LyrArc Article Gist
As one group of B-2's headed west pver the Pacific, another group quietly headed east to bomb the Iranian nuclear weapons development sites. The intent was to carry out the decision made by the US and the EU and tacitly supported by Russia, China, India, and the world, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is now evident that since the beginning of 2025 the number on priority of the DJT administration in foreign policy was to end Iran's effort to get a nuclear weapon. This is why the US DJT administration brought together Gulf regimes Qatar and UAE, Saudis for $2 trillion in business and economic deals in a DJT visit in May 2025. It is also evident that when India launched air strikes on Pakistan terrorist bases in June the US president DJT ended the war quickly in 72 hours. The Pakistan military head met with DJT in the White House a week back. This was preparation for the plan to take out the nuclear sites with minimal regional instability, a goal of the American people after Reagan/Bush miscalculations in supporting Hussein in Iraq and creating the Middle East wars Americans have had enough of. It may close a chapter of violent conflicts in the Middle East to be replaced with US support for India, UAE/Qatar/Saudi, Pakistan economic deals economic agreements. Much of the Indian media fails to understand this. The job of a US president if done right has responsibilities to the Nation and the World, after all the missteps of his predecessors DJT is stepping into this role. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is hard to imagine that one is even writing about this, as shocking as it is- the 4 or 5 minutes between a decision to launch nuclear weapons and the end of life on this planet earth as we know it. Here Sam Nunn, a U.S. senator who was part of the negotiations for arms control and who is the leading American in this field talks about the unimaginable danger. He says the strategy from the Cold War where Russia and the U.S. put their nuclear forces in a position to be launched within minutes, 4 to 5 minutes, is outdated and needs to be changed. Hillary Clinton described the issue in the television debate. Yet this was not discussed because of the nature of the 2016 presidential election with lack of serious discussion.  And both Nunn and Clinton emphasize that once the missiles are in the air they cannot be ordered to go back. Accidental error, judgemental error, informational error in which one side thinks the other has launched a missile, a firing by mistake, are possible. In this situation Nunn says Trump is temperamentally unfit, and Clinton is fit to take on the responsibility. Yet the question this raises is as Nunn signals- is anyone but God fit to make this decision to launch nuclear weapons. Nunn says it is outdated and wrong to have only a few minutes, as such a decision cannot be made in a few hours or days, much less in 5 minutes. Nunn brings up a discussion he had in Moscow when he brought this up with Russians and president Putin. Russian president Putin told Nunn that he was fully aware of this. Putin's response was- "Senator Nunn, at some point it becomes automatic."  Nunn does not clarify what this means, or what Putin means to say. For people on the planet it is not enough to have Reagan, Gorbachev, Clinton, as Nunn mentions being responsible people for a nuclear decision. The current state of affairs is simply shocking and the lack of attention to this is also shocking. Equally dangerous is that 20 countries have weapons usable nuclear material, and sophisticated hacking of command and control processes is another danger.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Pierre Razoux, a French historian provides this account of the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, at a cost of 680,000 people killed and $1.1 trillion in war destruction and money diverted from the economy. In 1980 Saddam Hussein of Iraq launched the war by attacking Iran which had just come under the Ayatollah Khomeini with the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. The war dragged on for 8 years with Khomeini persisting in the war. With U.S. and Saudi policy to increase production bringing the price of oil down from $30 to $10 designed to bring Iran and Iraq to the peace talks, as well as the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, all three being major oil producers. The dollar also weakened by 37% during this period. The diplomatic isolation of the Khomeini regime made it more difficult for Iran to buy arms on credit than Iraq could, leading to the war ending with Iran finding it no longer possible to continue the human losses. The Carter administration, particularly with National Security Advisor Brzezinski, tilted towards Iraq to oppose Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Saudis also supported Iraq during the early period. Under president Reagan the U.S. began covert and direct assistance to Iraq to prevent an Iraqi defeat early in the war. Rumsfeld visited Baghdad in December 1983 and March 1984 to organize the U.S. effort to oppose Iran. This may have laid the seeds for future conflicts that lasted through the administrations of the elder and junior Bush. As Razoux points out the Revolutionary Guards became entrenched from this period in Iran's history, making it difficult for election process to work or elected governments to operate. 23 months following the end of that war in 1988 Saddam Hussein launched a war on Kuwait, leading to the U.S. led Gulf war and the entry of the U.S. into a ground combat role, which was followed by the invasion of Iraq under George Bush after 9/11 attacks. The twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost the U.S. over 1 trillion dollars. The result today is largely the division on the ground into Shia regions under the Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite government in Baghdad, and Sunni regions led by Islamic State and autonomous Iraqi Sunni tribes, ignoring the Iran-Iraq boundaries set in the colonial period by the French and the British. In all the amount spent in the Khomeini-Saddam war of $ 1 trillion being about $2 trillion in today's money, and the $1 trillion spent by the U.S., means about $3 trillion has gone into the wars in this region. This comes at a time of deficits in government budgets in the U.S. and a deep recession in the U.S. and Europe. It also explains why the U.S. public is reluctant to take even the minor action such as giving a standoff "no-fly zone" protection to the rebels in Syria, and supported the Obama administration in its reluctance to keep even the basic military force in place to protect its diplomatic mission in Libya, where the cost would be small relative to earlier enlarged military missions under the two elder and junior Bush administrations. The result is that refugees are pouring into Europe from Syria and Libya, through Turkey. Turkey itself is host to millions of refugees in camps along its border. The vacuum and the withdrawal of the Obama administration from the region has led to the rise of Islamic State with covert assistance from Sunni regimes in the region to counteract the growing influence of Shiite Iran. It also may explain the Iranian people's support for the nuclear weapons effort through years of sanctions, leading finally to an agreement with the Obama administration that relaxes sanctions in exchange for a future possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Lost in the conflict is the Arab Spring of 2012-2013, with the Tunisian democracy the only surviving result of that movement for democracy and awakening among Arab peoples. The Reagan administration in its aggressive anti-Soviet position made large errors- including ignoring human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, by supporting Iraq and reversing position after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, having a disastrous effect on the entire region decades later. Much of the Obama administration's reluctance for any action may stem from the U.S. role in this period and its consequences of protracted conflict. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former senior directors in the National Security Council in the Bush administration who talk about a a complete change in policy towards Iran- changing policies pursued all the way back to President Carter and Reagan and the Ayatollah Khomeini government. New policy would be implemented through hard work on diplomatic negotiations to bring Iran and the U.S. closer by tackling many of the differences. The U.S. recognizing the Iran government and its interests in the region and Iran cooperating on the nuclear isssue to safeguard against nuclear proliferation. What this means is that the portion of oil price increases that are a result of political volatility, with Iran as one of the sources of the political volatility, will be affected as the political volatility from this source is reduced significantly. Also note recent news about Petrochina signing an agreement with Iran to develop large Iranian oil fields. This was a different aspect of the oil price increase as the lack of modernization and investment to develop oil fields in countries like Iran, Venezuela and Mexico was a problem on the supply side. In the case of Iran there was a squeeze as demand was growing inside these countries at the same time as there wasn't enough investment in the oil fields. Chinese participation means that this problem is being addressed differently from that if the western oil majors were involved, but still being addressed. Over time this should be part of contributing factors that are becoming evident for less price pressures. However it should also be noted that these changes will take some time to work their way. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The P5+1 talks with Iran are stalled and not ending in agreement by August 2012. The former head of military intelligence of Israel, says the Obama administration needs to tell the Israeli parliament Knesset directly that preventing a nuclear Iran is a U.S. interest and the U.S. will take military action if needed. He points out that the U.S. with its larger operational capabilities can take additional time compared to the Israeli capabilities, but this goes against Israel's creed of not relying on the U.S. for its defense or outsourcing defense. For the Israelis to rely on the U.S. it needs this clear committment and statement of intention. In addition the Obama administration needs to take five steps to reassure Israel says Yadlin: a statement to Congress in writing that the president reserves the right to take military action, increased military presence in the gulf, provide advanced military technology and intelligence to Israel to enlarge Israel's window for military action in exchange for giving sanctions and diplomacy more time, talk publicly about the dangers of reconstitution of Iran's nuclear program, and commit to the security of U.S. allies in the gulf. The strategy Yadlin emphasizes is that if this is going to work for a peaceful goal, preparing for war is essential....

LyrArc Article Gist
The move by Houthi rebels- belonging to an offshoot of Shiite Islam- from the north of Yemen to Sanaa and then to Taiz and Aden in the south of Yemen draws a Saudi response. Yemen borders Saudi Arabia in the south. The Saudis launch airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Pakistan support the Saudis, creating the potential for a wider sectarian conflict in the region. The withdrawal of U.S. influence in the region under the Obama administration leads to the collapse of the Arab Spring, the Saudis pursuing an independent foreign policy, the rise of Islamic State militants, Turkey following its own policy, emboldening Iran in extending its influence in the Middle East, and creating a situation of wider sectarian Sunni-Shiite conflict throughout the Middle East. It creates a situation in which the U.S. is involved on the Iranian side in support of the government in Baghdad supported by Iran against Islamic State militants, and at the same time on the side of the Sunni coalition in Yemen as the U.S. withdraws from drone bases in Yemen. At the same time the Obama administration finds itself distancing itself from Israel as it negotiates alongside France and Britain with Iran on a nuclear agreement....

LyrArc Article Gist
Four former close advisors of U.S. president Obama in a public statement say they fear the current Iran negotiations fall short of reaching a 'good' agreement. The statement says " We fear that the current negotiations, unless concluded along the lines outlined in this paper and buttressed by a resolute regional strategy, may fall short of meeting the administration's own standard of a 'good' agreement." The advisors are Dennis Ross, David Petraeus, Gary Samore, Robert Einhorn and James Cartwright. It sets strict inspections for all sites, including Revolutionary Corps and military sites, as a precondition for any significant lifting of sanctions. The statement goes further in saying about Iran's development of a nuclear weapon: "The United States must go on record now that it is committed to using all means necessary, including military force, to prevent this." The statement was released from a study group of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ayatollah Khamanei in a televised speech on June 23, 2015, stated military and Revolutionary Corps sites would not be included in snap inspections, and economic sanctions should be lifted immediately. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time....

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial says the Corker-Cardin compromise that requires the U.S. president to submit any nuclear deal with Iran to the U.S. Congress for debate, is the best option for both Democrats and Republicans who are skeptical of such a deal. It says amendments by senators Cruz and Rubio will not be effective. What the Corker-Cardin compromise developed by senators Corker and Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee accomplishes, is letting the American people through their elected representatives get a full and complete debate on the merits and demerits of the deal. Democrats in the Senate are also concerned about their election chances after Mr. Obama leaves office, and will want to have a fair debate of the pros and cons before voting, says the Journal. This debate will bring more light to the questions that worry critics the most- how will compliance by Iran be secured, and can snapback sanctions work if China, Russia and other European nations go the other way. Congressional review puts a higher level of scrutiny for any agreement before it moves forward. A requirement that the government submit a review every 90 days on compliance to Congress also gives president Obama's successor a chance to reassess the situation....

LyrArc Article Gist
Helene Cooper and Worth point to the vacillating response to the Arab Spring and movement for democracy and freedom in the Middle East of the Obama administration and President Obama. The dangerous overtones of this lack of U.S. leadership in the region as the U.S. completes a withdrawal from Iraq without an agreement for a residual presence, sees diplomacy reaching an impasse with Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and the Syrian civil war drawing in Turkey with its long border with Syria, and drawing in Saudi Arabia as a defendor of Sunnis in Syria. The stakes for Russia in Syria were minimal compared to that of people in the Middle East and the U.S., yet it had an outsized influence with its early military assistance to the Assad regime and the lack of U.S. leadership to resolve the situation in Syria in favor of the democracy movement.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Guardian provides this first account of what happened in the Galwan Valley border between India and China at the Line of Actual Control. It is described as the worst fighting in 60 years. On the high steep ridge lines above the rapidly moving Galwan River a patrol of Indian soldiers encountered Chinese troops in a steep section of a high mountainous region. They believed the PLA Chinese Army had withdrawn from the ridge in line with a June 6 disengagement agreement. The Indian government says that what happened afterwards was pre-meditated ambush by the PLA forces. In the fighting that ensued the Indian commanding officer was pushed from the narrow ridge falling to the gorge below. Reinforcements from the Indian side were called from a post 2 miles away and about 600 men were fighting in near total darkness in high mountain ridge with stones iron rods for upto 6 hours. Following a decades long tradition to avoid escalation of hostilities because of nuclear weapons of both countries the two sides have not used other weapons. Most deaths on both sides were from soldiers falling or being knocked from mountain ridges. The main problem in the conflict is the Line of Actual Control exists but since China's takeover of Tibet in 1950 there is no agreement that has set the official border. The British Simla agreement in 1912 set the border with Tibet in an agreement between Tibet and the British Empire in India, when Tibet was an independent country. China claims that historically going back to Ming and Qing dynasty Tibet was part of its region. For most of its history Tibet was an autonomous region with closer contacts with India because it is close to Nepal and Nepal is very near the Indian Bihar state border.  A new rail link from Raxaul, Bihar in India to Kathmandu is only 137 kilometres, and from Kathmandu to the Tibet border is only 205 kilometres. Fast rail or road links would put Tibet within a few hours by rail or road to Tibet from India. For the entire period the US exists as a nation about 250 years and from the first landing of the colonists on American shores about 1607 Tibet was a mountainous region that was so remote that few people even knew about the country's existence. Beijing and Shanghai are four thousand kilometres away, India much closer to Tibet through Kathmandu, Nepal and India sharing a common culture, and no one thought much about the mountainous borders at 15000- 20,000 feet in the western Himalayas, till China's takeover of Tibet in 1950. India had no clear idea what this meant in 1950- no clear border except for what was agreed between the Tibetan independent government  and the British in 1912 which was set under the British Empire- resulting in a fluid border. And China had no clear idea that this would put in a place it would not want to be thousands of miles from the Yangtse valley region home to most of China's population, in a remote mountain region at heights of 15,000 -20,000 feet, with little to gain. Throughout history since 1000 and earlier Tibet remained a region that acted as a buffer between China's western provinces and India, the high mountains at 15,000- 20,000 feet making it inaccessible. Which is why the Ganges plains and the Yangtse river valley plains contact was made more through the oceans than by land, and the areas developing distinctly different language and cultures. All this changed after 1954 when the Qinghai Tibet highway was built, the closest city on the Chinese side is Xining. Xining to Tibet is a distance of about 2000 kilometres at an average height of 4500 metres or about 14,000 feet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, says 24 days is enough time for Iran to wipe out traces of nuclear work, such as working with explosives to trigger a weapon or construction of a small plant to make centrifuges. A situation actually happened in 2003 when the atomic energy agency wanted to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003, where Iran was using centrifuges received from Pakistan. Iranians removed all traces of illicit work at the time while delaying inspectors. This case was cited by Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the agency. Heinonen says smaller scale activity such as manufacturing uranium components for a nuclear weapon can be carried out and the traces deleted in 24 days. Senator Corker points out that the time allowed would be more than 24 days when all the time is added up correctly.

LyrArc Article Gist
The deep split in American public opinion over the Iran nuclear deal.

LyrArc Article Gist
European companies rushed to make new business investment in Iran after the lifting of Iran sanctions with the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2015. This report in the NYT shows companies in Europe were wary that the nuclear detente with Iran would not last. As a result the European exports to Iran up to $12.8 billion in 2017 were up 30% but still ranked Iran as the 33rd largest trading partner, behind Serbia. Other problems were bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of coordination in Iran for moving ahead with projects. After the deal was signed companies such as Peugeot, Airbus, Total, Daimler moved ahead to invest in Iran. Yet the investments were made carefully considering the opposition of the Trump administration. In one deal Airbus agreed to provide 100 new aircraft for Iran Air's aging fleet, yet only 3 were delivered by May 2018. Daimler had a deal with Iran's Khodro vehicle maker for Fuso brand trucks, yet Daimler officials say demand was weak. A deal made by Total to explore for offshore natural gas may require a waiver under a "grandfather clause" say Total officials, or the option to turn over the investment to its minority partner CNPC, a Chinese state owned company. The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Mr. Grennell, says European companies should stop operations in Iran immediately showing the U.S. plans to take stronger action.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Experts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nuclear Policy Program describe what to look for and in what time frame in the 2012 negotiations between Iran and the U.S. and other European countries in Istanbul, Turkey over Iran's nuclear program.