contingency planning in the DOD regarding the use of nuclear weapons in an attack on Iraq.
• The US military is going ahead with testing of large bombs that are related to the development of tactical nuclear weapons. According to a report by Robert Gehrke for The Sale Lake Tribune, “A powerful blast scheduled at the Nevada Test Site in June is designed to help war planners figure out the smallest nuclear weapon able to destroy underground targets.” The planned detonation is called Devine Strike, and has the goal of generating data to allow military authorities to select “’the smallest possible nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage,’ according to Defense Department budget documents.”
• [The human costs of dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran are “astronomical”: “The National Academy of Sciences studied these earth-penetrating nuclear weapons last year. They could ‘kill up to a million people or more if used in heavily populated areas,’ concluded the report, which was sponsored by the US Department of Defense.” See the article for further studies. (Matthew Rothschild, “The Human Costs of Bombing Iran,” http://progressive.org.node/3268 April 11, 2006 – Original source: The Progressive magazine.)

8) What are the potential costs to the US of a military assault on Iran? (pp. 52-60)

• Further loss of US credibility. The Editors of Monthly Review point out “There is every reason to believe that opposition to a US ‘preventive war’ against the people of Iran is almost universal outside the US, while tens of millions of people inside the US itself oppose such an expansion of the Middle East Conflict” (April 2006).
• Threatening or attacking Iran would violate international law
• An attack on Iran would likely be unconstitutional, without the support of Congress.
• Iran is in much better position than Iraq was to respond to a US attack (consider the following two points).
• E.g., Iran has the means to launch a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy. And Iran has other military options, including intervention on the Shiite side in Iraq, which could turn the disastrous US occupation there into a worse nightmare, with skyrocketing casualties. Iran could also vastly increase its support to Islamist resistance forces in the Palestinian territories and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
• E.g., An Israeli or US attack on Iran would almost certainly strengthen Islamist tendencies throughout the region as well as put intense pressure on Arab governments to react much more strongly against the United States and Israel. And heightened threats against Iran would only strengthen the hard-liners there. By all accounts, Iranians–even those who detest the mullahs–overwhelmingly support their country’s nuclear ambitions.
• A US attack on Iran would be costly and destabilizing and lead to a protracted war in the region.
• A US invasion of Iran would drive oil prices soaring.
• US military is already over-stretched and is not prepared for another extended conflict.
• A US attack on Iran would strengthen China’s growing influence in the region.

9) Can we live with an Iran that has nuclear weapons? Can the world tolerate it? (pp. 60-64). It’s better to live with an Iran that seems determined to develop a nuclear capacity than to intervene militarily against Iran.

• We must bear in mind that Iran is some years away from having the capability to build nuclear bombs.
• What effect would Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons have on the proliferation of such weapons? (a) Saudi Arabia and Syria might want them but neither country has the resources – and they would likely be pressured to give up the idea; (b) Turkey might feel pressure to match Iraq and acquire its own nuclear weapons – “but EU pressure would almost certainly prevent any movement in that direction”; (c) It might make the US less reckless in its use of military force in the Middle East; (d) It might force Israel to the negotiating table for real.
• Iran’s has demonstrated moderation and pragmatism in its foreign policy of recent years, as national interests and strategic calculations have taken precedence over ideology. (See examples on pp. 61-63.)

—————————————————————————–
The Third Section: Some positions worth defending and advancing.

We don’t want Iran or any other non-nuclear country to build or retain nuclear bombs. We also don’t want the US to invade or bomb Iran? What then do we want? It may be useful to clarify what we think are reasonable goals that would redirect US policy way from the sanctions and military options and that would pave the way for the reversal of nuclear proliferation.

(1) Set an Example. The US must take the lead and set an example by reducing its nuclear stockpile, ceasing development of new nuclear weapons, and opening itself up to independent international inspections. – “… non-proliferation by cooperation and consent, cannot succeed as long as the United States is insistent on retaining and improving its nuclear arsenal and allowing its allies to have these weapons. By what argument can others be persuaded to give up, or not acquire, nuclear weapons? The only hope lies in a mutual recognition that all nuclear weapons are created equally evil, and there should be no room in our world for such weapons of mass destruction.”

(2) Diplomacy. In the meantime, support initiatives for genuine diplomacy with Iran – rather than sanctions or military intervention
Michael Klare says, further, that genuine negotiations on the U.S. side “means accepting Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner and approaching the issues in a professional manner. Negotiating with Tehran doesn’t mean endorsing the clerical regime; it simply means being prepared to reach a compromise that’s in everyone’s best interest. It requires shunning all talk of “regime change” and any inclination to use force.”
Another source: The U.S. and Iran should enter direct negotiations. It is simply absurd for the U.S. and the most important nation in the Middle East not to communicate directly. The Bush administration should not be seduced by exile groups with no support in Iran. Developing democracy is an internal affair.

(3) Support legislation that forces the Bush administration to consult with the US Congress before ever launching a military attack on Iran. For example, Congressman Peter DeFazio’s H.Con.Res.391 expresses “the sense of the Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran with respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization from Congress.”

(4) Support the idea of a nuclear bomb free Middle East – I refer selected paragraphs of a plan quoted on pages 68-71 as follows:
• There are historical precedents, going back thirty or so years, for consideration of a nuclear-free Middle East region.
• “All nuclear weapons, weapons technology, weapons-usable material, and machinery that could produce such material would be prohibited. Outside powers would be prohibited from introducing weapons into the zone, and dual-use technology would be subject to IAEA safeguards. Nuclear power would not be excluded from the region, but each plant would have a resident international inspector who also could assume responsibility for monitoring the safe operation of the plant. Custodial responsibility for fresh fuel would rest with the provider country, which would repatriate the spent nuclear fuel.”
• “The IAEA would furnish first-tier enforcement through a new nuclear contraband elimination authority. In order to build confidence in the zone, inspectors’ responsibilities would be broadened. Each country or cluster of countries would be assigned resident inspectors, who would be free to visit declared, undeclared, or suspected nuclear sites and also sites containing dual-use technology. They would be granted the right to interview a country’s nuclear scientists as well. The authority would command its own fleet of surveillance aircraft modeled after the planes dedicated to the Open Skies regime, which the former Soviet Union and NATO negotiated, or the aerial surveillance that flew over Iraq. This surveillance would supplement intelligence provided by IAEA member states. These aircraft would have sensors capable of ferreting out suspect activity, which ground inspectors could then verify. Inspectors would have the authority to destroy or export contraband to disposal sites in the United States, Europe, or Russia.”
• But why should Israel bear the burden of Iran’s violation of the NPT? The sacrifice only makes sense if it is compensated appropriately. The challenge is to fashion a strategy to supplement the NWZ with compensation that will benefit all parties.
• NATO membership would offer Israel a key to increased security. For the first time in the Jewish state’s history, it would find itself under the strategic umbrella of a family of nations formally dedicated to its survival, an ambition that goes back to the founding of the state. [10] This, in turn, would ease the way for Israel to make territorial concessions with the Palestinians and Syrians and end the state of war.
• ….For the Mideast NWZ to work, Israel must be reassured. Under this proposal, NATO’s commitment to Israel’s nuclear defense would precede full membership and provide a nuclear deterrent. NATO-manned aircraft and ballistic missile defenses could counter Iran’s growing capacity. Full membership would add ground forces to assist in the defense of Israel’s permanent borders, once they were established as part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The lure of full membership would encourage this achievement. Following the precedent of excluding nuclear weapons on the territory of NATO’s new central European membership, the alliance would not place nuclear weapons on Israeli soil or territorial waters, hence preserving the NWZ.

(5) A long-term goal of ridding the world of nuclear power, civilian and military: The only solution at this stage is to impose a worldwide moratorium on the production of weapons-grade fissionable materials, and those materials already produced should be placed under strict international controls in all countries including our own. This would mean revising the NPT or replacing it with a stronger treaty.

(6) Support the proposal for an International Sustainable Energy Agency.

Source: Richard Falk and David Krieger, “The Non-Proliferation Treaty is Failing: What Now?” http://www.wagingpeace.org April 10, 2006
“….an International Sustainable Energy Agency should be immediately established and generously funded to extend aid to poorer countries to develop various types of sustainable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal). Such a step would both ease the prospects of a global energy crunch, and would contribute to environmental protection.

(7) Become informed, speak out, and educate others about the recklessness of the Bush administration’s policy on Iran.

(8) Become informed, speak out, and educate others about the importance of not only stopping nuclear proliferation but also eliminating existing stocks of nuclear weapons.

Can the EPA become a force for genuine environment protection and enhancement without systemic change?

Bob Sheak, May 4, 2018

Trump is advancing policies that serve to consolidate the powerful right-wing coalition of which he is the accommodating – and self-promoting – public leader.

One of Trump’s most prominent and disturbing policies is reflected in the administration’s energy policy, but it should be noted that his initiatives and appointments related to energy are just one part of the administration’s – and Republican Party’s – wholesale deregulation goal. I will focus on the environment and the EPA.

The right-wing regulatory policy is aimed at weakening government enforcement of environmental laws, by appointing agency administrators who will advance this goal, and by vigorously pursuing deregulation to eliminate or weaken those environmental policies and practices that put limitations on corporate profit-seeking. Contrary to Trump, we want and need strong regulatory agencies that protect citizens, consumers, and the environment from the excesses built into our corporate-dominated capitalist system. Such agencies would ideally initiate and enact plans and rules, based on solid scientific research, and enforce them. Effective regulatory agencies are obviously those that encourage at all levels of government environmental protection, reclamation, and enhancement not only through rule-making and enforcement but also through grants and expert assistance.

There is conflicting evidence over how the EPA has done prior to the Trump administration.

The positives

The editors of the Environmental Magazine remind us of the origin, purposes, and early accomplishments of the EPA (March 15, 2017, http://www.spiritofchange.org/green-living-environment/What-Good-Has-The-EPA-Done-For-The-Environment).

“the EPA was created via Executive Order by Republican President Richard Nixon in December 1970 in response to rising concerns about pollution in an increasingly industrialized United States.” Its purpose, then and now, is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to their health and the environment where they live, learn and work. To accomplish this, the EPA develops and enforces environmental regulations based on laws passed by Congress; monitors environmental quality across the country; funds states, non-profits and educational institutions to address local and regional problems; and educates the public about how to avoid and mitigate environmental risks. Laws implemented and enforced by the EPA to protect our land, air and water save hundreds of thousands of Americans from premature death every year and keep our ecosystems healthy in the face of innumerable threats.

“The EPA’s very first major accomplishment back in the early 1970s was setting standards on common air pollutants plaguing urbanized and industrial areas across the U.S. Other highlights from the EPA’s first decade include: banning the pesticide DDT and requiring extensive environmental reviews of all pesticides; establishing the first fuel economy standards for cars and trucks on American roads; overseeing the phase-out of PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons and leaded gasoline; and setting nationwide benchmarks for drinking water quality.”

Scientific American offers a positive view of the EPA in an article titled “Environmental Enforcer: How Effective Has the EPA Been in Its First 40 years,” or through 2010 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-epa-first-40-years). The answer given by the editors is that the agency “has been very effective.” It is the “first dedicated national environmental agency of its kind” in the world, and has been “instrumental in setting policy priorities and writing and enforcing a wide range of laws that have literally changed the fact of the Earth for the better.” They refer to a study by the Aspen Institute and compiled by a group of more than 20 environmental leaders unveiling a list of “10 ways the U.S .Environmental Protection Agency has strengthened America over the past 40 years.” Here’s what they say.

“…banning the widespread use of the pesticide DDT, which was decimating bald eagles and other birds and threatening public health; achieving significant reductions in Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen emissions that were polluting water sources via acid rain; changing public perceptions of waste, leading to innovations that make use of waste for energy creation and making new products; getting lead out of gasoline; classifying secondhand smoke as a known cause of cancer, leading to smoking bans indoor public places; regulating toxic chemicals and encouraging the development of more benign chemicals; establishing a national commitment to restore and maintain the safety of fresh water, via the Clean Water Act; promoting equitable environmental protection for minority and low-income citizens; and increasing public information and communities’ ‘right to know’ what chemicals and/or pollutants they may be exposed to in their daily lives.”

There is also recent evidence that the EPA has had beneficial impacts on protecting people from industry pollution. David Cay Johnston points to the following evidence in his book, It’s Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration is Doing to America.

“For the three decades from 1990 to 2020, the EPA calculated, the direct costs of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments will come to $380 billion. The benefits, depending on assumptions, range between $1 trillion and $35 trillion. The Central estimate was $12 trillion” (p. 118).

Johnston adds: “That is a return of $35 of benefits for each dollar spent on compliance, using the middle estimate.” He further points out that this research does not count the reduced “asthma, lung cancer, heart disease, and premature death caused by pollution.”

The negative

There is other evidence that reveals that the EPA has colluded with manufacturers in establishing what the safe limits of various chemicals and pollutants are and doing so in a way that set the limits too low. The Poison Papers, “a trove of rediscovered and newly digitized chemical industry and regulatory agency documents stretching back to the 1920s,” according to an outline of the papers published on the website EcoWatch (https://www.ecowatch.com/the-poison-papers-2465841261.html).

The papers were released to the public in July 2017. The research, done by the Bioscience Research Project and the Center for Media and Democracy, is based on “a compilation of more than 20,000 documents obtained from federal agencies and chemical manufacturers.” The analysis of the papers shows that regulators typically went along with the demands of industry, “setting up secret committees, deceiving the media and the public, and covering up evidence of human exposure and human harm. These secret activities extended and increased human exposure to chemicals they knew to be toxic.”

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., director of the Poison Papers project, is interviewed on The Real News, an outstanding news and opinion program you can find on the internet (May 3, 2018). Let me quote his opening statements.

“What they show is that, either actively or implicitly, that regulatory agencies, but most especially the EPA, have been colluding with the manufacturers and the organizations that they’re supposed to regulated in all kinds of different ways. So this is for the approval of new products, this is for the enforcement of all products, this is for the suppression of data, showing evidence of harm. Denying the public this information that they need to protect themselves, an opportunity to find our more about products, for example.”

There are also many books that criticize the EPA for weak regulatory assessments and enforcement and how the agency has been too willing to accommodate corporate interests in industries being regulated. For example, Philip Shabecoff and Alice Shabecoff published the book Poisoned Profits: The Toxic Assault on Our Children in 2009, in which they document that there has been “a steep increase of a variety of serious chronic childhood illness over the past half century.” They continue: “These include childhood cancer, asthma, birth defects, and a range of neurological problems.” These illnesses have been:

“paralleled by an increase in the volume and range of toxic substances into the environment that we perceive as astonishing in magnitude. These substances pervade our habitat – our air, our water, our soil, our homes, our schools, and our places of work. They not only come from toxic waste sites, industrial sites, power plant smokestacks, automobile tailpipes, and pesticide-sprayed field, but can also lurk in our food and many (if not most) of our commonplace produces as cleaning products, cosmetics, plastic bottles, and clothing…. There is not a human on earth who is not exposed to toxic pollution. But it is the children who are most vulnerable” (p. xii).

Author David Kirby cites the EPA as a source that identifies environmental problems that are vast in their effects. In his book, Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment (2010), Kirby writes that “the EPA said farming operations of all types had contaminated some fifteen hundred miles of state rivers, more than twice the amount polluted by manufacturing and city sewage plants combined” (p. 55). But Kirby then points out that the EPA did little, writing that “[o]n January 21, 2005, the EPA announced an unprecedented programs that granted amnesty to large CAFO [Confined Animal Feeding Operations] that violated the federal Clean Air Act. In return, the offenders would participate in a voluntary program of monitoring air emissions at some, but not all, of the participating farms” (p. 300).

The take-away and what’s to come

The EPA has done some good but not enough. The roots of the problem are systemic, in the sway of profit-based corporate power, political stalemate and increasingly right-wing government, an economy that knows no limits, and a culture in which the good life is often measured by what people can consume. In this context, it is surprising that the EPA has accomplished as much as it has. What’s clear now is that under the Trump regime environmental regulation is likely to see an EPA starved of resources and under the leadership of administrators who don’t believe in and want to sabotage regulation. David Cay Johnston quotes Betsy Southerland, the EPA administrator who preceded Scott Pruitt, who said we can expect there will “increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.”

A caveat?

Michael Grunwald pens an article for Politico, the main point of which is that the EPA rules and rule-making processes are so complex and take so much time to be completed that it is unlikely that Trump’s administration or the EPA administrator are likely to do much harm (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/07/scott-pruitt-epa-accomplishments-rollback-217834). The thrust of this article is captured in this quote.

“…so far he’s [Pruitt] only managed to delay a few rules that hadn’t yet taken effect. His supporters, critics and boss have all promoted the perception that he’s repealed Obama’s legacy and shredded American environmental rulebook – and not one has promoted that perception more energetically that Pruitt, who frequently sued Obama’s EPA when he Oklahoma’s attorney general. Nevertheless, the perception is wrong.

“Pruitt’s problem is that major federal regulations are extremely difficult and time-consuming to enact, and just as difficult and time-consuming to reverse. The rulemaking process can take years of technical and administrative work that Pruitt and his team have not yet had time to do.”

Grunwald has not read the Poison Papers. The massive environmental problems that afflict the United States do not begin with the Trump administration. And the bad news keeps coming. Michelle Chen reports on in-depth evidence from the recently published study by the American Lung Association titled “State of the Air.” The central point is that 133.9 million Americans live in cities that exceed acceptable levels of smog, pathogens, and toxins. You can find Chen’s report at: https://thenation.com/article/133-9-million-americans-live-in-areas-with-unhealthy-levels-of-air-pollution. Whatever good work the EPA has been doing is being eclipsed by the amount of pollutants that are being produced by the economy, from the fossil-fuel based transportation system, the electrical power systems, the wildfires related to climate change, and other sources.

Trump’s Energy Policy

This is a policy that wants to foster the maximum extraction, processing, distribution and use of oil, gas, and coal, with absolutely no concern about the environmental or health consequences. Trump is doing his part in implementing this lethal policy ideologically by denying the indisputably- scientifically-documented reality of global warming and the huge role played by fossil fuel emissions in this existentially-threatening climate-altering process. In the Trump, right-wing world, verifiable and authoritative evidence has no meaning or can be cavalierly dismissed if it interferes with investment and profits. This way of thinking resonates well with the network of billionaires headed by the Koch brothers, the big fossil fuel corporations, the American Petroleum Institute, and other big Republican donors. Then there are tens of millions of Americans among Trump’s core supporters, most of whom will believe virtually anything the leader says. They don’t salute with a straight arm him yet, but they wear his hats and other paraphernalia and shout his praises at the rallies of adoration that his compliant staff organize to boost the leader’s spirits. Indeed, why should they not cheer this president who tells them he is the greatest, a self-proclaimed “stable genius,” and one who will offer them security against their worst fears.

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement

Beyond ideology, Trump has taken specific steps to buttress the fossil-fuel based energy systems. He withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accord or Agreement on June 1, 2017(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate). The Paris agreement was the world’s first comprehensive international climate agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement). By May 2018, despite Trump’s action, government officials of over190 countries had signed the agreement, the aim of which was to have each government agree to reduce their emissions enough so that collectively the global temperature will not rise about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). The agreement rests on the willingness of countries to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and for the “rich” countries to pony up extra funds to support the development of sustainable energy systems in poor countries. It is not an ideal agreement. There are concerns that the agreement does not go far to keep temperatures from rising about 3.6 degrees and there is no binding enforcement mechanism. But it is an agreement that provides the cooperative framework on which to build.

In his statement withdrawing from the agreement, Trump maintained that it would cost Americans jobs, require cuts in the production of paper, cement, iron and steel, oil, and coal, causing astronomical economic upheavals, and give China unfair advantages. He also said he would do better and talked about introducing a new deal for the world’s nations to consider sometime in the future. In the meantime, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere at levels the earth has not experienced for many thousands of years. And time is running out before the increasingly destructive effects of anthropogenic climate change overwhelm humanity and threaten the very survival of the human species.

The Climate Crisis grows

Julia Conley reviews some of the evidence on climate change and its effects in an article for Common Dreams, citing authoritative sources (http://commondreams.org/news/2018/01/18/trump-denies-science-terrifying-trend-continues-2017-among-hottest-years-ever). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA report that, as she summarizes, “17 of the 18 hottest years since preindustrial times have occurred since 2001.” This is a reference to the average global temperature. The last four years have been the hottest four on record. Conley adds: “In 2017, as scientists observed wildfires throughout California; an Atlantic hurricane season that saw three major storms sweep through the Caribbean and the southern U.S., killing an untold number of people and causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage; and the extent of sea ice at both the North and South Poles reaching a record low due to melting after a warm 2017 winter.”

Obama’s Clean Power Plan

But there is a lot more going on in the Trump administration than withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. Trump and his administration have moved to undermine existing environmental laws opposed by his major corporate supporters in the fossil-fuel and auto industries and the right-wing coalition generally. In May 2017, Trump issued an executive order on climate policies, the main target of which was the EPA’s Clean Power Plan which had only been finalized by the Obama White House in August 2016. Scott K. Johnson of Arstechnica provides some useful background. “The goal of the Clean Power Plan was to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030” (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/trumps-executive-order-on-climate-change-finally-drops). The most important rule in the plan included emission-reduction targets for each state to meet. The states were to decide how to reach their respective targets, though some or many coal-burning plants would not have been able to comply and would had to have closed (as many are anyway). Some states would have been affected more than others.

With the seeming termination of the Clean Power rule, Trump’s EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, was given the job of taking the plan back to the drawing board, with no time-table. In the meantime, some of the older-coal burning power plants will continue operating. Johnson also points out that there are provisions in Trump’ executive order that will open up additional opportunities generally for fossil fuel mining on federal land and specifically for easing restrictions on fracking for oil and gas on federal land. For environmentalists, the bad news piles up.Johnson writes: “the federal government is directed to stop using EPA-developed ‘social cost of carbon’ calculations to determine the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions when making policy decisions,” and “to stop considering climate change when reviewing infrastructure projects,” ignoring “things like sea level rise and increasing flash flooding.” There is, though, one remaining obstacle that Trump’s EPA faces, as Johnson points out.

“Some form of regulation is still required because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was legally obligated to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, so long as the agency determined that greenhouse gas emissions threatened ‘public health and welfare.’ In 2009, the Agency concluded they did – a key decision know as ‘endangerment finding.’ As a result, the EPA is now legally required to put out some sort of regulation like the Clean Power Plan.”

Given the unqualified commitment of the Trump administration to deregulation, I am inclined to think that any replacement regulation will do little to curtail emissions from coal, oil, and gas production.

Scott Pruitt’s EPA – something to be whittled down

Now there’s a lot more to say about Trump’s energy policy. David Cay Johnson makes this relevant point about Trump’s attitude toward the EPA, that is, the EPA is “an agency Trump has promised he would smash into ‘tidbits” (It’s Even Worse Than You Think, p. 115). Trump’s policy is encapsulated in his choice of Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. Pruitt agrees with Trump that fossil-fuel extraction and production should be maximized and that any government regulations that stand in the way of the fossil-fuel-based electrical power and a gasoline-dependent transportation system should be changed, side-stepped, or ignored. In line with this way of thinking, it is widely reported that Pruitt discourages and penalizes agency experts and staff for referring to global warming in their reports. This may help to explain why hundreds of EPA employees are leaving the agency (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/epa-trump-administration-new-york-times/index.html). Pruitt’s EPA has also removed climate change information from its website. Reporting for CNN on April 29, 2018, Rene Marsh writes: “The EPA removed most climate change information from its website Friday, saying in a press release that language on the website is being updated to ‘reflect the approach of the new leadership’” (https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/29/politics/epa-climate-change-website/index.html).

Pruitt: CO2 emissions may not be a bad thing

Pruitt himself has denied the reality of global warming, or human-induced disruptive climate change (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/09/epa-scott-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-glob). Recently, however, he has acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions are having an impact on the environment but that it “may not be a bad thing,” as reported by Nick Visser for the Huffington Post on February 7, 2018 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-pruitt-global-warming-good_us_5a7ba9bce4044b3821922dc). Here is some of what Visser reports:

“Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, alluded earlier this week that global warming may be beneficial to humans, once again questioning the world’s leading scientists who have declared the phenomenon one of the greatest known threats to humanity.

‘In an interview that aired Tuesday on KSNV, a Nevada television station, Pruitt questioned how accurately scientists could predict the planet’s ideal temperature in 2100, or even this year, and said humans had “flourished” in times of past warmth.

“We know humans have most flourished during times of what, warming trends,” Pruitt said during the interview. “I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018?”

He continued: “That’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

The view is a new iteration of Pruitt’s antagonism toward established climate science, but it flies in the face of such research all the same. Scientists have long held a near-unanimous consensus that the climate is changing and that humans are the primary cause. World leaders and global organizations have declared the phenomenon one of the most pressing threats to humanity and have warned that unless the world works to halt greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, a host of climate-related effects could devastate the world.

The reaction of scientists to Pruitt’s claim about CO2 emissions being “not so bad” is reported by John Bacon in a USA Today article (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/08/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-global-warming-may-good-thing/318850002).

Bacon quotes the responses of three scientists to Pruitt’s statement. Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Penn State, pointed out: “As the evidence becomes ever more compelling that climate change is real and human caused, the forces of denial turn to other specious argument, like ‘it will be good for us.'” Stanford environment professor Chris Field, “who oversaw a United Nations and World Meteorological Organization scientific report on climate change,” is quoted as follows: “thousands of studies document that a warming planet causes a host of problems, not just from high temperatures but also from heat waves, higher seas, heavier downpours, and more frequent destructive hurricanes and wildfires.” And Lynn Goldman, dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University,” told Field that “the impact of global warming on health and the sustainability of the food supply are ‘not good.” While there are some locations where warming has a benefit, overall “things are worse.”

Making the Obama administrations fuel-efficiency standards disappear
Pruitt appears to shrug off criticisms and is relentless in his efforts to ignore global warming/climate change. This attitude is further reflected in the EPA’s decision to undo the historic fuel-efficiency standards instituted by the Obama administration in August 2012. What are these standards? A White House press release announcing the standard claimed that the “groundbreaking standards…will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025” (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administratin-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard).

The new standards were said to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels.” The administration also expected that the new standards would encourage manufacturers to make investments in “clean, innovative technologies.” California was subsequently given a waiver to institute even higher standards, if they chose to. All this is good. Now, however, Pruitt’s EPA has terminated the standards. Why? It reflects so brazenly the Trump administrations goals of wholesale deregulation, climate-change denial (more or less), and the unqualified commitment of Trump and his right-wing allies to eliminate all obstacles to the profit visions of the fossil-fuel corporations, big auto makers, and their powerful corporate and political allies.

Pruitt made the announcement terminating the fuel-efficiency standards on April 3, 2018, as reported by Arlette Saenz for ABC News (http://abcnews.com/Politics/epa-administrator-scott-pruitt-announces-rollback-obama-era/story?id=54202466). Here’s the gist of her report.

“’Those standards are inappropriate and should be revised,’ Pruitt said at the EPA. The change in policy relaxes fuel efficiency and emissions standards for vehicles manufactured between 2022 and 2025. Pruitt did not outline any new standards, saying they are still under evaluation.”

This decision by Pruitt for the right-wing to end and replace (no specified date) the Obama administration’s fuel-efficiency standards may be the most potentially climate-damaging move by Pruitt’s EPA so far, according to Marianne Lavelle and John H. Cushman Jr of Inside Climate News (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02042018/climate-change-car-fuel-efficiency-cafe-standard-epa-pruitt-auto-pollution-gas-mileage-california-global-warming).

The standards seem to have had some success initially. Lavelle and Cushman point out that the auto industry “outperformed the federal vehicle standards until last year. But then in 2017 “[c]arbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector…reached their highest level since the 2008 economic downturn.” Now emissions are rising as the auto industry sells an increasing number of SUVs and light trucks, as sales go up, and as people drive more miles. Lavelle and Cushman write that such emissions now account for 37 percent of U.S. emissions from energy consumption, citing as their source the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Vehicle emissions now exceeds those from the electric power sector. There is concern also that, in the absence of any reasonable fuel-efficiency standards, the auto corporations will curtail their moves toward manufacturing electric cars.

The seriousness of Pruitt’s decision to abandon the fuel-efficiency standards of the Obama administration led to an enormous outcry. Jessica Corbett’s headline captures it: “States Representing 44% of US Population Sue Trump’s EPA for Blocking Auto Emissions Standards” (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/01/states-representing-44-us-population-sue-trumps-epa-blocking-auto-emissions). Here is some of what she reports.

“A coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia is suing the Trump administration for blocking greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles that aimed to reduce air pollution and curb U.S. drivers’ contributions to the global climate crisis.

“In what critics called an “indefensible and frankly embarrassing decision,” last month Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt caved to automobile industry lobbyists’ demands and announced that his agency is drafting relaxed manufacturing rules for vehicles made between 2022 and 2025.

“’Enough is enough,’ California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Tuesday. ‘The evidence is irrefutable: today’s clean car standards are achievable, science-based, and a boon for hardworking American families. But the EPA and Administrator Scott Pruitt refuse to do their job and enforce these standards.’

“Becerra, California Gov. Jerry Brown, and the California Air Resources Board are leading the coalition that filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to a statement released by Becerra’s office, the lawsuit alleges that Trump’s EPA “acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failed to follow its own regulations, and violated the Clean Air Act” when rolling back the regulations.

“’This coalition represents approximately 43 percent of the new car sales market nationally and 44 percent of the U.S. population,’ the statement noted. States attorneys general or agencies from Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia have signed on to lawsuit (pdf).”
It remains to be seen whether even such massively organized opposition can effectively challenge Pruitt’s decision.

What is Scott Pruitt’s role really all about?

There is something bigger involved in Pruitt’s decisions. Aside from seemingly irrational policies and administrative practices, Scott Pruitt is playing a role in a larger political drama orchestrated by Trump and his right-wing allies. Bear in mind, they are committed to strengthening a free-wheeling version of corporate-dominated capitalism that is oriented to profits, wherever, however, and whatever. They want a political-economic system that is highly deregulated and privatized, low federal taxes, corporate-friendly in every way, highly militarized, and hawkish on foreign policy. The administration disregards concepts of the public interest, the common good, or environmental protection and renewal. And it is particularly punitive toward those with low-incomes who need public assistance. I have discussed these issues in previous posts.

Here’s the answer. The appointment of Pruitt as EPA administrator is an example of how Trump choses ideologically compatible people to important policymaking positions in his administration, paying little attention to their competence or character. Trump wants loyalty and compliance and opportunities thus to demonstrate his own superiority and power to his principal constituencies, the mega-corporations and the rich. There is little attention paid to Pruitt’s incompetence, his authoritarian administrative approach, and his far-right ideological bent. What matters? Pruitt’s ability to deliver a more depleted and ineffective EPA than he started with. This remains to be seen. However, Pruitt may have gone too far in some ways, that is, in his willingness to use his lofty position to personally benefit himself and his friends and to be caught at it. This may be his ultimate undoing. We can be sure, there are plenty of like-minded replacements waiting in the wings. In the final analysis, we need, though the chances are not great, a government in Washington D.C. that is committed to environmental protection, reclamation, and enhancement. That requires elected officials who are progressive and committed to truly radical institutional change.

Pruitt’s a committed right-wing ideologue and a bit of an opportunist

When Pruitt first introduced himself to EPA by video over the agency’s computer network, he “revealed his one-sided approach to EPA’s mandate,” according to David Cay Johnston.

“His only stated concerns were those of industries EPA regulates.”

“Pruitt did not talk about why environmental regulations exist: to protect human health and safety, to make sure children are not drinking water laced with lead as happened in Flint, Michigan; to minimize the damage of industrial processes, such as ensuring that fumes from electric power plant smokestacks are not so toxic that they turn the rain falling on northeastern forests acid, killing trees and trout; to make sure that a century of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland catching fire because of chemical dumping remains history; to ensure that fish caught in the Great Lakes and the Hudson River and the coastal seas are not laced with man-made chemicals that cause cancer in humans how eat the fish; to protect the wildlife and plant life that create enormous amounts of economic value for mankind all on their own” (It’s Even Worse Than You Think, p. 116).

His previous record of support for and close ties to fossil-fuel interests

John Nichols provides the following information on Pruitt’s past record as Oklahoma’s attorney general in his book Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to The Most Dangerous People in America.

“As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt used template language provided by lobbyists to help advance the agendas of those lobbyists. According to the watchdog group[Center for Media and Democracy]: ‘The oil and gas lobby group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) coordinated opposition in 2012 to both the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS) and ozone limits with Pruitt’s office. While AFPM was making its own case against the RFS with the American Petroleum Institute, it provided Pruitt with a template language for an Oklahoma petition, noting ‘this argument is more credible coming from the state. Later that year, Pruitt did file opposition to both the RFS and ozone limits.”

“‘In a groundbreaking New York Times Pulitzer-winning series in 2014, Eric Lipton exposed the close relationship between Devon Energy and Scott Pruitt, and highlighted examples where Devon Energy drafted letters that were sent by Pruitt under his own name….In one email, Devon Energy helped draft language that was later sent by Pruitt to the EPA about the limiting of methane from oil and gas fracking.”

Pruitt’s mischief in his personal dealings

The mounting evidence indicates that Pruitt has violated his “ethics pledge.” Michael Biesecker reports: “Ethics rules covering federal officials say they must remain impartial when making regulatory decisions and can’t show favoritism. Pruitt also signed an ethics pledge when joining the Trump administration in which he promised not to accept gifts from lobbyists. (Biesecker) (https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/04/04/epa-chief-gets-support-from-trump-warning-from-white-house).

Guess what? Alex Formuzis, Environmental Working Group (EWG), April 9, 2018 reports: “David J. Apol, acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, sent a scathing letter to the EPA’s ethics office, saying that Pruitt’s actions ‘may constitute a violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch,’ The New York Times reported today. The letter cites Pruitt’s $50-a-night rental of a condominium tied to an energy lobbyist, his frequent government-funded flights home to Oklahoma, and his reported firing or demoting EPA staff who raised concerns about his actions (https://www.ewg.org/release/are-possible-violations-federal-law-enough-finally-send-scott-pruitt-packing#.WucYVOSWzlU) (You can see Apol’s letter at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4433878.pdf.) There are calls by members of the U.S. Congress for investigations and 91of members want Pruitt fired.

Formuzis lists the scandals that have engulfed Pruitt and raised serious questions about his ethical failures while being EPA administrator.

• Paying rock-bottom rent to live in a condo linked to a fossil fuel lobbyist.
• Spending $3 million in taxpayer money on a 20-person security detail.
• Ignoring White House protocol and giving senior aides massive pay raises.
• Demanding unsuccessfully that his motorcade turn on the sirens to blow through traffic en route to lunch at a fancy French restaurant.
• Demoting and firing EPA employees who questioned his extravagant spending of taxpayer dollars.
• Proposing spending $100,000 per month for private plane charter service.
• Asking to spend $70,000 on two desks, including one that would be bulletproof. (Formuzis)

The pundits are asking whether Trump will dismiss Pruitt. Whether he goes or stays, and beyond Trump and his administration, the larger and dire environmental trends continue. Only radical reform will do.