July 12, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" -
The 14th of July 2020, marks the fifth
anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) Agreement, often referred to as
the Iran Nuclear Deal (or simply the Deal) the
Deal that wasn't. It was yet another attempt at
Of all the plans to control Iran, from Operation
Ajax to Operation JCPOA and everything in between,
the Iran Nuclear Deal was by far the most devious
attempt at undermining the sovereignty of Iran one
way or another.
As such, it is high time that the Deals
planners, their motivations and their associations
were discussed in order to grasp the depth of the
Iran, due to its geopolitical position, has
always been considered a jewel in the crown of the
colonial powers. Attempts to conquer Iran through a
proxy which started with Operation Ajax in August
1953, at the behest of the British and carried out
by the CIA, were not abandoned even with the ousting
of America's man, the Shah.
Although the Islamic Revolution reclaimed Iran's
sovereignty, America was not ready to abandon its
plans to dominate Iran, and by extension, the
The Persian Gulf has been the lynchpin of US foreign
policy. "To all intents and purposes", a former senior
US Defense Department official observed, "'Gulf waters'
now extend from the Straits of Malacca to the South
Atlantic". Nevertheless, bases near the [Persian] Gulf
had special importance, and Pentagon planners urged "as
substantial a land presence in them as can be managed". (Anthony
H. Cordesman, "The Gulf and the Search for Strategic
Stability", Boulder: Westview, 1984).
Having failed in numerous attempts, including the
Nojeh coup at the nascent stages of the Islamic Republic
of Iran's newly-formed government, war, sanctions,
terrorism, and a failed colour revolution, the United
States needed other alternatives to reach its goal.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Unlike the illegal war against Iraq, war with Iran
was not a feasible option. The United States was aware
of its inability to wage a successful war against Iran
without serious damage to itself and its allies.
The US even restarted the war games, changing the
rules to ensure an American victory, in reality,
cheating itself. This led to accusations that the war
game had turned from an honest, open, playtest of US
war-fighting capabilities into a controlled and scripted
exercise intended to end in a U.S. victory to promote a
false narrative of US invincibility.
For this reason, the United States continued its
attempts at undermining Iran's sovereignty by means of
sanctions, terror, and creating divisions among the
Iranians. The JCPOA would be its master plan.
A simple observation of Iran clearly suggests simple
ideological divisions among the Iranian people
(pro-West, anti-West, minorities, religious, secular)
which have all been amply exploited by the United States
and its allies. None of the exploits delivered the prize
the US was seeking. And so it was that it was decided to
exploit the one factor which united Iranians of ALL
persuasions. Iran's civilian nuclear programme.
In an interview with National Public Radio (25
November 2004), Ray Takyeh of the US Council on Foreign
Relations (and husband to Iran expert Suzanne Maloney of
the Brookings Institute) stated that according to polls,
75-80% of the Iranians rallied behind the Islamic
Republic of Iran in support of its nuclear programme,
including the full fuel cycle.
In other words, the overwhelming uniting factor among
the Iranians for the Islamic Republic was the nuclear
programme (a USIA poll conducted in 2007 found that 64%
of those questioned said that US legislation repealing
regime change in Iran would not be incentive enough to
give up the nuclear programme and full fuel-cycle).
The next phase was to cause disunity on an issue that
united Iranians of all stripes: negotiate away the
The first round of nuclear negotiations in 2003-2005,
dubbed the Paris Agreement, between Iran and the EU3
proved to be futile, and as one European diplomat put
"We gave them a beautiful box of chocolate that was,
however, empty". As the West's fortune would have
it, the same Iranian officials who had participated in
the 2003-2005 negotiations would negotiate the JCPOA.
Around the time of the end of the first round of
negotiations, another Brookings Fellow, Flynt Leverett,
senior advisor for the National Security Center,
published a book, "Inheriting Syria, Bashar's Trial by
Fire" (Brookings book publication, April 2005).
In his book, Leverett argued that instead of
conflict, George W. Bush should seek to cooperate with
Syria as Assad was popular, but instead seek to weaken
Assad's position among his people by targeting the Golan
(inducing him to give it up) so that he would lose
popularity among the Syrians. The JCPOA was designed in
part along the same line of thinking.
And more. His wife Hillary Leverett had a prominent
role in "selling" the Deal.
Secret negotiations between the Americans and
"reform-minded" Iranians never ceased, bypassing both
Ayatollah Khamenei, Irans supreme leader, and the
President at the time Mahmood Ahmadinejad.
In a 2012 meeting at the University of Southern
California, the present members of the Iran Project team
that were present had no reservations about suggesting
that it was more beneficial to engage Iran rather than
They went as far as stating in the Q&A session to
this writer that "they had been engaged with the 'Green'
(the opposition movement in the failed 2009 colour
revolution) for years, but Ahmadinejad won" (referring
to the 2009 elections). But Ahmadinejad would soon leave
office and be replaced by Rohani a more amenable
It was opined that the ideal situation was (and
continues to be) to have a compliant "regime" in Tehran.
Eisenstadt was of the opinion that unlike the Osiraq
nuclear power plant which was bombed and destroyed,
neither Israel nor the US would not be able to bomb
Iran's Bushehr reactor with the same ease.
In particular, Eisenstadt claimed that Israel may
have benefited from French aid in destroying Osiraq.
French intelligence reportedly placed a homing beacon at
Osiraq to help Israeli pilots locate the facility or
target a critical underground structure there.
In this light, it was recommended that the principal
goal of US action should be to delay Iran's nuclear
programme long enough to allow for the possible
emergence of new leadership in Tehran. Failing that, war
would have been facilitated.
It was thought the Paris Agreement talks would fail
(as the JCPOA was designed to fail) and as such, the
following were some of the suggestions made:
harassment or murder of key Iranian scientists or
introduction of fatal design flaws into a critical
reactor, centrifuge, or weapons components during their
production, to ensure catastrophic failure during use;
disruption or interdiction of key technology or
material transfers through sabotage or covert military
actions on land, in the air, or at sea;
the sabotage of critical facilities by US
intelligence assets, including third-country nationals
or Iranian agents with access to key facilities;
introduction of destructive viruses into Iranian
computer systems controlling the production of
components or the operation of facilities;
damage or destruction of critical facilities
through sabotage or direct action by US special forces.
As with the murder and terrorising of the nuclear
scientists, and the infection of the reactor with the
Stuxnet virus, the JCPOA enabled personnel on the ground
in Iran to carry out extensive sabotage as has been
recently observed in recent days and weeks.
Rohani's visa-free travel opened the flood gates to
spies and saboteurs dual citizens, who easily
travelled with passports other than American, British,
or Australian ones. Iran even managed to prevent an
IAEA inspector who triggered an alarm at Iran's
nuclear facility. But it would seem, Iran has not been
able to stop other intruders and terrorists not yet.
Other Motivational Factors for Negotiating
According to studies, as of 2008, Iran's Bushehr
nuclear reactor had 82 tonnes of enriched uranium (U235)
loaded into it, according
to Israeli and Chinese reports. This amount was
significantly higher pre and during negotiations.
History has not witnessed the bombing of a nuclear power
plant with an operational nuclear enrichment facility.
The deliberate bombing of such facilities would
result in breach containment and radioactive elements
released. The death toll horrifying. The Union of
Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths
would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear
enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the
contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the
way to India.
The JCPOA significantly reduced the amount of
enriched uranium, reducing the potential casualty deaths
in the event that a strike is carried out.
The Deal bought time - Iran's strength has been its
ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the
Strait of Hormuz. Given that 17
million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world's
seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz,
incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world
economy. Enter Nigeria and Yemen.
In 1998, Clinton's national security agenda made it
clear that gaining unhampered access to Nigerian oil and
other vital resources was a key US policy. In the early
2000s, Chatham House was one of the NGOs that determined
African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf
oil in the event of an oil disruption.
This followed a strategy paper for the US to move
toward African oil. The push for African oil was on Dick
Cheney's desk on 31 May 2000. In 2002, the
Israeli-based IASPS suggested America push toward
African oil. In the same year,
Boko Haram was "founded".
It has now been made abundantly clear that the Deal
was simply JCPOA1. Other Deals were to follow to disarm
Iran even further, to stop Iran's defensive missile
programme, and to stop Iran from helping its allies in
the region. This would have been relatively easy to
achieve had Hillary Clinton been elected as had been
The plan was to allow trade and neoliberal policies,
which the Rohani administration readily embraced, a
sharp increase in imports (harming domestic production
and self-reliance) while building hope or as Maloney
called it, a "crisis of expectation".
It was thought that with a semblance of "normalcy" in
international relations and freedom from sanctions,
Iranians would want to continue abandoning their
sovereignty, their defences, and rally around the
pro-West/America politicians at the expense of the core
ideology of the Islamic Revolution, the conservatives
and the IRGC. In other words, regime change (several
meetings speak to this; see for
The most prominent player, one could argue, was
President Obama. Obama was not about peace. The biggest
threat to an empire is peace. Obama had chosen feigned
diplomacy as his weapon. But before picking up the
mantle of diplomacy, he had proposed terrorism
sanctioned terrorism. Obama, while a junior senator, had
S. 1430 in 2007 and had "crippling sanctions" in
mind for the Iranian people. As president, his executive
orders assured this.
Addressing AIPAC while still a presidential
candidate, he said: "Our willingness to pursue
diplomacy will make it easier to mobilise others to
join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when
presented with this choice by the United States, it
will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world
that the Iranian regime is the author of its own
isolation and that will strengthen our hand with
Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions
in the Security Council.
"And we should work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf
States to find every avenue outside the United
Nations to isolate the Iranian regime, from cutting
off loan guarantees and expanding financial
sanctions to banning the export of refined petroleum
to Iran to boycotting firms associated with the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds forces have
rightly been labelled a terrorist organisation".
Not to be left unmentioned was the darling of the
theatrics of this Deal Federica Mogherini. So
enamoured were some of the Iranian parliamentarians with
her that to the embarrassment of Iran, the internet was
abuzz with these MPs taking pictures with her. Perhaps
they looked at her and not her years as a German
Marshall Fund Fellow.
The German Marshall Fund (GMF) sounds harmless
enough, but perhaps Russia may not view it that way.
Iran shouldn't. The GMF pushed for bringing Ukraine into
NATO's fold. Furthermore, the GMF gives funding to
American Abroad Media.
A a most active proponent of the JCPOA was none other
than NED recipient Trita Parsi/NIAC. Trita Parsi was
personally thanked for his role in pushing the JCPOA
through. Job well done for a 3-time recipient of NED
funds. It's no wonder the George Soros Koch
Quincy Institute selected him as their Executive Vice
And last but not least, Hillary Mann Leverett (wife
of the aforementioned Flynn Leverett) who persuaded her
audiences that the JCPOA was akin to "Nixon going to
While some in Iran naively believed this to be the
case and even defended her, they failed to realise that
when Nixon went to China it was to bring China on board
against Russia. And Israel was not a player. It was not
an opening to befriend Iran any more than Nixons trip
was predicated on altruistic motivations.
Russia and China's role
The Russians and the Chinese were so eager to embrace
a long-awaited peace after all the calamity caused by
the United States that they fully eliminated this Deal,
even though it was detrimental to their interests in so
America's animosity and never-ending schemes
encouraged cooperation between Russia, China, and Iran.
Although the lifting of sanctions post JCPOA would have
facilitated trade and enhanced diplomacy between Iran
and the West, at a cost to China and Russia, they stood
steadfast by the Deal. Peace was more valuable. But far
more importantly, the two powerful nations allowed the
United States to be the arbitrator of an international
treaty the NPT.
During the Shah's reign, President Ford had signed
onto a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM
292, 1975) allowing and encouraging Iran to not only
enrich uranium but sell it to neighbouring countries to
profit America. The United States then decided that
since the Islamic Republic of Iran did not serve the
interests of the United States, the United States would
determine how the NPT should be applied to Iran.
But their efforts at peace and the West's efforts at
regime change all came to nought. What is important to
bear in mind is that America's efforts at war, sabotage,
and terrorism have not ended. Imposing unilateral
sanctions terrorism against the Iranian people, has
The world already has a superpower without morals and
integrity; it does not need other great powers that act
Iran has fended off another assault on its
sovereignty. However, saboteurs and terrorists are
soliciting war with their recent string of terrorism in
Iran. As the fifth anniversary of this trap approaches,
the world needs to understand and step up in order to
defend peace, international law and social justice. The
future of all depends on it.
And to American compatriots: Make sure Trump
understands war will not get him re-elected.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a
Master's in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for
Communication. She is an independent researcher and
writer with regular contributions to various online
blogs. Soraya is a public speaker and political
Post your comment below
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
Information Clearing House
The views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)