Iran nuclear agreement: A Train Wreck Coming?

One of the Board members of the NCF sent us this comment on the Iran nuclear talks:

INTRODUCTION

Fareed Zakaria, the well-known CNN correspondent, raises a perplexing question in his recent interview with Iran's new president.  In short, he claims that the interpretation as to what has been agreed between Iran and the P5 plus 1 (and especially the United States) over Iran's nuclear facilities and capabilities is so great as to signify that a train wreck will eventually happen which might once more threaten the region with conflict. Herein is a shortened version of that interview.  End Introduction

Global Public Square Blog -- CNN
By Fareed Zakaria:
24 January 2014
CNN speaks with Fareed about his interview this week with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. This is an edited version of the transcript.

CNN: Rouhani said that there would be no destruction of existing centrifuges "under any circumstances."  It seems he is going even going further than what his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, told CNN's Jim Sciutto this week.

What's going on here? Because there could be, potentially, some sort of fundamental disagreement between Iran and the United States.

A: "That's exactly what I worry about. I think you're right. It's the first timean Iranian official - and this is the president - has laid out his vision,if you will, of the final agreement.

"And what he said to me, what Rouhani said was, look, we intend to have a robust civilian nuclear program. You can have as many inspections as you want, but we are not going to roll back that program. In fact, we're going to expand that program.

"Now, that's a very different vision from what the United States has laidout, where they expected significant rollback of the program. They talked about shuttering some of those centrifuges. They talked about dismantling the heavy water reactor at Arak.

"But he [Rouhani] made clear, categorically,specifically and unequivocally, none of that is going to happen. So I think we have a train wreck on its way here."

CNN:  You asked him about U.S.-Iranian relations, confidence building. So where is this U.S.-Iranian relationship heading?

A:  "You know, I'm struck by the fact that there is a commitment to negotiation.
He reiterated very strongly, we do not intend to have nuclear weapons, we have made it clear it is un-Islamic, it is forbidden, you can have as many inspections as you want.

"So there were some positive elements. But the bridge between the two positions, as I say, is so great that you would need a lot of trust. And we have very little.

"Remember, we've not talked to this country in 34 years. We're just beginning this process. We're not doing it one-on-one.

"And as a result, you know, these negotiations - and I've talked to people who have been in them - you don't build a lot of trust when you have so many people in the room.

"You've got six countries on one side, Iran on the other.It's difficult to imagine this one ending very happily.

CNN. -- What about Syria and the role which Iran is playing there?  They have a close relationship with the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He did say something intriguing to you about elections in Syria and, potentially, some sort of end to the civil war. What did he say?

A:  "Well, he was very clear that he supported the al-Assad regime's conception of what's going on there, which is there are a lot of terrorists coming into this country from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey, from places like that.

"This has to stop. But then he said, we do believe that there should be free elections in Syria, and that is the best way to resolve this.

"Now, that is one glimmer of hope, because if there is going to be a political solution in Syria, that is one path by which you could imagine the al-Assad regime either having to share power or actually exiting altogether.

"It's a slender reed, but it's the first time we've heard any prospect of some kind of political solution which might involve a different political settlement other than al-Assad just staying in power.

CNN -- And on a totally unrelated matter, in a separate article you just wrote fort he new issue of TIME entitled "The Case for Snooping," you make the case that the U.S. has to continue the NSA surveillance program. What is your bottom line on this?

A:  "The bottom line is this: People don't realize we are under constant cyberattack from all over world. The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees our civilian nuclear facilities, gets 10 million cyber attacks a day. That's 3.65 billion attacks a year.

"Now, how do you defend against that? You cannot defend against cyber terrorism, cyber theft, cyber warfare without allowing the U.S. government some access to the telecom and computer systems.

"We live in this cyber world and we think it's like a government-free zone. It ain't. If you want freedom, just like in the real world, you're going to have to have police. ###

Shifting paradigms? US sanctions policy in the Persian Gulf

Now we may actually be within sight of a diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and the West, the political salience of sanctions has never been greater. Currently, they are being heralded as the tool that brought the Iranians to the table. However, we should not be too hasty in hailing them as the panacea of international relations.

Economic sanctions – that is, measures imposed by one or more states against another entity that withdraw or change normal economic relations in order to achieve policy objectives – are an oft-misunderstood mechanism of statecraft, one which leaders misleadingly portray as a peaceful, humanitarian alternative to war. However, behind the noble causes espoused by a sanctioning government, the core objectives of a sanctions regime are often depressingly realist.

To demonstrate this, a comparison of the respective sanctions experiences of Hussein’s Iraq and Khamenei’s Iran is a good place to start. While each set differs in terms of its severity and the mechanism by which it operated, it seems that (until recently, at least) they were both motivated by one overarching goal: the perpetuation of US hegemony in the Persian Gulf. On the back of such an analysis, one is better able to understand just how significant last month’s Geneva deal is. Indeed, it could symbolise the beginning of what would be a profound shift in US-Persian Gulf relations, hitherto unthinkable.

I need not go into specifics, but Washington’s relationship with Baghdad and Tehran has long been rocky. However, it was not until after the Cold War ended that the US de factoand de jure labelled Hussein and Khamenei as the new bogeymen of the world – its foremost “backlash” states – and set about ensuring their strategic limitation. Step in, sanctions.

We were (and are) told that sanctions are a means of bringing about behaviour change, but when behaviour change came about in both Iraq and Iran, the goalposts were moved and the sanctions remained in place. Clearly, other objectives were at work here.

First among them is symbolism, something that is an intrinsic value of sanctions. By enforcing them on a multilateral level against Iraq through the United Nations, the United States was able to pull a red card on Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait. Their implementation signalled that any state engaging in a war of aggression (in particular one that threatens United States interests) will be punished, and severely.

With Iran, the symbolic value of sanctions is also present. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, the sanctions enforced by Washington were ineffective tools, more of a feel-good policy than anything else. But after 9/11 and 2002’s nuclear revelation, everything began to change. In subsequent years, no longer were sanctions just a means of showing that the US government was “doing something” – by the mid-2000s they had become a means of buoying up the confidence of US allies, making sure that no one started a war against Iran that Washington would inevitably be drawn into.

Reaping their symbolic value, though, is by no means the Holy Grail of any sanctions policy. Sure, it is a benefit, but what is infinitely more attractive is their ability to strategically contain a threat.

This can clearly be seen in both Iraq and Iran’s cases. From the outset, the sanctions had the official aim of deterring objectionable policies. However, for both Iraq and Iran these same policies were based on a perceived need to guarantee the existence of both the nation. Both Baghdad and Tehran felt they faced an existential threat – be it from the U.S. or Israel – that could only be deterred through the acquisition of a strong W.M.D capability. And, in a case like this, when a state feels it faces an existential threat, it will not yield to even the most immense levels of pressure.

The sanctioners did know this (as stated in the Iraq Survey Group’s Final Report and thisleaked diplomatic cable about Iran), so it follows that the reason they implemented these measures must be something other than as coercive instruments. Most likely, it is all aboutcontainment.

By enforcing economic paralysis upon its rivals, the US hobbles them without having to drop a bomb or fire a torpedo. This is exactly what we saw with Hussein’s Iraq, which transitioned from a formidable military opponent into little more than a paper tiger over the course of the 1990s. While the Iran sanctions are a different kettle of fish, recently in particular, the impact they have had is worryingly similar.

Some years ago, a Clinton official said that sanctions put Hussein in a strategic box. In the last decade, that is exactly what they have been attempting to do with Iran, though with markedly more obstacles.

What it all seems to boil down to is that sanctions, as the principle bedrock of containment, are an alternative to war (and an un-humanitarian one at that). Just as with war, a containment policy is simply a means of political engineering. This is nothing too controversial. However, in certain cases, Iraq one of them, sanctions can morph into being a precursor to war, a means of preparing the target state for military action.

When the Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998, regime change became the overarching ambition of the United States and, thus, the only conclusion to the sanctions became war. That is, unless ILA was repealed (which it wouldn’t be) or Saddam Hussein packed up his government and ceded power to (friendly) democratic forces (which he certainly wouldn’t do). From 1998, then, the sanctions were principally aimed at paving the way for what was intended to be a cakewalk of a war.

Now, with Iran, this is not the case, at least for now. In the last couple of years, it could easily have become so. But, as the recent diplomatic success in Geneva demonstrates more than anything, despite Congress’ calls for regime change and pre-emptive strikes, Washington’s heart’s desire is not the total transformation of the Iranian political status quo, as it was with Iraq. Rather, at present, Washington’s heart’s desire is simply to inhibit Iran’s ability to project its regional influence and stop Israel from starting a war.

A study of the Iraqi experience gives one the tools they need to navigate the murky waters of the Iran sanctions, and suggests some useful paradigms as to what future direction Washington might travel in. After last week’s success in Geneva, though, it seems that perhaps these paradigms are shifting for the better.

One can only hope that we are right and that failure is not a foregone conclusion for the next six months worth of talks, that these are not sham negotiations held in an attempt to prove that all the alternatives to military action have been exhausted. It has, after all, been done before.

One week on - where do we stand?

Last Saturday a deal was struck – a deal that may well transform beyond recognition some of the most familiar paradigms of Middle Eastern power politics.

Feeling rebuffed by the United States, a furious Israel now has more in common with Saudi Arabia than anywhere else and is hailing France as its new preferred partner in crime. Only time will tell if we’ll see a return to the old status quo but, in the meantime, it is worth re-examining the current state of play.

Disappointingly, but inevitably, the interim agreement – under which Iran pledged that it would freeze its nuclear programme in exchange for measured sanctions relief and recognition of its right to enrich uranium – has been greeted with as much anger as it has applause.

No one has been more outspoken about this than Bibi Netanyahu (no surprises there). Indeed, Tel Aviv was quick to condemn the agreement immediately after it was reached. 

The following day, Netanyahu called it an “historic mistake” and announced that he had plans to dispatch a team – headed up by his national security adviser, Yossi Cohen – to Washington this week to exercise damage limitation in the negotiations to come.

It is important to keep this all in perspective for, while the agreement does change things, it by doesn’t present a permanent solution and, as one Israeli official announced this week, “the ball is still in play”: there are six long months of further discussions to go.

So, while it may have started on its way, Iran is not out of the red yet and, to a large extent, the real hard work has only just begun. Now, the United States and the rest of the world need to placate and appease a very angry Israel, an Israel that is sure to obstruct at every step of the way in the upcoming negotiations.

According to Netanyahu, Tel Aviv will not accept anything but its maximum, unrealistic demand that Iran’s nuclear programme is totally dismantled. In his warped worldview, this deal is actually a step back – because of it, “the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world”. Does anyone else shiver at Bibi’s almost nostalgic reference to Bush Jr?

It is remarkable how the Israeli PM can create something out of nothing, for well-known is the fact that the core of a nuclear bomb requires 90% enriched uranium. Under this new deal, though, the Islamic Republic will be able to haltingly enrich to a mere 5%.

Clearly, the usual scaremongers are acting as normal, doing what they do best and trying as hard as they can to derail the process of reconciliation, sparing, in Mohammad Zarif’s words, “no pretext and device to bring the deal to nothing”. 

Let’s talk Iran

Farid Ghadry is getting angry again and this time, not unusually, he blames Iran for all the world's ills - most especially the Syrian mess. Perhaps he's right and perhaps he's wrong but he'd do better to devote his energies to finding a solution:

Just show me one Iranian-American or Iranian dissident who feels confident enough that his/her work will result in regime change after watching the dithering on Syria that caused over 100,000 to die and Assad gassing his people. 

US withdrawal from Iraq: Impact on Iran

Opinion is divided on the impact that the immanent withdrawal of US troops from Iraq will have on Iran.

Iran’s allies in Baghdad reportedly want the US out as soon as possible and analysts are saying that as U.S. withdrawal draws closer, the time has now come for Iran to act.

Many blame a cross section of Iranian political groups for the recent escalation in violence in Iraq. American officials have voiced concern over weapons which they believe Iran has been supplying to Iraqi extremists, to encourage a continuation of the increased hostilities .

US withdrawal could clear the way for Iran to claim Iraq as a new sphere of influence. If the fight is viewed as two sided; one side backed by the U.S, the other Iran-backed Sadrists; the withdrawal of the US is almost certain to sway the balance in favour of the Iranians. With no U.S. forces present, it will be in Maliki’s interest to turn towards Tehran.

Katzman says that he sees Iraq as primed to be Iran’s ‘new Syria’ but Iraqi nationalism is a growing force and there are Iraqis who resent this, not wishing to be influenced by anyone. However, there is a broad consensus among the Iraqi people that it is better to move towards Iran than bind themselves to Turkey.

An Iraqi alliance with Iran would cripple a future relationship with America, along with any investment that would come with it. This would be a blow not only for Iraq but for America too.

Whilst it is not a view commonly held, it may be the case that Iran is in fact weakened by U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

The lack of US presence in the region will remove that which Iran has opposed for so long. Iran will lack a common enemy to unite those they wish to influence. A decline in anti-American feeling may arise leaving Iran with much reduced support in Iraq.

Some sources say that Tehran is concerned about the prospect of an Iraqi invasion; something which U.S. presence ensures will not occur.

It is hard to judge whether or not Iran will benefit from the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq but regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to observe the international communities response to Iran in the coming years.

On go the US sanctions

Well the USA has signed up to its own tougher sanctions regime to crush the people of Iran. They have even added refined petroleum products though everyone told them not to because it would hurt ordinary people and not the government and be grossly counter-productive. It seems Obama is a little short on wisdom these days:

Obama signs toughest-ever US sanctions on Iran - Agence France-Presse - 02 July, 2010

President Obama signed into law the toughest ever US sanctions on Iran, which he said would strike at Tehran’s capacity to finance its nuclear program and deepen its isolation.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK HERE

American hubris

So the sanctions are going to matter says the USA. Dream on. What will matter will be the incompetence of the IRGC as managers of the economy now that they own so much of it.

Gates sees potential in Iran economic sanctions:

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that targeted economic sanctions on Iran had "real potential" to pressure Teheran to halt its nuclear program . . . .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Clinton gets tough

Three sets of sanctions are not enough to deter Iran from becoming a nuclear armed country. A fourth could be imminent- but Iran still insists that its nuclear programme is to generate electricity.

American has announced that it is working on sanctions “that will bite” immediately and force Iran to disclose its atomic programme. Humanitarian considerations of Iranians have been taken into account. These new penalties will target leadership entities, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard- which plays a major role in the county’s politics and economics.

The ongoing belligerence of Iran towards the threat of sanctions against its nuclear programme has run its course. Patience in the West for Iran to “come clean” has all but disappeared and Iran will now have to face the harsh consequences of it not cooperating with the international community.

US wants sanctions on Iran to be tough.

The US winges whyen you're good

The USA is a pain in the neck sometimes. To winge away at Iran when she's bad (which admittedly is fair enough) is one thing. But to whine and winge like a six year old when Iran starts to behave herself a little is just plain stupid. The International Atomic Energy Commission reports next week. Perhaps they will behave with greater dignity.

Reuters - 22 August, 2009
Iran is still not fulfilling obligations related to its nuclear activities, despite allowing UN inspectors to visit a reactor and upgraded monitoring at a uranium enrichment plant, a US official said on Friday.

Election violence outrages Obama

President Obama has made more statements in support of the Iranian people in their struggle against the imposition of dictatorship in Iran and an end to democracy. It is great that the US President continues to draw a distinction between the Iranian people and the Iranian government.

Ahmadinejad demands apology

Ahmadinejad, the pretender to the throne in Tehran, given the fact that he is establishing a dictatorship now following his succesful (?) coup d'etat against the elected President Mousavi, has demanded the US apologise for their critical remarks before he talks to them. God save us from yet more hubris. The reality is that he doesn't care of course - being a millenialist.

US to reassure Arabs

Gates is trying to reassure the Arab World following the disasterous mistakes the USA has made in recent months in regard to Foreign Policy vis a vis Iran. Iran has run rings around the States - mostly because the USA has appointed an uninfluential doltish softy as their man on Iran and Pakistan who is getting wrongfooted at every turn.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday he will seek to reassure Saudi and Egyptian leaders this week that Washington’s diplomatic approach to Iran will not jeopardize long-standing ties to Arab states in the region.

Tehran criticizes Obama speech

Now Rafsanjani has joined the chorus of ungrateful pathetic snide Iranian government figures that have belittled Obama's gesture of friendship. He describes it as "another fake media facade which had no intentions to change anything in the world." I become more and more convinced that the Iranian government is so very entrenched in hypocricy that nothing can save it.

Iran ready to cooperate with Obama

NOW IRAN IS TRYING TO MAK UP FOR THEIR PRESIDENT'S BAD BEHAVIOUR

The Peninsula - 30 January, 2009
Iran is ready to cooperate with President Barack Obama if the United States changes its policies and practices in the region, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchechr Mottaki said yesterday.

TO VIEW ITEM CLICK HERE

Bombing Iran is back as an option

It seems Ahmadinejad's bad manners have wound up the new administration and got them talking tough. They're back into flagging up bombing Iran as an option according to US Chief of Staff, Mullen. Two steps forward and one step back as ever.

TO VIEW STORY CLICK HERE

Should the U.S. Attack Iran Before January 20?

The eternal debate continues. Should Bush bomb Iran before he leaves office? Will he do it? Of course not - But . . . ah well we'll see.

But one thing's for sure - there are plenty of people eager that he should do it.

Iran getting edgy

Iran is getting nervous about the prospects of a US attack and coming out with melodramatic statements on the possibility of Worl War. I don't think those ideas are credible. I am doubtful anyone will bomb Iran. She has too much potential to cause trouble in the Middle East. Last night, here in Gaza, I watched as 800 Islamic Jihad gunmen paraded. They were being filmed by Press TV from Iran. And they regard Iran as their best friend in the world at large. What these men would do if Israel and / or the USA bombed Iran might not mark the end of the world. But it would certainly be disturbing.

"Any aggression against Iran will start a world war," deputy chief of staff for defence publicity, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, said in a statement carried by the state news agency Irna.

US Armada

The USA is deploying an armada in the Gulf. "It's just routine" they say. And on balance we don't think the USA will go to war with Iran this December. But the sabre ratling sure is worrying.

TO VIEW FULL ITEM CLICK HERE

US 'won't allow' Iran to shut key Gulf oil route

They are ratcheting up the rhetoric, the press and the government working hand in hand, preparing the population for war. We have seen it all before but this time - oh boy what a war it will be. We expect Israel to attack Iran in December. Let's hope we are wrong:

Agence France-Presse - 01 July, 2008
The commander of the US navy's Fifth Fleet warned on Monday that the United States will not allow Iran to shut the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf sea lane through which much of the world's oil is supplied."They will not close it... They will not be allowed to close it," Vice-Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff told a press conference in Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet is based.

TO VIEW FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE

EU nations agree on need for stronger sanctions

Stronger sanctions are a complete waste of time in my view - as is war. We might as well get used to the idea that Iran will have the bomb:

Arab News - 17 June, 2008
European Union nations agreed yesterday on the need for a new round of sanctions — targeting the oil and gas sectors in what would be the strongest punishment yet — to discourage Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.Word of the agreement came after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced at a London news conference with US President George W. Bush that Britain will freeze the assets of Iran’s largest bank — and that the EU would target Iran’s oil and gas sectors. “Action will start today in a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas,” Brown said. “We will take any necessary action so that Iran is aware of the choice it needs to make.”

TO VIEW FULL ITEM CLICK HERE