Another Teen Dies Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Palestinian teen shot by Israeli troops during Gaza border demonstrations dies

January 14, 2019 8:36 am

Palestinian protesters clash with Israeli security forces following a demonstration near the border with Israel, east of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip on March 31, 2018, a day after at least 16 Palestinians were killed and hundreds wounded in Land Day protests. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)

JERUSALEM (JTA) — A Palestinian teen shot in the head by Israeli soldiers during weekly demonstrations on the border with Gaza has died.

Abed al-Raouf Ismail Salha, 14, died in a Gaza hospital on Monday after being shot in eastern Jabaliya on Friday, according to reports citing Gaza’s Health Ministry. The teen was shot with live bullets, the ministry said.

A Palestinian woman was reported killed and dozens were wounded amid riots and protests by 13,000 Palestinians on Friday as part of the so-called Great March of Return that began in March.

Some 257 Palestinians have been killed in demonstrations related to the weekly protests, the Palestinian Maan news agency reported.

The Antichrist Will Ask US troops to Leave

Will Iraq ask US troops to leave the country?

Ali Mamouri February 6, 2019

In a Feb. 5 meeting between head of the Fatah Alliance Hadi al-Amiri and leaders from Muqtada al-Sadr’s Sairoon Alliance agreement was reached on cooperation to pass a resolution in the parliament to eject US troops from the country.

This came after US President Donald Trump’s statement on the important role of US troops in Iraq to keep an eye on Iran. In an interview with CBS, Trump said it is important for Washington to keep its military presence at al-Asad air base in Iraq’s Anbar province, so the United States can keep a close eye on Iran — because “Iran is a real problem.”

This has created a strong backlash against US troops in Iraq among Iraqi politicians, who consider this an intention of interference in Iraqi politics and the use of Iraqi territory against a neighboring country, which is prohibited per the Iraqi Constitution.

Iraqi President Barham Salih slammed Trump’s statement, requesting an explanation of the number of US troops in Iraq and their tasks. “Trump did not ask Iraq’s permission to ‘watch Iran,'” Salih said.

“Don’t overburden Iraq with your own issues,” Saiih told a forum in Baghdad Feb. 4. “The United States is a major power … but do not pursue your own policy priorities. We live here,” he added.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi also rejected using Iraqi territory by any country against another. “Iraq should not be a part of any conflicts between other countries,” he said during his weekly press conference Feb. 5. “We do not agree with the recent US statements. We reject them as these statements are not useful and should be withdrawn.”

Abdul Mahdi had previously announced that Iraq is not a part of US sanctions against Iran.

This clearly indicates that Iraq does not want to be pulled into a regional or international conflict, whether between the United States and Iran or Saudi Arabia and Iran. The recent trip of the head of the Popular Mobilization Units, Falih al-Fayadh, who is supported by Iran for the post of Ministry of Interior, to Saudi Arabia is another indication of this nonaligned policy.

This policy is even supported by secular forces that are known to have a good relationship with the United States and take distance from Iran.

Ayad Allawi, head of the Iraqi National Alliance and interim prime minister of Iraq in 2004-2005, called on the Iraqi government and parliament Feb. 5 to “regulate the presence of US troops in Iraq in a clear agreement that gives full sovereignty to Iraq, not any other country.” He added that rejecting Iraqi conditions on the presence of US troops would change these forces to interventional forces that should then leave the country immediately.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi tweeted in this regard, “Iraq should not be used as a springboard to attack its neighbors. We are not proxies in conflicts outside the interests of our nation.” He continued, “Iraqi sovereignty must be respected. … Its interests should not be compromised.”

Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition and the Hikma bloc headed by Ammar al-Hakim, among other Iraqi political forces, slammed Trump’s statements, rejecting any role for US troops against Iraq’s neighbors.

The deputy parliament speaker, Hassan al-Kaabi, considered the statements by the US president a violation of the Iraqi Constitution, assuring that US troops would be ejected following a parliament resolution.

A member of the Fatah Alliance in parliament, Mohamed Karim, said that all political parties in the parliament agree on ejecting foreign forces including US troops. Even if a minority refuses, the Fatah Alliance, Sairoon Alliance and Nasr coalition (Victory Alliance) have enough votes to pass this resolution.

In addition to Trump’s recent statements, his Christmas visit to US troops stationed at al-Asad air base without visiting Baghdad or meeting Iraqi officials have caused strong discontent among Iraqi political forces.

Trump also said in the CBS interview that some US troops that move out of Syria will go to Iraq, and that they will respond to developments in Syria from their bases in Iraq. This is also against the legal role of US troops in Iraq, as they are only part of a coalition against the Islamic State (IS) and are not allowed to take part in any other conflicts, especially outside Iraq from Iraqi territory.

US military officers have also recently appeared in public in Baghdad, Fallujah in Anbar province and other Iraqi cities, which has spread rumors among Iraqis, linking these activities to a US plan to overthrow the government in Iraq and put in place a military government supported by the United States.

Trump’s remarks on monitoring Iran from Iraqi territory have also caused confusion at the Pentagon, with officials unsure whether the US mission in Iraq has changed or not. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Feb. 5, Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of US Central Command, said that the US mission in Iraq had not been given “additional tasks.”

CNN quoted a senior State Department official as saying, “Our troops are there in a relationship with the government of [Iraq] — by invitation of the government of Iraq, articulated by the strategic framework agreement. They’re there for the enduring defeat of IS, that hasn’t changed.”

As expected, pro-Iranian military factions were among the first forces that showed strong reactions against Trump’s statements. Head of Asaib Ahl al-Haq Qais al-Khazali said Feb. 4 that the statements by the US president reveal the truth of the American project in Iraq, noting that the Iraqi military apparatus can easily eject US troops overnight.

Shiite militias also threatened to target US troops in Iraq. On Feb. 2, Iraqi security forces captured a number of rockets in Anbar that were going to be launched at al-Asad air base.

Trump’s apparent reassignment of the mission of US troops in Iraq has created resistance among Iraqis that their country will be used as a battleground for a proxy war between conflicting forces in the region. As a result, Iraqi politicians, including those who support the United States, will unite and ask US troops to leave the country.

USGS Evidence Shows Power of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New Evidence Shows Power of East Coast Earthquakes Virginia Earthquake Triggered Landslides at Great Distances

Released: 11/6/2012 8:30:00 AM

USGS.gov

Earthquake shaking in the eastern United States can travel much farther and cause damage over larger areas than previously thought.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists found that last year’s magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia triggered landslides at distances four times farther—and over an area 20 times larger—than previous research has shown.

“We used landslides as an example and direct physical evidence to see how far-reaching shaking from east coast earthquakes could be,” said Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of this study. “Not every earthquake will trigger landslides, but we can use landslide distributions to estimate characteristics of earthquake energy and how far regional ground shaking could occur.”

“Scientists are confirming with empirical data what more than 50 million people in the eastern U.S. experienced firsthand: this was one powerful earthquake,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “Calibrating the distance over which landslides occur may also help us reach back into the geologic record to look for evidence of past history of major earthquakes from the Virginia seismic zone.”

This study will help inform earthquake hazard and risk assessments as well as emergency preparedness, whether for landslides or other earthquake effects.

This study also supports existing research showing that although earthquakes are less frequent in the East, their damaging effects can extend over a much larger area as compared to the western United States.

The research is being presented today at the Geological Society of America conference, and will be published in the December 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

The USGS found that the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.

“What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S,” said Jibson. “Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.”

It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history. About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.

In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2 from an earthquake of similar magnitude.

“The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded,” said Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of this study. “There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.”

The difference between seismic shaking in the East versus the West is due in part to the geologic structure and rock properties that allow seismic waves to travel farther without weakening.

Learn more about the 2011 central Virginia earthquake.

Children Abandoned Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Gazas abandoned children: Palestinians leaving their babies at border

A worrying phenomenon appears to have developed on the border with the Gaza Strip that sees parents of children taken to Israel for medical treatment abandon their offsprings in order to remain in the country as illegal residents.

According to the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Israeli soldiers find abandoned Gazan children brought to Israel by their parents for medical treatment several times a months. This occurrence began a few months ago is not showing signs of slowing down.

As recently as two days ago, a four-year-old boy was abandoned by his father at the Erez border crossing in the northern Gaza Strip. The child, who was abandoned after receiving medical treatment in Israel, had been left with a complete stranger on the Gaza side of the border, while his father chose to remain illegally on Israeli territory.

“The parent who was supposed to accompany his child and provide him with a sense of security chose to remain in Israel as an illegal resident and send his child back to Gaza alone, without any familiar faces leading him home,” COGAT said.

Erez border crossing (Photo: Roee Idan)

“This is an unacceptable phenomenon. As a father myself, I do not understand how a parent abandons his child and leaves him in the hands of a stranger without worrying about his welfare and safety,” said the head of the Coordination and Liaison Administration in Gaza, Col. Iyad Sarhan.

“Those who choose to stay in Israel are violating the conditions of their entry permits. As a human being and as a father, I hope that this phenomenon will stop and the residents of Gaza will start prioritizing their children above everything else,” Col. Iyad Sarhan added.

Trump and His Future War Against Iran

The president’s eye on Iran

Vigilance requires keeping a wary and suspicious eye on the mullahs

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Diplomat-speak is not President Trump’s greatest talent, but recognizing threats to U.S. national security is, and the civilized world can be grateful. The president’s blunt language describing why the United States must keep an eye on Iran from a watching post in neighboring Iraq did not please the mullahs in Tehran, but America and the West expect nothing less from the president of the United States. As the Islamic regime repeats a vow to conquer the West, an unblinking watch must be preserved.

Mr. Trump told interviewers at CBS News this week that he intends to keep U.S. troops at Iraq’s Al-Asad military base to monitor Iran’s behavior. “It’s perfectly situated for looking at all over different parts of the troubled Middle East rather than pulling up,” he said, and he wants to keep the base “because I want to be able to watch Iran.”

In his State of the Union address the president reiterated his intention to guard against the peril posed by the Islamic republic: “We will not avert our eyes from a regime that chants death to America and threatens genocide against the Jewish people.” After his announcement that he intends to pull U.S. forces out of Syria and Afghanistan, the president’s remarks reassured allies, including Iraq, that he will not cut and run from the region.

“Taking offense” is a way of life in the cradle of civilization — it’s a custom growing popular everywhere, including the United States — and the Iraqis were rocked by Mr. Trump’s plain talk. “The [American] troops in Iraq are operating based on the agreement between the government of Iraq and the United States for the specific mission of combating terrorism,” Iraqi President Iraq Barham Salih told the Daily Beast. “Iraq’s constitution does not allow our territory of our country to be used against our neighbors.”

Combating terrorism is precisely the mission of U.S. forces in the Middle East, and the key is keeping a wary eye on Iran, the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, but Islamic politicians lobby the Iraqi Parliament to expel U.S. troops. If only. But for our friends there, the Middle East is not worth the life of a single American soldier, and the U.S. public would like nothing better than to see nearly three decades of on-again, off-again U.S. involvement there come to an end.

Common sense dictates otherwise. At a time when the Iranian regime is parading advanced, precision-guided missiles capable of striking Israel and U.S. forces through the streets of Tehran, withdrawal is not a reasonable option. Guidance technology has just been installed on a new class of longer-range munitions that can fly 1,250 miles, according to the Iranian news agency Fars. Additionally, the regime introduced a long-range cruise missile last week, accompanied by a threat to Israel from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that armed conflict would “definitely lead to elimination [of Israel].”

The president has withdrawn the United States from the foolish 2015 Iran nuclear deal, but the need to cast a wary eye survives. Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, reports that Tehran has acquired the technical skills to design and build advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges, and is no longer dependent on reverse-engineering older models.

More disturbing, David Albright, formerly inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and several colleagues issued a report last month accusing Iran of failing to disclose to the IAEA its plans to build “a large, secret underground nuclear tunnel complex at the Parchin site, about 35 kilometers from Tehran.” Details of the so-called “Amad Plan,” taken from a Tehran warehouse by Israeli intelligence agents last year, document efforts by Iran to produce components for nuclear warheads.

This disclosure has embarrassed the international agency, which has made great effort to persuade the world that Iran has fully met its disclosure obligations under the terms of the late and lamented nuclear deal. If the regime has indeed lied about the existence of a secret nuclear facility, it’s reasonable to ask whether the mullahs are guarding other nuclear secrets beyond the view of inspectors.

Mr. Trump ruffled robes in Baghdad by suggesting that Iraq is a useful post for a neighborhood watch, but the job of combating terrorism necessarily means keeping an eye on Iran, where Marquess of Queensberry Rules of fair play are honored only in the breach. It’s a game an American president dare not play.

Trump Threatening to Start World War 3

Trump Withdrawing from Old Wars While Threatening Iran with New One

BEN NORTON: It’s The Real News Network, and I’m Ben Norton.

Well, President Donald Trump is withdrawing from old wars. He is acting more and more aggressively against Iran. In the latest scandal, Trump has come under attack for disagreeing with and even criticizing his intelligence services. But what is interesting about the scandal is that some countries, like North Korea, Afghanistan, and Syria, Trump is being less hawkish than the intelligence agencies want him to be. But at the same time, on Iran Trump is being much more hawkish. It goes without saying that U.S. intelligence agencies have a long record of supporting military coups and wars abroad, and spreading lies such as the 2003 WMD myth that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. But many members of the self-declared liberal resistance are attacking Trump for ignoring U.S. Intelligence agencies.

On January 29, the U.S. Senate held a briefing on the supposed global threats faced by the United States. The two major intelligence chiefs testified: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and CIA Director Gina Haspel. The intelligence chiefs challenged Trump’s attempt to seek peace with North Korea. Here’s a clip from CNN.

CNN: Coats also seemed to differ with the president on North Korea. Six months after Mr. Trump tweeted that there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea, Coats told Congress that’s not quite the case–that reality check coming just weeks before the president is set to meet once again with dictator Kim Jong un.

DAN COATS: We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities, and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities, because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival.

BEN NORTON: But what’s interesting is at the same time, surprisingly, the U.S. intelligence chiefs were in fact much less hawkish on Iran. In fact, the director of the CIA acknowledged that despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, Iran is, in fact, not pursuing nuclear weapons, and Tehran has in fact been abiding by its side of the international nuclear agreement. Here’s a clip from PBS.

PBS: What is the intelligence community saying about Iran’s nuclear capacity?

The Trump administration has long said that Iran did not heed that 2014 nuclear deal, and always wanted a nuclear weapon. But Gina Haspel, the CIA director, was much more honest. She said that Iran was complying with the deal, but that it might start enrichment in the future. So here is her talking with Senator Angus King, who is an independent but caucuses with Democrats.

ANGUS KING: Since our departure from the deal they have abided by the terms. You’re saying they’re considering, but at the current moment they’re-

GINA HASPEL: Yes, they’re making some preparations that would increase their ability to take a step back if they make that decision. So at the moment, technically, they’re in compliance.

BEN NORTON: Donald Trump shot back at his intelligence chiefs on Twitter. He hyped this supposed threat that Iran poses and he wrote: “Be careful of Iran. Perhaps intelligence should go back to school.”

Well, joining us to discuss this contradiction, we are speaking with political analyst and author Trita Parsi. Trita is the author of several books, including most recently Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy, and he’s teaching at Georgetown University. Thanks for joining us, Trita.

TRITA PARSI: Thank you for having me.

BEN NORTON: So can you help unpack what’s going on here? It’s very interesting, the way this has been framed on both sides. So on one side we have, you know, kind of mainstream Democrats who are criticizing Trump for ignoring U.S. intelligence agencies–although, of course, there’s a good reason to not listen to them usually, given how they have a history of selling, you know, lies that led us into the Iraq war. But at the same time, Trump is actually ignoring them on North Korea and Syria, where the intelligence communities are pushing for a more hawkish approach. But on Iran Trump is once again ignoring them, and really exaggerating the supposed threat that Iran poses. Can you respond to this?

TRITA PARSI: So in some ways we shouldn’t be terribly surprised. This is a president that has no foreign policy experience, no understanding of international relations, and comes in with a few fixed ideas and a tremendous amount of just pure ignorance. Moreover, he’s a person who has never worked in a larger organization. He’s only been running his own family businesses. So the idea that what he says or what he thinks needs to be checked and corrected by others, or that it needs to be coordinated, is just simply foreign to his mindset. And as a result he is perfectly situated to constantly be in contradiction with all the elements of not only the U.S. government, but frankly, his own cabinet, at times.

Now, Trump–politically he may see this as a positive, in the sense that him going to war against the intelligence community fits his idea that he is selling to his supporters, that he is cleaning the swamp, draining the swamp; that he is opposed by the establishment. Because at the end of the day, the intelligence communities are obviously a core part of the establishment.

So he may not mind that this is taking place. In fact, he may be exaggerating and seeking to get electoral benefit from this, with his own base. When it comes to the substance of the issue, I think there it’s quite clear. He actually does seem to have some form of an instinct towards being less involved militarily in the Middle East. That instinct, however, is subjected to his impulses. His impulses constantly override his instincts. Moreover, the viewpoints of his core closest advisers, such as Bolton and Pompeo, is completely at odds with his instincts. Their worldview is, of course, much more about a need to be very, very strongly present in the Middle East. And an organizing principle for their entire worldview, frankly, seems to be Iran, in which they oppose Iraq on every front, and they are quite dramatically exaggerating the influence that Iran has in order to be able to justify more and more hawkish policies.

Now, on Iran, Trump has a weakness where he quickly departs from any idea of being less involved in the Middle East, which is his hatred for the Iran deal, which stems from his hatred for Barack Obama. So it’s interesting to see how oftentimes it appears as if his advisers have succeeded in convincing him to go along with hawkish policies that he otherwise probably not would agree with by using Iran as a justification for that. So for instance, Bolton was trying to convince Trump to stay in Syria in order not to just counter ISIS, but to counter Iran. That seemed not to have fully worked, but nevertheless it was an argument that was quite effective. Now we see that actually it’s the same argument that Trump now is parroting publicly in order to justify staying in Iraq, in which he says that he’s going to keep troops in Iraq in order to keep an eye on Iran, including on Iran’s nuclear program. So he has this very weak spot for any argument that has the word ‘Iran’ in it, and it appears as if Bolton and Pompeo have been quite astute at utilizing that in order to push him in a much more hawkish direction than he otherwise likely would have gone.

BEN NORTON: I was in fact going to ask you about that, Trita. While Trump is allegedly moving to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria–and we can talk about some of the response to that–at the same time, he recently divulged that he’s going to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, and in fact he might send some of the troops currently in Syria to Iraq. In an interview on CBS, Trump said this is in order to “watch Iran.”

DONALD TRUMP: Being in Iraq- it was a big mistake to go- one of the greatest mistakes going into the Middle East that our country has ever made. One of the greatest mistakes that we’ve ever made–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you want to keep troops there now?

DONALD TRUMP: –but when it was chosen– well, we spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Whoa, that’s news. You’re keeping troops in Iraq because you want to be able to strike in Iran?

DONALD TRUMP: No, because I want to be able to watch Iran.

BEN NORTON: So, Trita, what do you make about this? I think there’s an interesting contradiction here, where it seems like one of two things could be happening. Trump is either trying to appeal to both the kind of isolationist right and the neoconservative right. He has surrounded himself with John Bolton and Pompeo. He also recently appointed the arch-neocon Elliott Abrams to be his special envoy in Venezuela. So it seems like part of his Iran strategy could potentially be to appease them, and appeal to both sides of the of the right wing spectrum. But at the same time some analysts have suggested that what Trump could be doing is actually withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan in order to potentially move toward a war with Iran in the future. So what do you make of this decision, and do you think one of these explanations fits?

TRITA PARSI: I think from Trump’s perspective he is just reacting. I don’t think there’s a strategy behind this. He is reacting, and he is being manipulated by these individuals in his cabinet that have a much, much stronger view of foreign policy, have an understanding of it. I tend to disagree with them about their recommendations. But compared to Trump, of course, they’re knowledgeable in a way that Trump simply is not. So he’s being manipulated by them in order to move him in a much more hawkish direction. Again, as I mentioned, the Iran argument is the one that Trump seems to constantly be falling for.

But it’s really fascinating to see how that statement came out. Again, it shows how uncoordinated policy is right now, because the Iraqis, of course, reacted very negatively to this, and the President there spoke out against this and said that, you know, the United States has not gotten Iraq’s permission to do this. Moreover, the idea that the United States would be able to keep an eye on the Iranian nuclear program from Iraq, of course, is laughable. It reminds me of how Sarah Palin said that she knew much about Russia because she could see it from her window.

We had a nuclear deal with Iran that actually had U.N. inspectors deep inside of the nuclear deal; 24/7 inspections, and monitoring from various instruments. To say that we now instead can watch the program from Iraq and that that is a superior policy option for the United States is, of course, beyond laughable.

BEN NORTON: And then finally, Trita, I want to talk more about Europe’s role in this. We have seen, of course, the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is popularly known as the nuclear deal, had many signatories. It was not just the U.S. and we’ve seen that the other signatories, including the EU, China, Russia, France, the UK, they have stayed abiding by their side of the agreement. Although we’ve seen some flipflopping. In the case of France, and Germany, and Britain, we have seen some companies say they will abide by the U.S. sanctions and refuse to do business with Iran out of fear of secondary sanctions. But we also have seen recent reports that Germany, the UK, and France have developed a system called INSTEX to avoid U.S. sanctions and to try to continue doing business with Iran, as was stipulated under the nuclear deal. So can you respond to the international community’s dealing with the Iran nuclear deal, even though Trump has withdrawn from it, and Europe’s potential strategy of trying to circumvent U.S. sanctions?

TRITA PARSI: Well, I don’t think the Europeans are circumventing sanctions, because at the end of the day the sanctions are illegal. The sanctions are in contradiction in violation of aU.N. Security Council resolution. The Europeans are protecting legitimate trade; trade that has been permitted by the UN Security Council as a result of the Iran deal, and the UN Security Council’s adoption of the resolution that endorsed Iran. The resolution that was passed 15 to 0.

So the Europeans and the Russians and the Chinese are trying to see what they can do to keep the deal alive. However–and of course, the INSTEX is a very important step forward in that, even though it does not appear in any way, shape, or form to have been sufficient to make Iranians content with the situation. They have been waiting quite some time now for the Europeans to provide this alternative payment system that would allow and enable this trade to continue and flourish. It is starting off very small, very careful. It’s going to be focusing on humanitarian trade at the outset. But it does have the potential of going into something that would be much much bigger than that. Not only will it allow for trade between the Europeans and Iran, but theoretically other countries. China, Russia may also be using this system in order to have their transactions with Iran protected. Bottom line is the United States is completely isolated in its opposition to the deal, and has even incentivized very close allies such as the Europeans to create alternative payment systems that are not only competing with those that are currently exist under the control of the U.S., but is actually undermining the U.S.’s influence over these international financial systems.

BEN NORTON: We’ll have to end our conversation there. We were joined by political analyst and author Trita Parsi, who is the author of several books, including most recently Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy. Trita teaches at Georgetown University. We’ll have him back soon, to follow this important story. Thanks a lot for joining us, Trita.

TRITA PARSI: Thank you for having me.

BEN NORTON: For The Real News Network, I’m Ben Norton.