A report from early July at the Atlantic Council - one of the top US imperialist think tanks - website, confirms the long-term strategy of the US empire concerning Iran. Which in short, is to buy time in order to prepare for permanent war until regime change.
Only a few excerpts from the report are more than enough for someone to understand the deeper plan, unfolding in plain sight. Furthermore, it reveals that the brains of Washington's warhawks are set up for permanent war and are completely incapable of thinking different alternatives that would not necessarily include more violence and destruction.
As we read:
More significantly, the regime, following its longstanding approach, has successfully created a “new normal” in which Iranian actions that would have previously been considered casus belli now have been redefined below the threshold of war. Every US president since Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan determined that the United States would use military force to ensure freedom of navigation from the Gulf through international waters, but now Trump has, in effect and in writing, accepted de facto Iranian control over a vital maritime chokepoint.
Except that the new status in the Gulf came already as a result of a war provoked by the US. A normal brain should identify the war action as the problem that caused the disruption of previous status quo, not as the solution for restoring that status.
Also:
While we should hope that all twenty points in the Gaza deal are fully implemented, we should hope that all fourteen points with Iran are never implemented.
This is the best evidence that proves the US imperialists should never be trusted. Their deals have zero reliability.
The report concludes that the Trump deal, or another war with Iran in short term, would be both disastrous for the US interests:
In the first scenario, the US could strike an agreement with Iran in the coming weeks to implement the vision laid out in the fourteen-point plan. This would be a historic disaster, as described above.
In a second scenario, the follow-on negotiations now underway could eventually fail and the US could then rush back into war with Iran. This could also be calamitous, as it might precipitate a global recession if negotiations fail before today’s low levels of oil reserves are restored. The resulting violence could easily destroy energy and water facilities on both sides of the Gulf.
In a third scenario, the US could avoid both those traps but nevertheless set the stage for yet another US-Iran war in the future—either under Trump or a successor. It could come after Iran has steadily rebuilt its forces and extended its influence while the US has allowed its military posture within the region to slowly deteriorate. That would result in Iran acting in more emboldened and aggressive ways, US partners being more pliant and risk-averse, and the US losing the next war not only diplomatically but militarily as well.
The report then suggests a fourth option, which in short, includes buying more time through pretending negotiations, low escalation permanent conflict as a type of attrition war against Iran, and the typical US regime-change operations inside the country: [emphasis added]
First, the US should adopt a new negotiation strategy. Trump should instruct Vance and his ubiquitous diplomats Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner that the actual objective of the negotiations in the near term should not be to reach a final deal along the lines of the memorandum of understanding but instead to draw out the negotiations as long as possible without returning to war.
Regarding US presence, Trump should announce a plan to fully restaff, completely rebuild, and appropriately rearm all US bases in the region. [...] Nothing could be more detrimental to US interests than to signal a US withdrawal, so the immediate objective should be to clearly commit otherwise. A stated policy to restaff, rebuild, and rearm to at least the status quo ante bellum would be a good start, though rebuilding will necessarily involve designs to make US bases less physically vulnerable by both hardening targets and improving defenses against drones and missiles. [...] The US should then be prepared to use these military assets to project power and even to engage in low-intensity conflict to prevent Iran from firmly establishing its “new normal” on the Strait of Hormuz.
A new negotiating strategy designed to delay and a renewed security commitment to the region can help get the United States through this immediate period. But there is still a need to prepare for the future. That future is entirely predictable based on three truths.
First, as long as the Islamic Republic of Iran exists, it will conduct malign actions that are detrimental to US interests and directly threaten US regional partners. The US must always be willing to use military force to prevent this regime from possessing nuclear weapons ...
Second, a second US-Iran war is highly likely over the longer term. Notwithstanding the real damage they have sustained, the Iranian regime’s leaders will feel empowered by the war’s outcome, be motivated by revenge after suffering what they see as an unjust attack, and continue to adapt based on their military shortcomings in this latest conflict. While this war is not highly probable in the near term, it’s almost certain over the years and decades to come, assuming no regime change takes place in Tehran before then.
And third, the Iranian people have repeatedly demonstrated their opposition to this regime and undoubtedly will do so in the future, even though the war may have postponed that day. Therefore, the US must prepare for both another war and for another opportunity to support the Iranian people.
Preparing for a future war begins with a comprehensive, passionless assessment of US military successes and failures—both offensive and defensive—during this latest war. While reporting on these matters has been limited, it seems clear that Iran was far more successful at damaging US bases in the region than many expected.
Preparing for the next war also would involve further expanding US intelligence operations inside Iran to better inform operational planning and to better anticipate Iranian actions and responses.
Such preparation would require a far more granular understanding of opposition networks inside Iran than either the US or Israel likely possesses today. After all, if Washington truly understood the opposition, it couldn’t have possibly signed off on a plan to install former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power.
Drawing out negotiations while deescalating the conflict with Iran. A new commitment to US posture, presence, and partnerships in the Middle East. A longer-term strategy to prepare to support the Iranian people if they seek to change the regime, and to succeed strategically and militarily if another war becomes unavoidable.
Recall that as independent journalist Ben Norton recently revealed, JD Vance accidentally exposed the USA's plan, to use the talks to buy time to refill oil reserves and stabilize the economy.
The paper blatantly highlights the mentality in Washington's corridors. While the author admits that war with Iran is impossible at least for now, concludes to more war and regime change in the future, through the typical US empire sequence for such a case.
It seems that no lessons learned even from US empire's quickest and clearest defeat so far. Which means that empire's final fall will be accelerated by its own actions.
It seems that no lessons learned even from US empire's quickest and clearest defeat so far. Which means that empire's final fall will be accelerated by its own actions.
Comments
Post a Comment