Tag Archives: Iran

The Iraqi Government Seize Kirkuk and Deter KRG Independence

The Iraqi army has taken the city of Kirkuk, following an October 16th advance on Kurdish military positions. According to security forces, the Counterterrorism service arrived at the governorate building in Kirkuk and took position with local police. The troops moved into the building with little opposition from the Peshmerga forces. The Kurds have withdrawn from the contested area.

Thousands of people have fled from Kirkuk to Erbil and Sulaimaniya, as the Iraqi army advanced on the Kurdish military positions around the city.

As of the morning of October 16th The Iraqi army seized control of an airport east of the city, the North Oil Company and Baba Gurgur oil fields, the K-1 military base located to the northwest of Kirkuk and the Taza Khormatu district south east of the city.

In preparation for an attack, on October 11th the Kurdish Peshmerga blocked two major roads  from the Kurdish region to Mosul for several hours in fear that Iraqi central government with Shia militias were planning to advance.

The Baghdad central government denied that there were plans for an attack to occur at that time.  Prime Minster Haider al-Abadi also made a statement on Thursday that he was “not going…to make war on our Kurdish citizens.”

However, on Saturday October 14th   Iraqi soldiers and the Popular Mobilization Force (PMF), were locked in an armed standoff with Kurdish forces in the disputed province of Kirkuk.

The PMF is a conglomeration of Iraqi militias backed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which was deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. on October 13th. The PMF and the Iraqi forces are deployed south, and north west of Kirkuk, surrounding the city, in areas once controlled by the Islamic State.

The United States has provided military equipment to the Iraqi government. However, the PMF has acquired some of this equipment and reportedly videos surfaced in March of 2015 of a American M1 Abrams tank  flying a green and yellow flag of Kitab Hezbollah, the Iranian backed militia in Iraq, which is designated as a terrorist organization.

PMF have fought alongside Iraqi forces and militias such as the Badr Organization, kitaeb Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which launched thousands of attacks on U.S. forces during the Iraq war.

The Iraqi central government on the 14th urged for the Peshmerga to surrender the key military position seized during the fight against the Islamic State and return to their pre-June 6th, 2014 positions by Sunday the 15th.

The Peshmerga commander on the western front said that they were going to “take all the necessary measures” and were “ready for confrontation.”

On Sunday the 15th Iraqi forces launched a major offensive over several fronts aimed at retaking the Kurdish held city of Kirkuk causing a currently unknown number of casualties, while fighting to hold Kirkuk under Kurdish control.

The Iraqi government accused the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) of bringing fighters from Turkey’s Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) to the disputed province. The KRG rejected that the PKK fighters were present in Kirkuk. The PKK is considered a terrorist group by Turkey, the U.S. and U.K.

The Iraqi National Security Council headed by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in a statement that “It is impossible to remain silent” faced with “a declaration of war towards Iraqis and government forces” which was posted on the PM’s Twitter account.

The suggestion of the PKK fighting alongside the Peshmerga, was enough for the Iraqi government to advance. The Iraqi government’s justification for seizing Kirkuk seems questionable given long running tension between the Iraqi central government and the Kurdish Regional Government.

Kurdish officials also have accused part of the Peshmerga forces belonging to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of the two main Kurdish parties, of “treason” in not resisting the Iraqi assault. The Kurds took control of Kirkuk after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 and expanded their area of control in 2014 when the Islamic state rose to power.

The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) headed by the KRG’s President Masoud Barzani and the PUK which was led by Jalal Talabani before he passed away on October 6th, has always had separate armed forces, political management and intelligence. During the 1990s the two groups fought a civil war against each other. Kirkuk is generally considered a PUK territory though its governor Najmaldin Karim. The fall of Kirkuk to Baghdad may strain relations between the two Kurdish parties.

Tensions between the KRG and Iraqi government have been running high since the Kurdish referendum held on September 25th,  which voted in overwhelmingly in favor of Kurdish independence.  Since the referendum the Iraqi government has rejected the results saying that the non-binding vote must be annulled. The results from the vote were 92.7% in favor of independence.

The airports in the KRG region have been closed since the referendum. On Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said there has been no change to the status of the border. However, Iraq’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Iran was honoring Baghdad’s request to close the crossings.  Iran and neighboring Turkey both denounced the Kurdish referendum.

As the conflict continues to persist in Iraq over the contested territories, it is essential that the Kurds regain Kirkuk if they intend on pursuing independence. With Kirkuk having some of the largest oil reserves in the country and make up 4% of the oil reserves in the world, the Kurds need to be able to secure the province in hopes to have a stable resource for an independent Kurdish economy.

Turkish Troops to Create De-Escalation Zones in Idlib

On October 12th, Turkish troops crossed the border into Syria heading towards Idlib in northern Syria to begin a new operation in cooperation with rebel groups identified with the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The new operation is focused on creating and enforcing de-escalation zones in Idlib to prevent any groups from fighting in the near future as well as setting up observation posts in order to help enforce the zones.

This operation is part of a deal created last month between Turkey, Russia and Iran to reduce fighting between insurgents and the Syrian government. Turkish forces’ primary objective will be to contain the Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) north of Idlib.

The Turkish troop deployment also reportedly aims to prevent a possible influx of Syrian refugees into Turkey and allow humanitarian aid to flow to those in need.

Over 100 Turkish soldiers including Special Forces entered Syria on 30 armored vehicles and more soldiers may be deployed in the next few days.

It is unclear which rebel groups associated with FSA are working with Turkey in this operation, but groups such as Free Idlib Army, which is made up of the 13th Division, the Northern Division and Mountain Falcons Brigade are known to operating within the Idlib province.

Idlib is largely controlled by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is linked to al-Qaeda. While HTS is opposed to the de-escalation agreement, the group agreed not to interfere with Turkish operations and led the Turkish convoy through Syria.

This shows that Turkey is working with Al-Qaeda affiliated groups even though last week there were reports that Turkish forces and HTS were shelling each other in Idlib province.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes the YPG, accuse Turkey of coordinating and supporting HTS and preventing the spread of Kurdish forces rather than fighting terrorism like it claims.

To the north of Idlib, YPG fighters control Afrin. Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) that it is fighting in Turkey and wants to keep the YPG from linking its regions in Syria and Turkey.

While the FSA is working with Turkish troops in this operation, the FSA doesn’t support Russia and denies any Russian involvement in the operation.

This is the fourth de-escalation zone to be created by Turkey, Iran and Russia in Syria. The zones already in place are in Eastern Ghouta near Damascus, in central Homs, and in parts of southern Syria.

Turkish troops will eventually set up observation posts in more than 10 areas, beginning in northern Idlib and gradually extending to the south.

This is one of Turkey’s biggest moves in the Syria conflict and is attempting to focus on diplomacy to avoid clashes. If Turkey is successful in this operation, it will be able to act as a check on Kurdish ambitions, while at the same time deliver humanitarian assistance, which had previously been halted due to the presence of terrorist groups in the region, and avoid the continued flow of refugees from Northern Syria into Turkey.

Iranian Influence in the Middle East: How the President and Congress can Respond

On October 10th Iran told the United States that it will keep “all options on the table” if President Trump designates its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. President Trump is expected to announce later this week his decision on how he wants to contain Iran’s regional influence, as well if he will decertify the Iranian Nuclear deal.

This could affect the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Syria, where Tehran and Washington support parties that are currently fighting the remnants of the Islamic State.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps  was founded after the aftermath of the Iranian revolution in 1979. Since then the IRGC has deployed fighters to the Iraqi Kurdish region, Lebanon to support terrorist’s groups such as Hezbollah, Palestinian territories, Afghanistan, and the Gulf States, by exporting the ideals of the Iranian government.

On October 5th the  House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, held a hearing with Middle east scholars to discuss the role that Iran has played in supporting terrorist and militia groups in the Middle East, and Iran’s role as a major source of instability in the region. The witnesses also discussed new potential strategies to counter Iran’s growing influence over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

The risks posed by Iranian backed militants have become more serious and complex. Although Iran is not the most destabilizing factor they do exploit the major problems of their proxies to their strategic advantage.

Michael Knight from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy discussed several ways to contain and roll back Iranian based militias.

One area which the U.S. should focus on is the potential land bridge which Iran has been strategically securing over the years connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea. The land bridge poses a serious threat to Syria and Iraq due to the impending influence that Iran has as it establishes strongholds throughout the northern regions of each country.

The land bridge runs through the Shia majority areas of Iraq then cuts up through the Kurdish disputed northern territories. Allowing for the Iranians to be easily connected to the northern regions of Syria. As Iran supports Hezbollah the Lebanese terrorist organization, allows for an even wider access zone to the Mediterranean Sea if gained access from the western Syrian or Lebanese borders.

To confront Iran’s rising influence, the United States must compete to secure the spaces that Iran has the potential to expand to such as the in the already existing gaps left behind by the Islamic State.

The U.S. must also divide Iran from potential proxy states such as Iraq. Although Iraq may not align entirely with the Iranian regime, in 2014, when the Islamic State took over large swatches of the country causing the government to increasingly rely on the support from Iran. The dominance of Iranian influence in Iraq is partially a result of American inconsistency in Iraq.

After 2011 with the abrupt withdrawal of American troops from the initial 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, Iran has attempted to deepen their foothold in Iraqi territory. From gaining allies in the Iraqi Parliament to providing commerce and infrastructure to Iraq, Iran has stretched its influence deep into Iraqi politics, more so than the U.S. has done by just helping in the fight against the Islamic State.

Knight suggested that the U.S. should impose “red lines” on Iran and put someone specifically in charge in planning the containment of the militias.

What these “red lines” were not specifically laid out, but could include Iran advancing in deconfliction zones, or increasing nuclear and other weapon capabilities.

Adam Nerguizian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), primarily discussed the effect that Iran has also had over Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah and how their military operations preempted the Lebanese Armed Forces from clearing the Islamic State from Lebanese territory on their own.

Nerguizian argued the United States needs to play a critical support role to ensure that the Lebanese Armed Forces can take control so that Hezbollah and Iranian support do not become indispensable to Lebanon’s stability as well as more easily be able to gain access to the Mediterranean Sea.

Melissa Dalton of CSIS noted that Iran relies its network of proxy nations to shape the region, while creating and increasing influence by Iran’s regional partners such as Iraq and Syria. By the U.S. coordinating with its own regional allies to expose Iranian backed groups and financial activities outside its border to delegitimize Iranian coercive interference as well as provide training for governance initiatives to countries which are vulnerable to Iran, could increase regional stability.

Unlike the other witnesses Mr. Kenneth Pollack from American Enterprise Institution described the role of militant groups in Iran’s regional strategy as “nothing novel.”

Pollack noted that Tehran turns to non-state actors to project their political agenda across the region regularly.  The militant groups of Iran act as a military and political tool for the government in Tehran. Iran’s allied and proxy militia are generally no more capable than those backed by other countries. As Pollack used the example of the U.S.-backed Iraqi Security Forces, which has shown itself to be considerably more effective in combat than the Iranian-backed Iraqi militias.

Pollack noted that even in those arenas where we have not had as much success so far, militarily defeating the Iranian-backed groups would be a relatively straightforward problem. He stated that it is “time, energy, and resources, and our willingness to devote them to each fight” to deplete Iranian influence.

With  Congress hearing testimony on ways to prevent growing Iranian influence in the region, it remains a question of what the United States is willing to do to both political and militarily to cut the growing influence of Iran.

It will be interesting to see whether Congress will move forward with legislative proposals on dealing with Iran as we wait for President Trump’s decision on October 12th

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Minority Populations in Iraq

In a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing  on October 4th, former Congressman Frank Wolf and Dr. Denise Natali from the National Defense University testified on the future of Iraq’s minorities, after the fall of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, focusing on affected minorities such as Syriac Christians and Yazidis, in the northern regions of Iraq.

Both began their opening statements by discussing the different stabilizing challenges that political and minority groups face, which are presently effecting Iraq. Some of the main points of discussion were the disputes between the central Iraqi government and the Kurdish Regional Government as well as the proliferation of Iranian-backed militia groups.

Iraq’s ethnic minorities are fractured, and often the government and militia groups attempt to exploit the religious differences within the population. As Dr. Natali stated, “religion also overlaps with ethnicity, language, and geography” complicating the minority populations even more.

During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing each scholar laid out their recommendations for Iraq.

Mr. Wolf suggested that a Presidential Memorandum should be issued directing the State Department and USAID to immediately address the needs of Christian and Yazidi communities in the northern regions of Iraq identified by Secretary Tillerson as having been targeted for genocide.

Wolf also urged that a position should be established for an inter-agency coordinator to ensure safety for minorities to coordinate U.S. foreign policy around the issues, and that Congress should immediately pass H.R. 390, the bipartisan Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability bill, to hold accountable for individuals who committed crimes of genocide and terrorism in the region.

Wolf also discussed how to establish security for the minorities of people returning to Iraq which were displaced by the Islamic State as well as from the fighting of Iraqi forces in the region, suggesting the need to train up local police.

Wolf  stressed the role played by religious charity organizations including Samaritans Purse, Knights of Columbus, and World Vision who are already established in the region, as the be best resource to assist minorities through their camps and by giving aid directly.

Historically Middle-Eastern Christians have feared entering United Nations refugee camps where they are often targeted.

Dr. Natali proposed that the United States needs to support local minority rights in conjunction with the Iraqi constitution, reinforce a sovereign civil state and Iraqi institutions, and mediate disputed territories.

She also suggested that the government should be structured to work from Baghdad then to administer policy to provinces, instead of going to Baghdad and then the Kurdish regional government.  Her aims to accomplish these tasks are through the support of a singular Iraqi state.

Another area of tension in the region is the Kurdish independence referendum  which was held on September 25th and voted for overwhelming support of an independent Kurdistan. With tension from the Iraqi, Turkish and Iranian governments surrounding the KRG, heightens the potential for conflict.

Potential arising conflicts for the Kurds would include the Iraqi-Shia militias which are backed by the Iranians, and the Turks and Iranians placed on the border of the KRG evoking military pressure to move tanks and other weapons tests closer to the border. This once again causes Christians and Yazidis to become caught in the cross fire of the conflict.

Senator Rubio stated that “we are not asking the KRG to abandon independence but ask to take steps to lower the rhetoric” He remarked that Baghdad also needs to take some steps to show a desire to open dialog on this topic in the future to lower tensions because there are many other issues at play currently for U.S. strategic advantage.

As Iraq faces a multitude of challenges from ethnic and religious minorities, Iran is an overarching and provocative influence on the instability of the region. As Iran promotes groups which inhibit minority populations in Iraq, it promotes groups such as Hezbollah, Shia backed militias, and others regional forces which inhibits the rights of the minorities.

Iraqi Kurds Face Tension from Iraq, Iran and Turkey after Independence Referendum

On Monday September 25th, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) held an independence referendum on whether the KRG will begin to move towards independence from the Iraqi central government. Despite U.S. attempts to encourage the KRG to postpone the vote, and mounting economic and military threats from bordering countries Turkey, and Iran, the KRG moved ahead with the referendum.

As of Tuesday, September 26th, an estimated 300,000 votes had been accounted out of the roughly 3.65 million expected Kurdish voters. So far results favored the formation of an independent state 93.29%, to 6.71% against.
Many of the most crucial provinces have not yet reported in including: the Kurdish capital of Erbil, the hotly-contested and oil-rich province of Kirkuk, and the cities of Sinjar, Semel, Duhok, and Shekhan where there is a strong population of non-Kurd minorities including Assyrians, Turkmen, Yazidis, Sunni Arabs.

The Iraqi government has been strongly against the KRG’s vote for independence, and although it is not a binding decision, the implications of the referendum, the Iraqi central government argues the vote could have a destabilizing effect in the region. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi stated that the Iraqi government will not hold discussion with the KRG following Monday’s results because the referendum was “unconstitutional.”

In response to the Kurdish referendum the Iraqi parliament also, voted on Monday to deploy troops to Kirkuk and other oil-rich disputed territories with the KRG. Governor Karim  slammed Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s order to deploy troops to all the zones of the autonomous region of. Karim had said that the parliament has only issued decrees against the Kurds and has lost its value as a military body for the Kurdish people.

The Iraqi government recently deployed troops in the Hawija district  within the Kirkuk province, in an attempt to oust the Islamic State from the last prominent remaining city in Iraq. However, this attempt may also serve to counter referendum efforts.

Kirkuk is a vitally important city and province for the Kurdish referendum. The city of Kirkuk   is an ethnically mixed and oil rich province, however, it is not formally a part of the Kurdish autonomous region. Kirkuk is administratively dependent on Iraq’s central government, while security is provided by Kurdish forces.  Kurdistan holds 40%  of Iraq’s oil reserves. Kurdish leaders establishing the region in world oil markets is a crucial step toward eventual independence.  Even if the Kurds do not claim Kirkuk as part of their proposed independent state, the large oil reserves make a conflict possible if Kurdish independence is declared. Kirkuk is one of the most disputed territories of the Iraqi government.

In Kirkuk an overnight curfew  was declared by Kurdish-led governorate Najmaldin Karim to begin immediately after the voting ends. Karim said “I am calling on all the people of Kirkuk to calmly go back home and wait for the result… Let there be no celebratory shooting. Keep this shooting for when it’s needed to protect Kurdistan and the city of Kirkuk.”

The timing of the independence referendum is very important. The role of Kurdish forces in the conflict with Islamic State gives the Iraqi Kurds leverage towards establishing their own independent nation. Unsurprisingly, the surrounding nations of Turkey and Iran, and the Iraqi government strongly oppose the effort.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan on Monday has threatened war with Iraqi Kurdistan saying, “our military is not (at the border) for nothing…We could arrive suddenly one night.” He also proposed that the channels which the Kurds sell their oil be closed off. The KRG exports their oil production through Turkey, providing work for many Iraqi Kurds on the border.

Turkey has also blocked access to the KRG from the Habur border crossing. Traffic is being allowed to cross from the Turkish side of the border into Iraq but, not the reverse.

On Sunday Turkey launched air strikes  against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targeting northern Iraq’s Gara region, after on Saturday spotting PKK members preparing to attack Turkish military outposts on the border.

Iraq’s ministry of defense made a statement that it’s going to launch “large scale”  joint land military exercises with Turkey along their shared border following the results of the poll.

Iran, has also closed its border with the KRG as well. The land crossings into Iran were shut to Iraqi Kurdistan on Monday and on Sunday Iran halted all flights  into the northern regions of Iraq. Iranian government officials have called the referendum, “untimely and wrong.”

In conjunction with Turkey and Iran, Iraqi parliament also voted in favor of closing and has closed all border crossings into the Kurdish region on Monday in response to the referendum.

Overnight the Kurdistan election body’s website was targeted for cyber attacks, but none of the attacks were successful. The reported cyber-attacks originated from Germany, Iraq, Sweden and the United Kingdom. E-voting began on September 23rd for Kurds living in diaspora around the globe. In the diaspora,  there was an estimated 99,000 people eligible to vote.

The Iraqi Kurdish region and its disputed territories following the vote for independence are facing pressure and tension with the Iraqi, Turkish, and Iranian governments. The Kurdish regional government has made statements saying they want peaceful resolution, however, due to the increase in border blockades, and military initiatives by Iraq, Turkey and Iran, there is an increased possibility for conflict following the announcement of the election results.

Iraqi Government Forces Attempt to Retake the Town of Hawija

As the fight against the Islamic State continues in Iraq, Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said that the government forces have begun operations on September 21st to retake the town of Hawija, from the Islamic State, located in the Kirkuk province. The Kurdish Peshmerga forces have held areas of Kirkuk province under their control after the Iraqi army collapsed during the 2014 Islamic State offensive.

Iraqi and Peshmerga forces seek to prevent the Islamic State from seizing oil fields in the northern region. The Iraqi forces deployed in the north and west of Hawija are pushing southward along the Tigris River and eleven villages were captured from the Islamic state in the Hawija district area, according to Iraqi military leadership.

Iraqi forces are leading the Hawija operation, alongside Shiite militia groups. The Kurdish Peshmerga aren’t currently part of the offensive force but, expect to take part when the push on Hawija begins according to a Peshmerga spokesperson.

Up to 85,000 people could be displaced from the Hawija district and up to 30,000 of them would be children who are in extreme danger and malnourished.  In 2014, Hawija was once home to a population of over 400,000, since then that number has decreased dramatically.

As the referendum nears, and the prospect of a Kurdish effort at independence seems increasingly likely, any action by any side to alter the the ethnic demographics of the province could become a flashpoint for conflict. Kurdish and Shia militia leaders have already traded barbs.   If the Iraq government removes Kurds from the Hawija district this may have a negative effect toward the referendum for Kurdish independence.

Hawija is located 30 miles west of the city of Kirkuk and makes up 30% of the Kirkuk Province. The town fell to Islamic State in June of 2014. Since then, it has been a strategic position and the oil fields have been a major source of funding  for the Islamic state.  The Islamic state has used oil-rich regions in the northern territories in Iraq to sell oil on the black market as well as through smuggling to buyers along the Turkish border.

Hawija has also been used as a center for manufacturing explosives, as well as a base to launch attacks into surrounding areas. Hawija is also home to four training camps for the Islamic State.

This town is significant similarly to Raqqa in Syria, because it is one of the last major towns held under IS.

As the operation launches, the Kurdish Regional government intend to hold a non-binding independence referendum on September 25th. The referendum is not vote to officially split from the Iraqi government, however, it signals government talks between the Iraqi central government and the Kurdish Regional Government towards establishing independence in the future.

The Iraqi government, United States and the United Nations have opposed the vote’s timing and their independence, because it is coinciding with the final stages of battle with the Islamic state, as well as cause regional insurgency.

Representatives from Turkey, Iran, and Iraq have agreed to discuss different responses  to the Kurds in northern Iraq over the referendum. Turkey and Iran, insist that the referendum will instigate potential conflict to arise within their own Kurdish minorities if the Iraqi Kurds vote in favor of independence on September 25th.

Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan, has carried out military exercises involving an estimated 100 tanks near the Turkey-Iraq border  and threatened to impose sanctions against the Iraqi Kurds.

Iran’s head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, had stated that they will close their border, withdraw their diplomatic mission in Erbil and Sulaimani, and their security forces will feel free to intervene  “deeper”  into the Kurdistan Region if the referendum is held.

On September 12th the Iraqi parliament voted against the Iraqi Kurds from holding the referendum. The central government in Baghdad fears that the vote because a wider regional conflict between the Arabs and Kurds is more likely and Iraq as well as Iran and Turkey are willing to enter into a conflict the Kurds continue toward independence. In the opinion of the U.S. and Iraqi governments would be detrimental toward the fight against IS.

The Kurdish government claim that the offensives launched in Hawija will not deter from their referendum being held on the 25th, and that their referendum will not deter from the fight against IS currently in Hawiia. The referendum and the offensives launched in Hawija will have effect on each other despite the claims of the Kurdish regional government. After the referendum on Monday it will be interesting to see when and where conflict arises amongst all regional parties.

Dozens of security experts, former defense officials pressure Trump to leave Iran deal

Originally posted on the Washington Examiner  

by Sean Langille

Dozens of security experts, former military officials and top diplomats are pushing President Trump to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

Forty-five former security officials, including many who served in Republican administrations in senior positions overseeing nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation, and intelligence, wrote Trump Wednesday calling on him to pursue a plan offered by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

Bolton’s plan calls for abrogation of the deal, in consultation with U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, over what he considers “outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior” under the Iran deal’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). His approach also calls for more stringent new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Tehran. He also urges new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts and provocative actions that have destabilized the Middle East.

Under the JCPOA, the Trump administration is required to recertify periodically that Iran is in complying with the terms of the nuclear agreement. The officials, in the letter, are urging Trump not to recertify the agreement next month.

“We also call on your administration to declare to Congress next month that Iran has not been complying with this agreement and that it is not in the national security interests of the United States,” the letter said.

President Trump announced Wednesday he has made a decision that he will reveal soon concerning the fate of the deal he called an “embarrassment to the United States” in his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly just one day earlier.

Bolton recently told the Washington Examiner he finds it unlikely that Trump will recertify the deal in light of his recent comments at the United Nations.

“I don’t think we know what the president’s decision on the deal is going to be yet,” Bolton said. “But these were very strong comments. And when you say, among other things, that the deal is an embarrassment to the U.S., it’s hard to see how you certify or stay in.”

Officials on the letter include General William G. Boykin, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush; Ambassador Hank Cooper, former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space Policy under President Reagan; Ambassador Robert Joseph, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security under George W. Bush; and Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under George W. Bush.

“It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security,” the letter said.

Trump’s Nontraditional UN Address and his Stance Against Rogue Regimes

Leaders from around the globe assembled on September 19th for the United Nation’s General Assembly. President Donald Trump presented early in the day, offering a speech that rapidly diverged from traditional U.N. talking points.

Trump began by acknowledging the need for the nations of the world to come together peacefully to work towards common goals, before pivoting to emphasis the importance of upholding American sovereignty and encouraging other nations to do likewise. Trump also emphasized the need for reforming the institutional practices of the UN, directly and aggressively addressed rogue regimes including North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Minutes before Trump’s speech UN Secretary General Antionio Guterres appealed for statesmanship stating, “we must not sleepwalk our way into war.”

President Trump focused a substantial amount of time discussing North Korea, warning that the entire world is threatened by their continued nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development. He said, “If it [the US] forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

He then called out North Korea’s trading partners, stating that no decent nation should be trading with North Korea.

North Korea under Kim Jong Un has metastasized into a serious global threat. After their sixth nuclear test on September 3rd, triggering a 6.3 magnitude earthquake, this nuclear  test was the most powerful weapon Pyongyang has ever tested. North Korea has conducted 15 other long and short range missile tests this year, despite UN sanctions.

After condemning North Korea, President Trump pivoted toward addressing Iran stating that it is a “destabilizing influence” for the Middle East. He stated that the nuclear deal was an embarrassment to the United States and one of the worst nonproliferation agreements that the United States has been involved in. Trump directly addressed Iran’s role as a state sponsor of terrorism, and said the nuclear deal should be abandoned by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany and the European Union.

As Trump addressed Iran his focus was on the nuclear deal. The deal  requires the State Department to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is still complying with the agreement under the terms ironed out by the Obama administration in 2015. However, one of Trump’s campaign promises was to end the nuclear agreement. Here he faces opposing pressures from both this loyal support base who want to see the deal decertified and his advisors such as his national security advisor General H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who appear to oppose decertification.

Trump is still weighing his next moves toward Iran, and faces a mid-October deadline for re-certifying Iran’s compliance with the agreement.

Towards the end of his speech President Trump called out both Cuba and Venezuela, speaking out against the harsh socialist regimes. The Trump administration has not lifted sanctions on the Cuban government, and Trump said they will not do so until Cuba makes fundamental reforms,  although he did not say exactly what reforms would be required.

Cuba made for a nice transition into discussing the economic crisis occurring in Venezuela.  President Trump called out the socialist Maduro regime, for causing Venezuela’s economic collapse, and accused the Venezuelan government of allowing a once prosperous nation to suffer. He also thanked the other world leaders for providing support to Venezuela as well as saying the U.S. will take further action if the government continues on this path.

In Venezuela, a study published earlier this year reported that roughly 75% of Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds due to food shortages. On July16th the results of a popular consultation     certified the illegitimacy of the government of Nicolas Maduro, and the opposition continued with popular demonstrations against the regime. As the demonstrations from the opposition persist, the international community must impose harsher economic sanction to pressure the regime, similar to Cuba, rather than take military action. Since April more than 5,000  individuals have been detained by the government, and as of July 31st 124 deaths were linked to the demonstrations.

President Trump has said the America possess a military option to prevent a destabilized Venezuela, although its unclear what such an operation would look like. Any military option is opposed by the Colombian and Brazilian governments, who the U.S. have maintained close military cooperation.

Some areas which President Trump declined to address were the situation in Myanmar, his efforts towards reestablishing an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or the American withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. However, President Trump will be having several individual meetings during the rest of the week with several national leaders, where these issues are sure to come up.

Trump’s speech appears to have played well to his political base, and less so to fellow United Nations General Assembly attendees.

The President of the United Nations General Assembly, Miroslav Lajčák, after President Trump’s speech said that that many people have become disillusioned with the U.N. in a world grappling with conflict, poverty, terrorism and global warming, but acknowledged the U.N.’s potential to help.  He also stated that U.N. needs to put more emphasis on warding off conflicts, rather than reacting to them.

French President Macron defended the Iran Deal, saying there was no alternative, while British Prime Minister Theresa May called the deal “vitally important.”  These nations along with the EU and UN has urged the U.S. to not scrap the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which eased international sanctions in exchange for curbs on Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

With his first United Nations address under his belt, President Trump called out the major players in conflict and emphasized that the United States and the members of the United Nations should not tolerate the security, economic, and humanitarian violations that rogue governments impose on the world today.  Trump also seemed to clarify that while the world looks to the United States for direction on addressing international security concerns, his first responsibility was to American interests and security.

Trump considers ending Iran deal ahead of key deadline

Originally published on the Washington Examiner 

President Trump is weighing whether to nullify the Iran nuclear deal next month, as proponents of the agreement rally to its defense ahead of a key deadline that will force Trump to reevaluate its future.

The president faces pressure to fulfill his campaign promise to end the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called the “worst deal ever negotiated.” Known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal requires the State Department to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is still complying with the agreement under the terms ironed out by the Obama administration in 2015.

Some top Trump aides have urged the president to preserve the Iran deal at the next 90-day mark in October. H.R. McMaster, his national security adviser, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have cautioned Trump against scrapping the JCPOA despite his deep skepticism of the agreement, a source familiar with the talks told the Washington Examiner.

But others close to the president have urged him to follow through on his threats to dismantle the deal and have attempted to craft a new strategy for dealing with Iran in the event Trump ends the JCPOA.

Sebastian Gorka, former strategist to the president, said Trump resisted the recertification process at the most recent 90-day deadline in July, when he requested more information from his aides about how he could end the agreement.

“The president didn’t want it recertified last time,” Gorka told the Washington Examiner.

The former White House adviser, who stepped down last month, suggested Trump did not undo the Iran deal this summer only because he had not yet received from his team a set of satisfying alternatives to the agreement.

“Last time, he didn’t do it because he hadn’t been given an adequate path, the scenario hadn’t been provided to him” to decertify the deal, Gorka said.

But soon after Trump requested a draft plan to dismantle the Iran deal, Gorka said he and another top aide tasked with overseeing the creation of the plan, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon left the West Wing and were unable to pass on their findings to the president.

“Those options were never presented to him because of Steve’s resignation and my resignation,” Gorka said.

Bannon had enlisted the help of at least one outside adviser to give Trump options should he choose to exit the Iran deal.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in a late August memo published in National Review that Bannon had approached him shortly after the most recent recertification and asked him to prepare a “game plan” for withdrawing from the JCPOA.

“[S]taff changes at the White House have made presenting it to President Trump impossible,” Bolton wrote of his Iran deal withdrawal plan. “Although he was once kind enough to tell me ‘come in and see me any time,’ those days are now over.”

Bolton’s memo advises Trump to conduct “early, quiet consultations,” beginning with private phone calls from the president, with key allies like Israel and countries that had signed onto the deal, such as France and Germany. Those early conversations should provide a friendly warning about the decision ahead and should help those countries understand why the administration was pulling back from the agreement, Bolton wrote. Then, Bolton advised Trump to undergo an expanded diplomatic campaign aimed at rallying support around the world for new sanctions against Iran once the deal was no longer in place.

Proponents of the JCPOA argue the independent inspections Iran must undergo as a condition of the deal have so far turned up no evidence of explicit violations, proving it has been a success. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the organization that perform the inspections, reportedly conducted more than 400 site visits in 2016 and has informed the international community that Tehran remains in compliance with limits on its centrifuges and uranium enrichment.

The Trump administration has publicly given little indication of where the president plans to go with the JCPOA in the coming weeks. Trump has already recertified the deal twice, although in April, he called for a sweeping review of whether the sanctions relief Iran won as part of the deal remains in the U.S. national interest.

“We’re continuing to conduct a full review of our Iran policy. That has certainly not changed,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters on Sept. 12. “During the course of the review — and I’ll say this again — that we will continue to hold Iran accountable for its malign activities.”

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley began earlier this month to make the administration’s case for breaking with the deal. Instead of focusing only on whether Iran remains within the parameters of the JCPOA, Haley argued, the U.S. should take a broader view of all Iranian provocations, including the activity of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, support for Hezbollah, and ballistic missile development, and decide on a more comprehensive Iran policy.

“The question of Iranian compliance is not as straightforward as many people believe,” Haley said during a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Sept. 5. “It’s not just about the technical terms of the nuclear agreement. It requires a much more thorough look.”

The administration moved quickly to signal its low tolerance for Iranian aggression after Trump took office. By early February, Trump had sanctioned more than two dozen people and groups in response to a ballistic missile test Tehran conducted in late January, and his then-national security adviser, Gen. Mike Flynn, had announced that Trump planned to put Iran “on notice” over its provocations.

Trump’s State Department reissued waivers in May that continued to lift sanctions on Iran, which the Obama administration had granted in exchange for compliance with the JCPOA. But Trump also hit several Iranian individuals and entities in May with fresh sanctions related to their aggression outside the terms of the nuclear deal.

And the Trump administration issued a new round of sanctions in July aimed at IRGC-affiliated groups that had engaged in ballistic missile development, among other provocative activities.

Fred Fleitz, senior vice president for policy at the Center for Security Policy, said some critics of the deal have presented options that would keep the JCPOA in place while punishing Iran more severely for bad behavior outside of it.

“They’re trying to find a way to allow the president to do something so he can make a big announcement without pulling out,” Fleitz said of that camp, noting their overall objection for the recertification next month would be to “wrap this in a big, new, anti-Iran policy.”

“The jury is out on what the president is going to do,” Fleitz said.

But Trump has spent months excoriating the deal and blasting the Iranian regime for its aggression. Fleitz said it would make little sense for Trump to continue approving an agreement he has described as dangerous.

“I just think it’s ridiculous to say the deal’s not in our interest and stay in it,” Fleitz said.

Any effort to abrogate the JCPOA would face fierce opposition from the Iran deal’s supporters, all of whom characterize the agreement as the only thing standing between the regime and a nuclear weapon.

However, Trump would earn applause from some members of Congress for following through on his threats to Iran.

Republican lawmakers — including Sens. David Perdue, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — have urged Trump to reconsider the suspension of sanctions at the heart of the Iran deal.

Less than a month before the next recertification deadline, one source close to the administration told the Washington Examiner that Trump is “leaning towards decertifying” the Iran deal.

The October benchmark will be the first recertification to occur without Bannon and Gorka, two strong opponents of the JCPOA, on the president’s team.

Gorka said he was unsure if anybody left in the West Wing is pushing for a full decertification of the Iran deal. But he noted Trump will ultimately make his own decision, regardless of their counsel.

“I think the president is an army of one,” Gorka said. “My prediction is the president will not want to recertify.”