Lieutenant General (Retired) Michael Flynn and the Iranian Nuclear Agreement by Jason Criss Howk, The Bridge
Following the announcement of the Iranian Nuclear Agreement, Lieutenant General (Retired, U.S. Army) Michael “Mike” Flynn was interviewed by Jason Criss Howk, a former colleague that worked with him in Kabul and Washington D.C. The interview took place by phone and email from 15–16 July 2015.
Mike Flynn is the former DIA Director, Senior Intelligence Officer for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the Joint Staff, and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). He worked extensively with security leaders throughout the Middle East and has dealt closely with the effects of the Iranian Regime on both Iraq and Afghanistan.
LTG (Ret) Flynn recently returned from 1 of 3 trips in the last four months where he met with government, business and religious leaders in various, traditionally American-leaning nations. Here are his thoughts on the current Iranian Nuclear agreement and how it will affect the broader Middle East.
Comments
As an explanation/comparison, and re: Nixon goes to China, note the (similar?) reference to China as being a "long-standing and bitter enemy" with "blood of U.S. troops on their hands." Yet, Nixon would pursue this rapprochement with China anyway, and in spite of such difficulties, much as Obama has re: Iran.
"Like Nixon, who succeeded Lyndon B. Johnson on a promise to end the costly war in Vietnam, Obama took over from a president, George W. Bush, whom he blamed for squandering the United States’ reputation and resources on military misadventures in the Middle East. Nixon saw Vietnam, as Obama sees Iraq, as emblematic of larger conceptual flaws in U.S. strategy.
Nixon and Obama both thought they could achieve a more flexible, and hence sustainable, U.S. global position by modifying well-established policy commitments and alliances, while seeking common ground with bitter, long-standing enemies (even enemies with the blood of U.S. troops on their hands). Both brushed aside cries of betrayal from old friends, led by Taiwan in Nixon’s case and Israel in Obama’s.
Both convinced themselves, and tried to convince the public, that there was virtue in necessity and that realpolitik could lead to genuine cooperation and truly lasting peace, once the United States proved to the other side that our intentions were benign and our long-term interests consistent with theirs.
In 1967, while preparing for his 1968 White House run, Nixon wrote of “pulling China back into the world community — but as a great and progressing nation, not as the epicenter of world revolution.” Obama has said that Iran could be “a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules, and that would be good for everybody. ... ”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-obamas-deal-with-iran-shades…
Hmmm, might be a bit easier to "TRUST" that Iran will be promoting the global economy or international community IF their leaders were not so involved in "Death to the USA" or Death to Israel or supporting the Shi'ite fanatics (Hezbollah militia, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and their proxies throughout the region). Yes, this is the regime which advocates a second Holocaust for Jews. This deal, as LTG Flynn so eloquently pleas, is bad for the US, bad for our friends in Israel and rather than promote global economic and international community relations -- it takes the power-keg mid-east region a giant step closer to both a nuclear arms race and nuclear war.
With respect, the general is flat out wrong about the Iranians getting everything with JCPOA. From the Iranian POV, there were a number of critical compromises that are currently being debated among Iran's political elites. This debate is expected to formally be extended to Iran's parliament once SNSC provides a formal examination and rendering.
"(JCH) What did the West get out of the deal?"
"(MF) Let’s start with Europe+. Europe, Russia, and China get three big things: 1. A new market of 80 million people to buy their goods; 2. Cheap oil; and 3. An educated work force to open companies within Iran."
"The U.S. gets nothing but grief ... "
In stark contrast to LTG Flynn's thoughts here -- and from a "promote the global economy"/"integrate Iran into the global economy & international community" point of view (which, at times, seems to be the United States' grand strategic framework) -- does the above not look, for the United States, like a "win"/"win?"