****This piece also appears today in The Huffington Post.****
The unfolding drama of the Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal and the Obama Administration’s reactive push to move a draft sanctions resolution in the United Nations Security Council will have profound effects on the character of international relations for years to come. At least two such effects warrant particular attention.
First, for those in official Washington or anywhere else who still doubt that the “post-American world” is here, the deal to refuel the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) brokered by Brazil and Turkey should serve as a blaring wake-up call. As we noted earlier, two rising economic powers from what we used to call the “Third World” have now asserted decisive political influence on a high-profile international security issue. And, in doing so, they have signaled that Washington can no longer unilaterally define terms for managing such issues. As a consequence, President Obama’s most serious foreign policy challenge—repairing America’s image as a global leader—just got more daunting.
Second, by answering Brazil and Turkey’s extraordinary diplomatic effort with an arrogant assertion of the P-5’s power to demand the rapid imposition of new sanctions on Iran and reinstating a demand that Iran must suspend enrichment to avoid new sanctions, the Obama Administration is following a course that could inflict serious damage not only on America’s global standing, but also on the legitimacy of the Security Council itself.
As we noted previously, getting P-5 agreement on a substantially watered down and incomplete draft resolution is not the same as ensuring the requisite nine affirmative votes for it. But, even if Washington is able to ram new sanctions through a deeply divided Council, that course carries huge long-term risks. Already, Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan is questioning the Council’s “credibility” to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue. If Washington torpedoes the new nuclear deal before it can be tested, expect Turkey, Brazil, and others to intensify this sort of challenge to the Council’s legitimacy—with support not just from Iran but from a broad range of “non-aligned” countries.
The Obama Administration has only itself to blame for this situation, because it has approached—and is still approaching—the Iranian nuclear issue with unilateral hubris worthy of George W. Bush. The Administration has continued to insist that Iran cannot indigenously enrich uranium, even as part of a broader nuclear deal. It took what should have been a straightforward technical discussion on refueling the TRR—a thoroughly safeguarded facility in the middle of Tehran that produces medical isotopes—and turned it into a highly politicized effort to exchange most of Iran’s low-enriched uranium for promises of new fuel at some unspecified point in the future. Washington then demanded that other countries unquestioningly support these positions.
When rising powers like Brazil, Turkey, and China were reluctant to go along, the Administration thought it could browbeat them into submission. Speaking “privately”, Administration officials questioned whether the presumed ambitions of Brazilian President Lula—who leaves office in December—to become the first non-American World Bank president or the next UN secretary general could be realized if he antagonizes Washington over Iran. Last week, Secretary of State Clinton publicly ridiculed Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoğlu’s efforts to mediate a nuclear compromise. And U.S. officials told Chinese counterparts that, if Beijing does not support tough new sanctions against Iran, Washington would not be able to restrain Israeli military action, putting China’s energy supplies at risk.
But these rising powers were not prepared to be browbeaten. For Brazil—which gave up its own nuclear weapons program but insists on continuing uranium enrichment—the idea that Washington could unilaterally redefine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regarding enrichment was especially odious. For Turkey, under a popular, democratically elected Islamist government, the idea that Iran’s nuclear program would be treated differently because Iran is governed by Islamists was equally unacceptable. China has longstanding objections to international sanctions, and has consistently advocated diplomacy as the best way to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue.
The Obama Administration insisted that the proposal to refuel the TRR advanced in October by the IAEA’s former Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, be treated as a non-negotiable, “take it or leave it” proposition. Last month, though, Baradei himself said the proposal should not be treated this way. Since last October, Iran has consistently said that it accepted in principle the idea of a “swap” to refuel the TRR, but wanted to negotiate the specific terms of a deal. So, as the Administration made itself diplomatically irrelevant, Brazil and Turkey set out on their own to broker a compromise.
The Brazilian-Turkish deal makes explicit what the October proposal obfuscated: Iran has the right to enrich uranium on its territory. Realistically, the chances that Iran would ever surrender its enrichment program are now virtually nil. But the Obama Administration—like its predecessor—refuses to make the shift from working quixotically to stop the unstoppable to negotiating rigorous verification measures for Iran’s enrichment facilities to ensure they are not producing weapons-grade fissile material. Now, others have stepped into the breach and redefined the Iranian nuclear issue for the Administration.
The new nuclear deal also undermines claims of the Obama Administration—which, like its predecessors, maintains no diplomatic presence in Iran and has had extremely limited contact with Iranian officials—to a monopoly on sound judgments about Iranian decision-making and policy. For months, Administration officials—and most U.S.-based Iran analysts—have asserted that the Islamic Republic is too internally conflicted to have a coherent international strategy or make important decisions. Senior Brazilian, Chinese, and Turkish officials who have invested significant amounts of time in substantive discussions with Iranian counterparts argued to Washington for months that a nuclear deal was possible. But Secretary Clinton and others in the Obama Administration thought they knew better—and said so publicly.
In fact, Iran has worked purposefully—dare we say strategically—to cultivate relations with important rising powers, like Brazil and Turkey, as well as China. And, this week, Tehran showed that it can take major decisions. Can the same things be said of the Obama Administration?
President Obama, who came to office professing a new U.S. approach to international engagement, allowed himself to be upstaged by new powers because he has been unwilling to match his rhetoric with truly innovative diplomacy that takes real notice of other countries’ interests. If he does not close this gap, America’s global leadership will continue to decline. And, the institutional architecture for global governance in the 21st century–to which Obama has professed rhetorical support–will be put at risk.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Rosinante,
Are you aware that Iran opposes nuclear weapons and is one of the countries leading the effort to achieve a Middle East free of nukes?
Rosinante
Let us look at the reality of our world today rather than hypotheses.
The reality is that Israel has over 200 illegal nuclear bombs but Iran has none.
I wonder why you did not mention Israel in your post.
It is a well-known fact that the USA uses the NPT as a political weapon.
Simple solution to all this.
The USA withdraws from the NPT. The NPT has to be histories second most breached treaty, with the Kellogg-Briand pact being first. Once out from under the NPT, the USA is free to sell nukes to Poland, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, Tibet or anyone it wants to. Kurds?
See if Iran would prefer intrusive inspections or Kurds with nukes? I suspect the inspections would win out. Would Russia rather support harsh measures against Iran, or see Poland with nukes? Would China rather support harsh measures against Iran or see Taiwan with nukes?
It is time for those nations that use the NPT as a political weapons against the USA to get a feel for what that is like.
Castellio,
My understanding is that Russia came close to delivering the S-300 missiles to Iran last year, but pressure from Israel and the US caused a delay. Iran has considered trying to build its own system, but this would be a waste of resources in my opinion.
Russia has told Israel not to attack Iran, and Iran not to attack Israel (an event the Russians consider unlikely).
pirouz_2,
Re May 22nd 12:56am — Iran’s security is enhanced, if the perception of global opinion is that Iran only seeks to operate nuclear reactors and produce the fuel to do so. Taking a position that Iran can enrich to whatever levels it wishes, in order to avoid unfair pressure from the US and the “west”, plays into the hands of the slanderers of Iran who claim Iran is intent on building nukes for a first-strike attack on Israel.
pirouz_2,
My understanding is the same as yours, that Iran in principle agreed to the U exchange last October and the issue was how to obtain an adequate guarantee the deal would be completed as agreed.
@Alan;
“The comical thing about it is that it appears they had to be coerced into doing it because they couldn’t work it out for themselves.”
Well that is our difference Alan: I don’t think that they were “coerced” into doing that! They agreed with the swap deal “in principle” from day one (back in October!).
“I know the NAM positions regarding the AP. I’m the one reading and quoting from the daily blog from the NPT Review Conference after all. I raised the point that Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute (and she is highly respected) stated in that blog on Day 14 that Iran was “castigating some of the positions of the NAM” and that there was “clear strain” between Iran and the NAM. It is fair to deduce from that all was not well.”
Could you please send me a link or make a quotation DIRECTLY regarding the “clear strain” between NAM and Iran? I am not asking for What Rebecca Johnsons impression was. I am asking for the exact wrods which has been exchanged between Maged Abdelaziz and Ali Asghar Soltanieh, which have left the impression (on Ms. Johnson) that there were clear strains between NAM and Iran.
Because all the declarations that I can see by NAM match Iranian positions regarding the NPT. If there are any differences, please tell me exactly which points they are.
Rebecca Johnson’s claims have not been repeated by anyone else.
Pak – I think the current diplomatic path looks positive. If Iran delivers the LEU to Turkey, I think the US/P5 will respond positively. The sanctions move need not necessarily derail it. It appears at least in part to be intended to anticipate any perceived stalling tactics by Iran in the real negotiations that are envisaged soon.
kooshy – the “insecurity trauma” is caused by both the US and Iran. The US more so, but they share the blame.
pirouz_2 – I’m not sure which part of my statement that I am “not remotely disappointed” “thrilled” and “delighted” about the deal wasn’t clear to you. I think the Tripartite deal was an OUTSTANDING diplomatic move by Iran. The comical thing about it is that it appears they had to be coerced into doing it because they couldn’t work it out for themselves.
The West’s handling of the initial deal gave Iran an open door to make what was a very small scale effort to enrich to 20%, so the West deserves to be strapped to a barrel and lashed over it, and I’m sure Iran will oblige. But at least Iran should employ some subtlety over it, if for no other reason than to save themselves from having to climb down over it hours later. And it WAS a climbdown.
I know the NAM positions regarding the AP. I’m the one reading and quoting from the daily blog from the NPT Review Conference after all. I raised the point that Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute (and she is highly respected) stated in that blog on Day 14 that Iran was “castigating some of the positions of the NAM” and that there was “clear strain” between Iran and the NAM. It is fair to deduce from that all was not well.
@Alan:
By the way, it would be perhaps worth your while to look at the NAMs position regarding NPT:
“The main NAM changes, as expected, concern Western proposals to strengthen the treaty by making the toughened inspection regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency the universal standard. References to these reinforced safeguards in the Additional Protocols in the chair’s draft were systematically amended or struck. The NAM repeatedly stressed that adherence to the Additional Protocol “is of a voluntary nature.”
The proposed amendments, which focused on compliance issues related to Iran, mentions the “double standards” of nuclear weapons states and attempts to “politicize” the IAEA. “The Conference notes the importance of addressing all compliance challenges to all provisions of the Treaty without discrimination and double standards,” the NAM document states. ”
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/10100
@Alan:
“Pirouz_2 – yes mate, I’m a dreamer, a rewriter of history with a vivid imagination. Guilty as charged. And it’s godawful bad luck that Iran’s sworn enemy Egypt holds the presidency of the NAM and is the spokesperson for it at the NPT Review.”
NAM presidency rotates, and guess where is going to be the next NAM summit? Kish island- Iran.
“Look at the references I have mentioned, and there must be 7 or 8 by now, and tell me how else they could be interpreted. Then I might take you seriously.”
Look, Iran is not the one who is taking the world hostage. The people who keep threatening others with war and demand that they give up their sovreign rights are the ones who do that. “Majority” of the NAM countries know this very well. Enriching Uranium to 20% and making our own fuel is our inalianable right and NAM would not try to oppose that.
You are saying that Iran didn’t want this swap deal, you are dead wrong. Iran agreed with it in “principle” way back in October. They only asked for “guarantees” for the delivery of the fuel in a pre-determined and reasonable future. And as “acceptable” guarantees they offered the swap taking place in Iran and being done in batches.
The West refused. Iran’s reaction to that refusal was that Iran was that they were open to negotiation and talks on the issue. They made this point quite a few times. The West again rejected and pushed for sanctions.
Turkey-Brazil (none of which is a NAM member) started to act as mediators. In the process of negotiation Iranians agreed to the original terms and in return they got an explicit acknowledgement of their right to have domestic enrichment and the upper limit of one year for the delivery of the fuel and the return of the LEU to Iran if the fuel is not delivered within one year.
THIS WAS AN EXTREMELY CLEVER MOVE, AND WAS INTENDED TO MAKE UNSC SEVERELY DIVIDED AND IT WORKED BEAUTIFULLY. UNSC IS BITTERLY DIVIDED ON THIS ISSUE.
To those who think that abstaining from making 20% fuel will make any change in the Wests aggressive policies:
Making compromises from our rights will only embolden the “bully” and make him take the next step. There will be NO END to their demands. The ONLY possible way to prevent a war in cases such as Iran’s current stand-off with the West is RESISTANCE PERIOD! Resistance is not guaranteed to prevent the war, but retreat will sure as hell lead to a war! With every single step backwards that Iran takes they will take a forward step and demand more. That is the WORST way to go to avoid a military conflict, in fact it is a sure recipe for an escalation of the situation.
If today I am in favoure of Tehran declaration, it is because precisely opposite to what Alan thinks I don’t see this as a “retreat” by Iran. To the contrary it was the best blow to the West’s plans. NONE of our rights has been compromised in this declaration; ON THE CONTRARY our most sensitive right has been EXPLICITLY acknowledged (contrary to the original ElBaradei proposal which was silent on the issue of Iranian enrichment).
As for the issue of 20% enrichment: Iran should not stop doing it, until it recieves the fuel deliver. And this is NOT for the purpose of blackmail or using it as a bargaining chip. It is because there is a VERY GOOD chance that the fuel will not be delivered to us at the end of the day, and TRR cannot go on without the fuel. We have to have the Plan B available so that if -in all likelihood- the fuel is not delivered, we have our own fuel.
“In the meantime, let me go and sit in a dark room and try to come to terms with my pathological problems with Iran’s diplomacy. Do you know a good doctor?”
Feel free to go and sit in your dark room any time you want. As for the good doctor: You can use the yellow pages. :-)
Alan
“OK kooshy, you obviously want to pigeon-hole me as being on the other side, revelling in Iran being taken down a peg or two. That’s not my motivation.”
Alan
I don’t know what motivations you may have or not, and if I did, I don’t think that would change any of the currently existing facts, I am also not interested in pigeonholing you or anyone else on this board. In fact you might be the one who’s pigeonholing and dividing himself; again Iran, Iranians or me are not the source or cause of this western insecurity trauma, to my opinion this Clintonian style insecurity trauma is cause of one’s feeling of decline in power or fame which should be commonly categorized as personal insecurity, that appears during one’s decline in power and fame and often it proceeds to blame others as the reason. Simply I don’t write here to change any minds, I care less, and I am simply expressing mine.
Juan Cole wrote the following:
“In contrast, Aleksey Arbatov of the Russian Academy of Sciences World Economy and International Relations Institute said, “The delivery of the S-300 never was planned since it would have provoked an Israeli military attack on Iran, now Israel is taking a time-out to asses the effectiveness of the new sanctions, and in the event of noncompliance with them, could strike in the fall or spring. . .” He added that Iran’s lack of the S-300 minimizes the number of casualties on the attacking side . . .””
So the missiles weren’t delivered to avoid an immediate Israeli attack. That sounds plausible, actually. Although, given the Israeli role in Georgia, I can’t imagine how well that must go down in Moscow.
The Americans have revealed their Machiavellian face. Judging by the last few days, they no longer care about what the majority think. Even Obama, who feeds off popular support, has lost interest. This however does not change the situation; that is, the U.S. is still the dominating superpower. Forget about popular support; they have the military strength and economic influence to dominate for the foreseeable future.
While I strongly advocate Iran’s defence of its rights, the way in which the regime has handled its foreign policy is only making the situation worse (it is reflective of their handling of domestic affairs). It is always very difficult to recognise when one should stand up for his rights or pragmatically benefit from a diplomatic withdrawal. I believe the regime is failing to realise that the alternative to a diplomatic withdrawal is war (or is intentionally working towards this aim). The regime must protect Iran and act in Iran’s long-term best interests. I know people will disagree with me, so please can you explain whether you think Iran’s current diplomatic path will be successful? If so, why? What kind of outcomes do you expect?
Pirouz_2 – yes mate, I’m a dreamer, a rewriter of history with a vivid imagination. Guilty as charged. And it’s godawful bad luck that Iran’s sworn enemy Egypt holds the presidency of the NAM and is the spokesperson for it at the NPT Review.
Look at the references I have mentioned, and there must be 7 or 8 by now, and tell me how else they could be interpreted. Then I might take you seriously. In the meantime, let me go and sit in a dark room and try to come to terms with my pathological problems with Iran’s diplomacy. Do you know a good doctor?
OK kooshy, you obviously want to pigeon-hole me as being on the other side, revelling in Iran being taken down a peg or two. That’s not my motivation. On the whole, I support Iran’s case. The points I have been making have been simply to point out that I believe there is a comparatively wide variety of indications that Iran’s “friends” were behind getting this off the ground, and that Iran remains under considerable pressure from them.
I also think that tales of their diplomatic artistry are greatly exaggerated, demonstrated again by the ridiculous 20% claim which almost completely zeroed the whole initiative on day one and which they rapidly retracted. Sure it’s a bargaining chip, but use a bit of common sense over it for pity’s sake.
To top it all, the US has been made to look like clowns by the Turks, Brazilians and Chinese, which truly is a rare treat, and to be honest I do revel in that a bit, but don’t tell anybody. In fact, it would be vaguely disappointing to discover this really was an Obama masterplan all along.
All in all, it is a veritable feast of diplomatic chicanery, and I love it, and it’s twice as good when you don’t hold a candle for either side and get to see them both become victims of their own tomfoolery. Because that’s what I think has happened.
Alan;
I don’t think that you are following what I am saying. I didnt say that Egypt was not a member to NAM, I said Egypt does not represent NAM and as such it is not NAM.
Look Alan, you have some particular sore spot with Iran being successful in diplomacy, and it makes you some how feel better and your pain to go away to call Ahmadinejad a clown or think that Iran was “forced” by NAM oir by Turkey-Brazil, or that Iran’s deplomacy depended on China or Russia, by all means. Go right ahead and dream up as you wish please.
Honestly it has been a while that I have noticed that you imagine stuff and re-write history (it goes back to your imagination and re-writing of history regarding the creation of Israel!), and I really don’t mind that if that some how makes you feel better.
Alan
“And what do you know, the party line changes to “we don’t need 20% if the reactor has fuel”.
Alan
Does this bothers you, if they say we don’t need to enrich 20% as long as we are objectively guaranteed to buy the fuel and if they refuse or play games again to sale us this fuel we will start enriching again? Is this a point that will make you believe that Iran has bended? Do you think, or do you want to believe that Iran just got scared or is conceding, then with all means be happy is conceded.
kooshy – you can say that if you like. They’re all politicians, so they all fell out of the same tree. Some look more desperate than others, and some look as desperate as each other.
I don’t give a rats arse about their dignity; just behave like grown ups.
James – you hit the bullseye I think.
Alan
“kooshy – I don’t think Iran’s begging for it, its just that their diplomatic strategy depended on it. It depended on support from China, Turkey, Brazil, the NAM etc. Well, they all have their own considerations, and it appears to have got to the point where Iran was putting them at risk.”
And the westerners are not conceding dignity to get support from Russia and China, shall we say US is asking for Russian and Chinese Sympathy for its endeavor with Iran to get a resolutions passed in UNSC, is this sympathy which US is begging from the Russian and Chinese for losing its international bully hood to this nobodies?,
Alan my friend you need to open up the whole world is changing, like I wrote in my comment yesterday which I am sure you read, this doing is not of Iran and Iranian is rather being done by Americans to the Americans with their own term.
kooshy – well, you’ve got me with that one. My load? Azreal?
I think you appear to be endorsing Iranian brinkmanship. That’s fine. Others appear not to be prepared to endorse it any more, and that’s fine too.
I’ll bet you a packet of fags that as soon as the Iranians started banging on about how Iran could still enrich to 20% for the foreseeable, Erdogan got straight on the old trumpet to Ahmadinejad and said “pull your head in, son”.
And what do you know, the party line changes to “we don’t need 20% if the reactor has fuel”.
Alan
Thanks for your response, now I understand where you keep your load at, I don’t believe anyone in foreseeable future will dare to attack Iran, Zionist included
If they could they had done it be now, it seems like Azr@el at AWC was able to convince at least one of the debaters
Alan,
Your point is well taken, and the issue indeed for Iran is what can it do to quieten the fears aroused around the world, accepting that the proponents of military action or other measures to hinder Iranian economic cevelopment, tell lies time and time again to create the fear.
JohnH,
Apparently Gary Samore can claim a large part of the credit for American stupidity regarding the nuclear fuel needed for the Tehran reactor. The US should have ascertained what was available and at what price, just as a routine matter of being adequately informed. Do we know, even now, if France has the needed rods (or plates) available, or must they be manufactured?
If Iran will not be able to use the 20% U it is enriching, albeit on a small scale, is it the best way forward to continue to enrich the likely unuseable U?
kooshy – I don’t think Iran’s begging for it, its just that their diplomatic strategy depended on it. It depended on support from China, Turkey, Brazil, the NAM etc. Well, they all have their own considerations, and it appears to have got to the point where Iran was putting them at risk.
Even my dog knows Obama doesn’t want a war with Iran, but we all know he could be bounced into one. The wide-eyed anti-Zionist auto-posters tell us about it in practically every other comment here.
Charles Krauthammer had yet another load of rubbish in the Washington Post today. Remarkable cr*ap.
Alan
“But yes, Iran as a country has all this sympathy from various people and countries, but that cuts both ways. None of those sympathizers want to see the Middle East go up in smoke again with the worldwide economic disaster that could precipitate, and Iran doesn’t have the right to hold the world to ransom over it. So, those sympathizers need to see something from Iran to justify their continuing sympathy.”
Alan
Thanks for your response, my personal problem and to some extend Middle Easterner’s problem with American and Europeans view toward the Middle East is with this consistent western orientalist colonial perception that the Middle Easterners are constantly begging and asking for sympathy and sympathizers to be helped out. No you are wrong they are not.
On the contrary at least Iran and Iranians are not looking, asking or inviting any country’s including US and Europeans sympathy on any of their foreign and domestic issues.
Following your comments on ACW and pointing to your comments above, contrary to what your believe or perception is, this is not a case to gain some one’s sympathy, it rather is all about a nation’s rights and obligations that to the eye of the rest of the world due to a long and recent comfort of colonialism westerners see themselves above and beyond this same low that they believe their former subjects have to abide by.
“The enriching of U to 20% seems to me to be unnecessarily provacative, at least at this time.” But it’s no more provocative the US’ holding the TRR’s nuclear fuel supply hostage.
The message from Tehran is pretty simple and straightforward: “Sell us the fuel supplies we’re legally entitled to under the NPT or we’ll produce them ourselves.” Who could argue with that? Or rather, who outside the nuclear cartel could argue with that?
The US was really stupid revealing that it would hold other nations’ nuclear fuel hostage to Washington’s power games. More than anything, I think that’s what made Brazil stand up and take notice, because they also enrich their own uranium. As a result, they too could become a target whenever the neocons take umbrage at Brazil’s lack of fealty.
It was stupid, really stupid. Now most of the nations outside the nuclear cartel must be rethinking their positions on enrichment, given that their electric power industries could one day be held hostage. Rather than promote non-proliferation, Washington’s behavior encourages the spread of uranium enrichment capabilities. And all because of Washington’s bizarre obsession with Iran…
Liz/Pirouz_2 – Egypt isn’t in the NAM? Blimey. In that case they have no right, I repeat no right whatsoever, to be chairing the NAM at the NPT Review Conference and should be ordered to leave forthwith. Thanks for letting me know.
kooshy,
Iran certainly has good reason to keep current an ability to enrich U to the 5% level, to ensure steady and fairly priced fuel from Russia (or other source). Whether it makes economic sense to enrich all of the U needed for the Iranian power plants is another matter, and this is separate from the issue of whether it makes political sense.
The enriching of U to 20% seems to me to be unnecessarily provacative, at least at this time. I think many people who lean toward Iran, and favor normal relations, wonder about why Iran would enrich to 20% if the fuel rods or plates have to be brought in from France or elsewhere anyway. I do no know the cost of Iranian production (or estimated cost), as compared with cost of buying from France. Perhaps Iran would do better to put the time and money into another sector of the economy.
JohnH,
Stephens would agree with you, I should think. Certainly, Israel has played one game after another for the past 43 years, to avoid getting out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. As to the latter, as you probably are aware, Turkey came close to closing the deal betweeen Syria and Israel, but Eliott Abrams was trying to block it. Then along came the rampage in Gaza.
Castellio,
I understand that Israel made clear it would develop systems to cause disfunction in the S-300 defensive apparatus. I assume the US was also pressuring Russia not to deliver the missiles. However, it seems to me that an Iranian ability to defend the Bushehr reactor, etc., might be a good thing if it deters an attack that would be reckless and counter-productive.
kooshy – I’m not remotely disappointed that a deal is in the offing. I’m absolutely thrilled at the prospect. And I’m delighted that non-US parties, the Turks especially, have been pivotal in it.
The points I’m making are simply musings on how and why this has happened so suddenly and quickly, and there are all sorts of fascinating permutations in all sorts of arenas, some of which I have been mentioning.
I’m not Iranian, American or British. Unlike most people here, I’m not pro- or anti-Iran. I certainly don’t think they are the canny negotiators they used to be, or at least appeared to once be. They have made far too many mistakes for that. The US approach has been comical up until now as well, yet it intrigues me how Obama keeps his head below the parapet while his underlings charge round shooting from the hip. What’s he hiding? Maybe nothing. We’ll find out eventually.
But yes, Iran as a country has all this sympathy from various people and countries, but that cuts both ways. None of those sympathisers want to see the Middle East go up in smoke again with the worldwide economic disaster that could precipitate, and Iran doesn’t have the right to hold the world to ransom over it. So, those sympathisers need to see something from Iran to justify their continuing sympathy.
So the big test seems to me to be whether Iran sends this LEU to Turkey. What happens outside the Tripartite agreement is irrelevant until then.
James, what, in your opinion, is the leverage Israel has on Russia not to deliver the S – 300’s?
If that’s the case for how the Iranian negotiate all the power to them, to me it sounds much more honest then promising a deal and after a contract is signed the other side refuse to deliver and you find out that they never even had any intention of delivering.
Stephens notes that “during many years of negotiations with the west, Tehran has hardly been subtle in its tactics: the pattern has been one of apparent concessions at moments of pressure followed by lengthy prevarication” and then to continue to do what they were doing.
Gee, as if that were the only nation doing that! Israel has been doing that for 60 years, and so far as I can recall, no one has ever complained!
Beautiful comments Fiorangela
—————
James
I am sure you very well know, the history of Iran’s nuclear program, the Bushier reactor was suppose to be completed 30 years ago, you know why this hasn’t happened
yet, all and all is in Iran’s best interest to no longer accept the western so called guarantees at its face value, call it a nationalistic or not but an objective grantee to have a continued supply of fuel would be if Iran has the knowledge and the infrastructure to produce the fuel when it might be necessary. This was a expensive hard lesson learned with regards to Bushier reactor –Iraq war – Afghanistan Levretts / Zariff negotiations and now in last October Vienna TRR deal.
James – thanks for mentioning the Stevens column in FT.
“As it happens, the US understands better than Europeans the shifting distribution of power. Barack Obama’s administration has been thinking hard about the new geopolitical geometry, even as Europe remains trapped in its anxiety to cling on to the old Euro-atlantic order. ”
Not only US but also Israel “understands better than Europeans the shifting distribution of power.” According to U Penn prof Ian Lustick, Iran provokes hysteria in Israelis because Israel’s zionist dream was to westernize the Middle East, but Iran demonstrated by its sophistication and progress that IT could bring the blessings of western civilization to the East, depriving Israel of exclusive rights to the franchise.
Now it seems that it’s not so much that Iran has stolen Israel’s western thunder; rather, Iran and Turkey demonstrated that Asian values and ways of doing things have civilizational values, too. Once more, Israel has embarked on the wrong mission in the wrong place at the wrong time: Israel, the proto-Semitic state, desired to plant western cultural values in the East, but Iran undercut Israel just by being Iran, by demonstrating the civilizational values of Orientals.
Huntington’s civilizations clashed. Israel formed a duet with US pop culture and its state-of-the-art hi-tech electronic percussion section and made loud noises. Iran, Turkey, and Brazil harmonized Asian subtlety with sassy salsa and created an entirely new musical experience.
@Liz,
It’s amazing how you take anything that Ahmadinejad says at face value, like he’s some sort of a prophet or something. Just because you stupid son got in a stupid university in Iran, (probably because his mother is an IRI suck up on different websites) doesn’t mean Iran’s regime is pure and the best.
kooshy,
If Russia builds nuclear power plants for Turkey and Syria, will Russia supply the fuel (and recycle the waste)? I understand the nationalist sentiments that would prompt Iran to choose to enrich its own uranium for the power plants. And I can understand why Iran would wish to have an ongoing enrichment capability, to ensure the supplied from Russia (or another source) are delivered at a fair price.
Is it the best tactical move for Iran to make, to speed up the enrichment of uranium even if the power plant that will use the fuel is nowhere near completion?
Russia’s objectives in the Middle East accord well with those of Iran, generally speaking.
James
The point is not to just purchase the fuel and get by for now, that is not what is at stake here, the point that some folks refuse to consider is to be guaranteed for continued supply of the fuel, and more importantly to be guaranteed that if the supply of fuel like now becomes a political tool to coerce a country in submission Iran or any other country be able to produce the fuel on its own without being strong armed for other political issues. I hope this will settle and put an end to the perception of 5P powerful countries using nuclear fuel as a political tool.
Pirouz_2,
I would agree with you that Iran could enrich U to 90% or more, and overcome technical difficulties etc., but for now keeping enrichment to a level under 5% would be much wiser.
Maybe it would be worthwhile for Iran to obtain its nuclear fuel for all the Bushehr power plants, from Russia.
Alan & kooshy,
I think Philip Stephens is right to ascribe Washington’s annoyance with the Turkish-Brazilian iniative, to “irritation” that Ankara is showing political confidence to act in Turkey’s best interests without approval from the US.
kooshy,
As I’m sure you already know, the Israelis have put heavy pressure on Russia to delay or stop delivery of the S-300 missiles. The Iranians have considered trying to develop their own system. Russia refuses to sell the S-400 system.
I recommend Philip Stephens’ comments in the Financial Times today, “Rising powers do not want to play by the west’s rules.”
Great stuff. Thanks Kooshy.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE22Ak01.html
Watering it down even more
UNITED NATIONS — The Obama administration on Friday lifted sanctions against four Russian entities involved in illicit weapons trade with Iran and Syria since 1999, and acknowledged exempting a Russian-Iranian missile deal from a U.N. draft resolution banning most missile sales to Iran.
The move comes just three days after the U.S., Russia and other key powers reached agreement on a draft resolution sanctioning Iran for violating U.N. demands to halt its uranium enrichment program. The draft includes a loophole that would exempt a 2005 Russian deal, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, to sell Tehran five S-300 surface-to-air missile systems.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052102590.html
Alan
This reading could be a good nightcap
Iran, Sun Tzu and the dominatrix
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE22Ak01.html
Alan
“Kooshy – I think there are indications that any attempt to pass a sanctions resolution may be delayed until the Lebanese presidency of the UNSC passes in June. That gives the Iranians time to make that LEU delivery, which would really change the picture. Would that be a win-win-win? For the US, Iran, and Turkey/Brazil? They could all spin it their way.”
More and more I believe now, the hasty next day announcement by the obliterator in chief was to be a Sword of Damocles for the perceived negotiations that is to be taking place in Vienna, and also mostly for the US never appeased who? US congress to hold off on their horses with their own unilateral resolution, I don’t think the Tehran declaration would have taken place without US consent specially by Turks a NATO member state and not a member of NAM. If true this was a smart move by US to get itself out the TRR box by way of Turkey and Brazil. I happen to believe if agreed in Vienna there hardly will be a resolution in June, if there is to be a watered down resolution with 12 votes it will be as a setback for US and UNSC credibility.
From reading your recent post here, and in ACW I have got the feeling that you may have become disappointed with the way this has been handled here, but instead of complaining the Obama’s amateurish handling of an important (the most important) foreign policy issue of his campaign, you seems to want to lash at Iranians for their persistent stand with their rights, no matter if you want to admit or not one can’t dismiss that a lone weaker country stood up to the most powerful country with all sort of international tools and protected its rights and the rights of other smaller nations with regard to NPT and fuel cycle.
It was amassing and funny reading Azr@el posts in ACW threatening Masoud with destruction and obliteration in case of war between US and Iran, like many other folks in this country I am also disappointed with how things have been handled, the American side of me is very disappointed with the handling of foreign policy and economy here, but in no way I am blaming my Iranian side, I am rather blaming my own votes for this past 30 some years.
Mehmanparast meant that if Iran gets the fuel it needs then it will no longer need to enrich at 20 percent. That’s pretty reasonable.
Egypt has not made any statement, that I know of, against Iran at the NPT Review and, in any case, Egypt is not NAM.
“Iran can’t make those plates old chap. End of story. ”
Iran can’t make it, exactly because…. why?? because the Western “experts” say so??? :-D
Well it’s a matter of confidence in the source of information. You want to place your confidence in the Western experts? By all means! Personally I have ZERO confidence in those experts, they are all motivated by their political agenda.
I have more confidence in Dr. Salehi (the head of Iranian Atomic Energy), he claims that Iran is well capable of doing that. It could be rightfully argued that Salehi is also motivated by his own political agenda. Still, so far as I can see, Iranians have proved to deliver their words SO FAR. So I will put my confidence in their word rather than the so called Western experts.
“Prior to the Turkey/Brazil initiative, Iran was castigating some of the positions of the NAM at the NPT Review. In the end the Egyptians basically told them to shut up.
Iran certainly has sympathy, and rightly so, but it had to DO something with it or it was going to disappear. I think the point may have hit home.”
Egypt is not NAM. Egypt is ruled by an American satrap (Mobarak). In fact Egypt is in full cooperation with Israel to facilitate their access to Indian ocean through the Suez canal, in case they want to attack Iran from the sea. If it were upto Egypt Iran would have NO nuclear program what so ever. So what Egypt says or does does not represent NAM.
The vast majority of NAM is behind us in terms of our enrichment rights. In case you didn’t notice, Ahmadinejad’s speech in UN was lauded by the vast majority of the member states, in the end the isolated party was the US allies who left the assembly when Ahmadinejad started to give his speech.
In all negotiations, “meditators” exert pressure on both opposing sides to bring their positions closer to each other. Their pressure on Iran was to accept the exchange being done in one shot outside Iran. In return they added the first clause acknowledgin it’s right to have domestic enrichment (the original ElBaradei proposal said nothing on this issue and left it for future negotiations) and also put a one-year UPPER LIMIT on the time of the delivery of the 20% fuel. And the pressure right now is being exerted on the West. If you have not noticed Brazil-Turkey are right now lobbying FOR IRAN against US.
By the way, Iran just said yesterday that it will back down from Tehran declaration if the sanctions are implemented. So there goes another reason for you to suggest (and I am not saying that it proves but it just suggests) that Iran may not be bluffing and it indeed does have the capability to produce the plate for TRR.
Pirouz – yes, I know it is a bargaining chip, but their decision to shout it from the rooftops immediately after the agreement was just stupid (again), and antagonised everybody. Now it is mentioned with much more caution, as in the IRNA quote of Mehmanparast:
“Asked whether Iran will continue enriching the 20- percent-enriched uranium after implementation of the nuclear fuel agreement in its soil, the spokesman said if the statement on exchange of 20-percent uranium with 3.5-uranium is implemented then the research reactor will have the fuel it needs.”
That’s quite a difference in 24 hours.
Egypt v Iran, yes I know, but the wider point was the differences between Iran and the NAM at the NPT Review. Not such a steady ship.
Alan, you’re misrepresenting things here. Yes, the Iranians have the right to enrich at 20%, but they can also use this issue as a bargaining chip.
There is a flurry of issues that suggest a vote sometime in June or later, including the Lebanon UNSC presidency.
Iran can’t make the plates today, tomorrow or the next day. But one shouldn’t underestimate them. It wasn’t too long ago that many were asserting the Iranians couldn’t possibly put a satellite into orbit. We all know now how that prediction turned out.
Regarding the Egyptians, of course there’s friction. There’s been friction between the two ever since Iran became a fully independent state, where the Egyptians remain little more than client-state of you know who.
I do agree, in the quarters that matter most to Iran, it has achieved a sense of the moral high ground. The Tehran disarmament conference, Ahmadinejad’s speech at the NPT conference at the UN, and now the Turkey-Brazil-Iran nuclear agreement have in a step-by-step manner placed it in a favorable position. Looking forward to the next installment of this ongoing drama!
After the statement was signed, I heard the Iranian government spokeman himself say that Iran will continue to enrich at 20 percent.
Liz – OK, don’t believe it then. I did think IRNA was a tad further east, but there you go.
Alan,
These are western sources. Show me where an Egyptian official has said something or quote the Iranian government spokesman himself. There is no evidence as far as I can see.
Regarding the plates, that was exactly what western sourses were saying about Iran’s ability to produce enriched Uranium at 20 percent a day before Iran began production.
Western sourses are usually not very credible. There are a lot of Scott Lucases out there. :)
Liz – on the rowing back from the 20%, see Josh Pollack’s “Alternative View” piece at Arms Control Wonk, where he cites Ramin Mehmanparast quoted in IRNA and the Washington Post.
Regarding Iran and the NAM, see Rebecca Johnson’s Acronym Institute Blog at the NPT Review, specifically Day 14.
On the fuel plates, see para 22 of the Feb 2010 IAEA Board Report. There are no fuel assembly lines for making fuel for the TRR. The same report also says there is only one centrifuge cascade capable of enriching to 20%, and it is at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant.
—
Kooshy – an article in a Turkish newspaper says Davutoglu was in contact with US officials THREE TIMES A DAY during his negotiations with the Iranians. That would suggest what you implied earlier may be right, that the draft resolution was co-ordinated to head off any perceived attempt by Iran to use the Turkish deal to delay sanctions by stalling over the negotiation with the Vienna Group (or whatever they’re called now).
I hope someone would translate this. It’s a summary of a very interesting interview (more than an hour long) that Professor Salehi had on a prestigious Iranian news program.
http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=50704
Alen,
Where is your evidence for all of these claims?
Eric – yes indeed, I am in the opposite corner to Masoud in said debate. The application of your great mind to it would be most welcome, and there is no mention of squirrels, Scott Lucas or Alabama (although on the last point it should be noted Dan Joyner is a substantial asset to those who argue in favour of the place).
Iran appears to be rowing back on the right to enrich to 20% claim already. Talk about dropping a clanger. What’s happened to the legendary bazaari haggling tactics? I get the feeling that LEU will be showing up in Turkey a bit sharpish.
Kooshy – I think there are indications that any attempt to pass a sanctions resolution may be delayed until the Lebanese presidency of the UNSC passes in June. That gives the Iranians time to make that LEU delivery, which would really change the picture. Would that be a win-win-win? For the US, Iran, and Turkey/Brazil? They could all spin it their way.
Pirouz_2 – Iran can’t make those plates old chap. End of story.
Prior to the Turkey/Brazil initiative, Iran was castigating some of the positions of the NAM at the NPT Review. In the end the Egyptians basically told them to shut up.
Iran certainly has sympathy, and rightly so, but it had to DO something with it or it was going to disappear. I think the point may have hit home.
Masoud,
Thanks. I’ll be travelling a bit, but will look carefully when I’m able to.
Eric
Dennis Blair resigns as US intelligence chief
Looks like something has hit the fan
Hi Eric,
While you are around, you might want to take a look at this thread, where a little bit of a debate regarding the IAEA BOG’s finding of Iran in noncompliance with it’s CSA broke out. I seem to remember that your position is that Iran is indeed in non-compliance, but the UNSC resolutions have bearing on the matter. Over here, I argued that isn’t in non-compliance. I’d like to know where exactly we part ways.
Be warned: it’s moderated forum, and i think the moderator is getting cranky.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2735/the-tripartite-agreement#comment
Masoud
America Moves the Goalposts
By:Roger Cohen
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen.html
kooshy:
regarding your post on May 19, 2010 at 12:43 am.
I am aware of the history of the U.S-Iran relation, know that sanctions aren’t necessarily related to the nuclear issue, and I don’t want to go back to the history talking about this event or that event. I also know that Iran, unfortunately, is neither China, nor Libya. but there seems to be something wrong with us too. we can talk about western hypocrisy, real and perceived, for ages, but at the end of the day one can’t solely stick to this point for all the wrongdoings happening in Iran. I am actually not a big fan of comparing different countries as every country is having a unique situation, but the comparison is at some point inevitable. there are many other countries in the world too. why should we be targeted to the point we see? I live in the west, true, there are obviously a great deal of discrimination and … here, but that is not just for Iranians. I mean, if there is a sense of being let down, the majority of the world nations should fill that. I can’t say we are the only proud nation, anyhow.
as for democracy. I don’t know what does a “real democracy”! mean. I know the meaning of democracy theoretically, but to make a notion like democracy real is not meaningful for me. in any case, I have to disagree with your hypothesis that unless Iranians stand against hegemonic powers FIRST, they wouldn’t have democracy in Iran. surely, for critical national decisions, hearing one voice from a country would be useful, but that is not the only vital issue of Iranians. necessitating democracy to fighting hegemonic powers would kill the spirit of democracy at some point (as we have seen time and again). In my view, both can be pursued parallel to each other, so that one couldn’t be followed in the expense of the other.
Castellio, your question is the most important question the American people must confront, and they don’t even know it is upon them.
Karin Friedemann’s remarkable essay, The Emotional Violence of Jewish Advocacy, discusses with brutal frankness how gentiles have been sensitized to dance around issues relating to the Jewish people.
My Iranian friends are even more protective of Jewish people than are Americans; Ahmadinejad’s statements about Holocaust were profoundly embarrassing to many Iranians that I know. Discussing Jews, Israel, zionism, Holocaust, has become so emotionally laden that most people prefer to avoid it entirely, and many people stand to lose careers, friends, even family, by mentioning one of the forbidden topics or doing so in an impolitic way.
I think it’s a discussion that the American people have GOT to engage, courageously, with as much dignity as can be mustered, and with the understanding that it will be sloppy at first, but that common ground can and must be found.
Yesterday, John H said, “The more Israel is seen as the prime instigator of US behavior, the harder it will be on Jews in general when that behavior leads to a disaster, such as an attack on Iran. To avoid being scapegoated, US Jews should really be vociferously opposing Israel’s co-opting of US policy. AIPAC and the Jewish Establishment are abusing their power to the detriment of their followers.”
I think there’s a great deal of insight in that statement. Tragically, as the meeting between the 15 rabbis and Emmanuel and Dennis Ross shows, Jewish elites are not inclined to take the path of “vigorously opposing Israel’s co-opting of US policy.” By default, some courageous Americans are going to have to risk pariah status to stand up for American interests against Israeli interest.
Rabbi David Wolpe impressed me once with his recitation of a phrase used to motivate social action: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”
Kooshy,
“Note to Eric: Can you please re post the link to your article regarding the election dispute?”
Just click on my name.
With regards to American foreign policy setbacks it seems there is growing frustration observed by some of the regular posters on this blog. It’s important to understand that this continued policy setbacks is not of Iran and Ahmadinijad’s doings, but rather, as also mentioned on this article by the Leveretts, is of the Americans own doings.
All Ahamadinijad has done, is, that he has, for the first time exposed the American Hippocratic policies on three issues related to his own country, the Israel- Palestinian issue, the US double standard for democracy and the double standard on nonproliferation, everyone on the planet who’s not biased and not a client understands that the US foreign policy planers have a difficult if not impossible time to justify and explain to the world this US policy positions, therefore in the fashion of new American politics if we can’t ridicule the message let’s ridicule the messenger, this is why Ahmadinijad who just got elected by a big majority of Iranian voters becomes an election rigger, a clown or if gods sends the manna from the havens, and have him be photographed with a prostitute in a DC hotel we will be all set.
My friends, is not Ahmadinijad or Iran that has created our problems, our current problems are all due, to a wrong view of the world in making that we can’t adjust ourselves to. Before the USSR breakup it was much easier to justify, this unjustified US polices, I believe we have ruined a golden opportunity that became available after the USSR breakup largely all thanks to us, the American greedy voters.
Fiorangela: you’re not wrong with the comparison of money to the Israeli military versus money to the needs of Americans, which are many and pressing, but why oh why do the American people put up with it? Why are they so happy to support it?
At some point, the American people have to assume the blame for the atrocious foreign policies and ridiculous economic priorities perpetrated “in their name”. It’s not as if it’s a new thing, this fleecing.
kooshy, thanks for the link to the White House-rabbis love-in.
Did you notice this response to the meeting?
Rabbis unreasonably ‘pacified’ on Obama’s Israel policy
[Editor’s note: This letter refers to a May 14 Heritage story in which Rabbi Aaron Rubinger of Congregation Ohev Shalom was quoted as saying he felt reassured about U.S.-Israel relations after taking part in a high-level meeting of 15 rabbis with Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross.]
I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell to Rabbi Rubinger and those who have been pacified by Obama’s latest efforts.
Obama and crew are the best in terms of rhetoric, and their ability to sell ice to the Eskimos is nothing short of amazing.
However, if one seriously looks beyond the fanfare, kosher lunches, and beer summits, and seriously looks at their actions (or lack thereof), there is no other conclusion than understanding that this administration is no friend of Israel.
The list is long. Suffice it to say, the lack of any significant action against Iran proves this point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I am currently in Jerusalem, and it is almost embarrassing to hear what most Israelis (even those who “liked” Obama) have to say about the American Jewish community’s unwillingness to really understand what is going on.
Sad…
Paul Jeser, Los Angeles”
in other words, %205 million is not enough.
Contrast the $205 million that Obama has promised Israel (in addition to its $3 billion annually) with the $50 million that DoD has included in its budget to treat PTSD in returning US soldiers. (estimated 90,000 soldiers/veterans suffer PTSD; that $555. per suffering soldier;) Israel gets 4 X that amount to kill more people.
James
Thanks for the link.
“No Iranian regime could have accepted a complete end to enrichment as part of a deal with the United States, however, because of popular support for the nuclear programme as a symbol of Iran’s technological advancement.”
Alan:
” is Ahmadinejad really considered a clown by these guys? I think so, you don’t, but we don’t really know so it’s a moot (albeit a tad inflammatory) point.”
In order to think of a person as a “clown”, you must be able to point to at least a few ridiculously foolish claims that he makes. Which one of his rhetorics IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA do you find foolish and ridiculous?
“Iran definitely cannot make the plates for the TRR. If they could they wouldn’t have asked for them. Only the French and the Argentinians can. No doubt one day they will be able to make them, but they can’t right now. At this point they are only enriching to 20% on a pilot scale, and apparently their LEU was too impure for the Russians to enrich further.”
If that had been the case, there would have been no need to “worry” about Iran making weapon grade Uranium, weapon grade Uranium is above 90% and is being made even in Pakistan. Even David Albright from ISIS has acknowledged that Iran can enrich Uranium to 20% and even to >90% -albeit HE CLAIMS at the cost of losing a few centrifuges and having to replace them with new ones.
Different levels of enrichment is not technically different from one another. If you have been able to enrich to 3.5-4% you can easily enrich it to 20 and even 99%. It is a bit like cokking a steak, if you have the ability to make it rare, you also have the ability to make it medium-rare, medium or even “well done”.
Why would Iran go to buy it from outside when it can produce it domestically? Three good reasons:
1) It already is under three rounds of sanctions for 3.5% enrichment, you can very well imagine what would be the problem that they would face if they directly went on to try to produce 20% enriched Uranium without at least trying to buy it from outside first!
2) Buying it from outside instead of producing it, is a good confidence building measure FOR THOSE WHO REALY LOOK FOR CONFIDENCE, those whose actual motivation is an animosity to Iran would never get the confidence no matter what measure Iran takes.
And it has no harm to Iran either; after all Iran can always produce its 20% Uranium if the need arises and no outside supplier would give it to Iran. So Iran loses nothing while at the same time it shows to the world that it is not “obssessed” with Uranium enrichment.
3)Buying it from outside could be much more cost effective.
At any rate we don’t need to make a debate about this, within a short few months we will see if Iran will produce its fuel plates or not (by the way fuel plates are different from fuel rods, and I guess technologically it is less sophisticated, but I am not an expert on the issue so I maybe wrong. Anyway, what Iran is trying to make is fuel plates and not fuel rods)
“As for the rest of your comments, I agree. But the Turkish offer was around for months, and Iran never agreed to send their LEU to them before this deal. Why did Erdogan threaten to cancel his trip to Tehran at the 11th hour? Why does Erdogan say now that it doesn’t matter what the P5 say, because Iran has got a month to deliver on it’s side of the deal? Why is China supporting the deal, while backing sanctions? Why were the NAM growing increasingly frustrated with Iran at the NPT Review?”
As I said before, it was Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Larijani who were opposed to this deal (for reasons related to political rivalry with Ahmadinejad). Otherwise Ahmadinejad was in its favoure right from the begining. By the way, the current declaration is not “exactly” the same as the ElBaradei deal: while it gives West what they claimed to want, at the same time it EXPLICITLY acknowledges Iran’s inalienable right to domestic enrichment as well as putting an upper limit of one year for the 20% fuel delivery by the West (a condition which if not satisfied, Turkey gives its assurence as to return Irans LEU unconditionally!).
By the way, I am yet to see any signs of “frustration” by NAM with Iran. Of course Brazil-Turkey will try to exert pressure on Iran, they want no surprises in the middle of the road, and they wanted some declaration which would fully satisfy West’s original conditions. And to get that out of Iran, they had to EXPLICITLY acknowledge Iran’s right to domestic enrichment of Uranium and to agree that the LEU would be returned to Iran UNCONDITIONALLY if Iran does not recieve the 20% fuel WITH IN ONE YEAR.
khurshid,
New sanctions are virtually guaranteed, and the more Obama sees himself as at risk politically, the more inclined he will be to seek the sanctions even if he believes they serve no purpose other than to reinforce the government of Iran and offer Obama himself some political protection.
Gareth Porter reports that Gary Samore, Obama’s chief adviser on nuclear proliferation, “privately expressed certainty that Iran intends to manufacture nuclear weapons.” May 19th truthout.org
http://www.truthout.org/us-says-only-reason-talks-with-iran-is-enrichment-halt59667
Looking at the Iran-Brazil-Turkey-UN-P5+1-US-Israel saga unfold over Iran’s nuclear deal agreement since Monday, the possibility of new sanctions is less than 1%. This is because if there is sanctions it will be a direct insult to Turkish Erdagon and Brazilian Lula de Silva. It will also dent Turkey’s and Brazil’s rising power image. I predict three outcomes in near future:
1) There will be no sanctions on Iran no matter how loud US cries for it.
2) Obama’s credibility is seriously damaged for not being able to handle Iran TRR case to the liking of neo-cons in Washington. This means OBAMA is ONE TERM PRESIDENT. Neo cons and republicans will seize this opportunity to build pressure on Obama from now until the next US presidential election.
3) P5+1 is effectively over. Iran will more likely to negotiate with turkey, brazil, china and other rising powers about its Nuclear program in future and ignore P5+1. Since 2005 Iranian policy makers have said in interviews on many occasions that NEGOTIATING WITH ONLY P5+1 on Iran’s nuclear program was a mistake. It would have been wiser to engage a broader negotiating parties. So far Iran just could not abandon P5+1 but from last Monday onwards finally Iran can ignore P5+1 – if not abandon completely.
Alan
Thanks and no problem
“As for Obama, it may well be that the US has been smoked out too. But why did he send a letter to Erdogan approving a 1200kg swap in Turkey? Why did his statement last night, in effect, welcome the Turkish efforts and await Iran’s next move? Does he have a foot in both camps too? Has he given his own bunch of clowns the rope to hang themselves with?
There is more to this than meets the eye. But the deal is a deal and it isn’t a deal at the same time. It will be very important that Iran deliver on the deal as it stands, because that will be the only way that it can be converted into a real deal that genuinely will secure their right to enrich.”
Good point, one just can wish that you are right, however if a resolution is passed before Iran delivers the LEU, I can’t see how the deal can be explained in Iran. I think the sudden announcement of the resolution could be that the UNSC is playing a good cop bad cop to further enhance its position for the future negotiations that are supposed to be taking place in Vienna after Iran sends the letter to IAEA.
kooshy,
I like Ray McGovern’s pieces, but he is all too kind to Hillary Clinton to cast her in the same group as the administrators who led the British Empire. The British were a great power because they controlled India, etc. Great wealth flowed from the empire. By contrast, the idiotic squandering of trillions of dollars in unncecessary wars and foolish encouragement of Israeli rampages, etc., is eroding the economic strength of the US. Clinton seems to have no strategic thinking ability whatever, apart from the narrow calculations made by some lawyers.
Castellio,
The Bush administration used the British to provide cover for their illegal war in Iraq, and if Tony Blair had challenged G W Bush’s false statement (in the 2003 State of the Union Address) that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa ACCORDING TO THE BRITS, the game plan might have become untracked. In effect, Dick Cheney’s gang laundered false intelligence through the UK to bring it back into Washington to dupe the Congress (or provide cover for those who were “in the know”).
Brazil’s president said that “There are some people who don’t know how to do politics without an enemy.” Was he referring to Hillary Clinton?
Arnold,
It seems very clear that Dick Cheney was keenly aware that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the US, the UK, or the region.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the myth of Iraqi WMD has been used to cover up the launching of an illegal war on false pretenses.
Arnold,
Saddam Hussein could have had Dan Rather interview him on camera, for broadcast to the entire world, and said that Iraq had destroyed all its WMD in the 1990s. The Iraqi nuclear weapons programme was destroyed in the fall of 1991.
Apparently many members of the US Congress actually believed Saddam had WMD and posed a threat to the US.
Alan,
Iran would find it cost-ineffective to develop the ability to create the fuel plates for the Tehran reactor. I think Iran is much better off integrating itself into the global trade in nuclear materials, and of course Iran must deliver the LEU to Turkey as soon as possible.
I think Ahmadinejad is clearly intelligent, and it seems beyond dipute that at times he injures his standing in the global community with some of the things he says. On the other hand, much of what he says has considerable merit.
Kooshy – I mentioned you because my point about Iran strategy concerned the bigger picture, the prevailing mindset, which you often mention. I should not have included you with a reference to the TRR, so I’m sorry if I misrepresented you.
Pirouz_2 – is Ahmadinejad really considered a clown by these guys? I think so, you don’t, but we don’t really know so it’s a moot (albeit a tad inflammatory) point.
Iran definitely cannot make the plates for the TRR. If they could they wouldn’t have asked for them. Only the French and the Argentinians can. No doubt one day they will be able to make them, but they can’t right now. At this point they are only enriching to 20% on a pilot scale, and apparently their LEU was too impure for the Russians to enrich further.
As for the rest of your comments, I agree. But the Turkish offer was around for months, and Iran never agreed to send their LEU to them before this deal. Why did Erdogan threaten to cancel his trip to Tehran at the 11th hour? Why does Erdogan say now that it doesn’t matter what the P5 say, because Iran has got a month to deliver on it’s side of the deal? Why is China supporting the deal, while backing sanctions? Why were the NAM growing increasingly frustrated with Iran at the NPT Review?
As for Obama, it may well be that the US has been smoked out too. But why did he send a letter to Erdogan approving a 1200kg swap in Turkey? Why did his statement last night, in effect, welcome the Turkish efforts and await Iran’s next move? Does he have a foot in both camps too? Has he given his own bunch of clowns the rope to hang themselves with?
There is more to this than meets the eye. But the deal is a deal and it isn’t a deal at the same time. It will be very important that Iran deliver on the deal as it stands, because that will be the only way that it can be converted into a real deal that genuinely will secure their right to enrich.
There is a clear path to that, and in my opinion it is exactly as Pirouz says – Iran agrees to limit enrichment to 5% once fuel plates are received, future supply for the TRR is guaranteed, and a comprehensive nuclear deal is struck.
Second meeting eases Israel concerns
Heritage Florida Jewish News
http://www.heritagefl.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=61&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=2426&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1064&hn=heritagefl&he=.com
“After the second meeting, Rubinger told the Heritage, “I and other rabbis received the clear impression that, as Jews, Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross would not be working for Obama if they didn’t believe he would be there in a crunch [to aid Israel.].” White House chief of staff Emanuel and National Security Council Iran policy chief Ross were joined at the second meeting by Daniel Shapiro, deputy national security adviser supervising policy for Israel and its neighbors, and Susan Sher, the chief White House liaison to the Jewish community.”
Let’s remember that Saddam Hussein apparently refused to declare openly that he had destroyed Iraq’s WMD back in the 1990s, and that Saddam’s decision had a good deal to do with his own assessment of his standing with the people of Iraq.
This is complete mythology. Iran was ordered to present an accounting of its chemical, biological and nuclear materials in, I believe November 2002, and did so. The US declared Iran’s document classified and did not allow its release even to other members of the UN Security Council.
However, the document confirmed that Iraq had no materials – in line with what Iraqi officials had been saying publicly for years by that point. The US, falsely and deliberately deceptively, accused Iraq of lying.
The US had said years before that the sanctions on Iraq would not be lifted if Iraq disarms but only with regime change.
The United States was not deceived into invading Iraq. The idea that it was has kind of sprung up long after the war has clearly not advanced US interests. Not one person claimed before the war that Iraq has not said clearly that it has disarmed. The Bush administration lied by saying it had proof that Iraq was being dishonest when Iraq said that the country had disarmed of chemical or biological weapons.
Pirouz-2 at 2.31 pm is right. The US will do as it wants inspite of Iranian movement on any specific topic. Even if the Brits hadn’t joined in Shock and Awe, the Iraq invasion would have gone ahead.
There is a “deep” policy being pursued, not a “surface” policy being negotiated.
Ray McGovern : US, Israel Challenged on Iran
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/05/us-israel-challenged-on-iran/
The 20 percent enrichment can stop when the swap is complete and TRR is refueled. Otherwise, it would be totally irresponsible for the Islamic Republic of Iran to suspend its own efforts at refueling the reactor. As is plain for everyone to see, any sort of dependence will be used as leverage against Iran. And there is a lot of bad faith maneuvering taking place from the direction of the West.
One way or another, that reactor needs to be refueled. Until the West provides fuel by sale or swap, or Iran produces its own- either way- only than would it be responsibly feasible to suspend 20% enrichment.
China to Move Ahead With Iran Energy Projects
Wall Street Journal – Shai Oster – Simon Hall – 3 hours ago
BEIJING—China’s biggest oil company is pressing ahead with oil-and-gas projects in Iran valued at billions of dollars, …
Pirouz_2,
The warmongers in the US who want to punish Iran for supporting the Palestinians and generally interfering with the insane “Greater Israel” project, will welcome an continuation of Iranian U enrichment to 20% even if the plates or rods are available from France (or another country). My understanding is that Russia is not able to build the plates needed for the Tehran reactor, and thus by extension Iran would not be able to build them. Difficult and expensive technology, little economic sense in acquiring the ability to build the specialty plates or rods.
kooshy,
I agree Iran should enrich U to 20% and build the plates or rods (or whatever) the Tehran reactor reactor requires, if Iran cannot obtain what it needs from France. If the needed materials are avaible from France, in a reasonable time (reactor fuel running low), Iran would be wise to stop the 20% U enrichment for purposes of world public opinion.
James
I would like to think that Iran will agree to stop enriching to 20% but would not agree to abandon its right to enrich to 20% based on it’s NPT if the new Vienna negotiations
Which are part of the new Tehran 3 declaration takes place, obviously once Iran is grunted to receive fuel for TRR there is no need to further enrich to 20%, by safeguring its NPT right to enrich 20% Iran will be protecting future fuel delivery when that would be needed.
Pirouz-2,
The illegal invasion of Iraq would have been impossible if Saddam Hussein had made clear he had destroyed his WMD. The British generals refused to participate in an illegal war. Full stop. A last-minute “finessing” of the British Attorney General, by lawyers working for Dick Cheney (directly or indirectly) enabled the British to participate. A British refusal would have been gravely injurious to the war plans of the neocons.
The Iraq War was not inevitable. Blunders on the part of Saddam Hussein played a huge part in setting of the catastrophe.
James:
1) I am not sure why you think that Iran can’t make the fuel “plates” necessary for TRR. As far as I know it is capable of doing that.
2) Iran has every right to produce it’s own fuel for TRR under NPT and loses no moral ground by doing so. Even Tehran declaration does not make such a requirement. That is the whole beauty of it!
3) No matter how high a moral ground Iran takes, it will change neither US policies nor its actions towards Iran. If US has something on its mind to do about Iran, it won’t stop from doing it NO MATTER WHAT IRAN DOES OR DOES NOT. It is just like the situation with Iraq in 2002-2003. It really didn’t matter what Iraq would do, US had invasion on its mind, the rest was just an excuse. If Saddam did everything exactly as they said (which he actually did!), this time they would have found a problem with the color of his hair or the size of his mustache. It is not about what Iran does or does not, it is about US will to crush Iran, the rest is just an excuse!
Pirouz,
Let’s remember that Saddam Hussein apparently refused to declare openly that he had destroyed Iraq’s WMD back in the 1990s, and that Saddam’s decision had a good deal to do with his own assessment of his standing with the people of Iraq. The neocons ruthlessly exploited this situation to set up an illegal and catastrophic war.
The Iranian government needs to occupy the moral high ground, and it will improve its own standing in world opinion if it does not continue to enrich U to 20% even when apparently Iran could not produce the fuel rods (or whatever) that need to go into the Tehran reactor.
Reza,
An Iranian insistence of continuing to enrich U to 20%, at this juncture, is a serious policy error in my view, and apparently in yours as well. Iran is not able to provide the correct fuel for the Tehran reactor. Can France deliver in the near future? (If IAEA approved)
Bravo! A graphic illustration of the damage being done to the national interests of the American people by the “Israel first” crowd. Haim Saban is biggest donor to the Democrats? Well, by all means dance to the tune he calls, or apologise profusely.
Injure the international standing of the US? But of course, if this seems to benefit Israel! Injure the Security Council’s standing? But of course, no problem!
Did Iran vow to continue enriching uranium to 20% regardless of the swap deal?
I can see how that would upset the six powers.
Also, what happens to the material held in Turkey if the fuel rods are delivered? Is it sold off as LEU to third parties?
@ Gunter
Here you can find the draft resolution in PDF format
http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/1005/UNSC_Iran_resolution_19May2010.pdf
Piroua_2
I completely agree 120%, this was indeed a cleaver move by Iran, further I also believe I would be a cleaver move for US and its regional plans, however they have boxed themselves in badly and it’s hard the former “zero percent ” “obliterator” first lady to drink the Koll-aid.
I actually was in favor of the nuclear swap deal in October, my overriding interest being an improvement in US-Iran relations that ultimately lead to a rapprochement.
But the US reaction to the Turkey-Brazil-Iran agreement exposes full well that the swap deal as proposed in October did not contain sufficient guarantees, and the effort was put forth in bad faith. Judging by where we are today, had Iran accepted in October, the US would have used the agreement not as a confidence building measure, but instead as further leverage against Iran’s enrichment activities- just as the nay sayers in Tehran predicted all along.
In a way, you could make the case that- by whatever means- the Iranian way of politically doing things actually served their interests well in this unfolding international drama.
Kooshy:
Iran is not empowering Turkey or anyone else to have a say over it’s nuclear program.
It is a simple matter, Turkey and Brazil are on the security council and Iran is lobbying to the best of its ability to gain world support for its cause. And it is working beautifully: we have made the support of NAM and the Muslim countries for our side even firmer than it was before. And in return Iran is not making any compromises AT ALL. ZERO compromises on Iran’s side. To the contrary we have got our right to enrich Uranium EXPLICITLY acknowledged, and on top of that we are enriching Uranium to 20%!
Alan
I was never against the fuel exchange deal, I actually argued with Persian Gulf that this deal will benefit Iran’s strategic position, some in Iran believe that its not to Iran’s benefit to empower Turkey by having them to have a decision on Iran’s affairs, however I believe there is a lot more religious, political and economic benefit to have Turkey on its side, same is true for Turkey
Hey folks, please where I can find the draft of sanctions??
@Alan:
You are wrong. Lula probably considers Ahmadinejad as much of a clown as he sees Chavez, and Erdogan himself has very strong Islamist roots.
By the way, Ahmadinejad was very much in favoure of the TRR fuel exchange deal from day one. It was his opponents who tried to undermine that deal.
By the way, what was Iran going to do with that LEU? Eat it? What harm is there to send it over? Worse comes to worse it won’t be returned to Iran? It will only expose the West and their dishonesty to everyone and completely take away any excuse regarding the “concerns” about a possible nuclear weapons program in Iran.
And Iran can ALWAYS take some more raw uranium mines, convert it to yellow cake and enrich it to 3.5%.
Arnold,
Yes precisely the party that was cleverly smoked out and exposed was the US arrogance, and to some extends the UNSC’s P5 structure.
No matter if this new sanctions are approved or not, considering the reaction by P5, to Tehran 3 declaration, UNSC under US’s Hippocratic leadership was exposed by two of its own current members. Truly the angry and hasty reaction by US reps. Rice, Clinton could not have been worst in a view of the rest of the world. 57 member Conference of Islamic States just backed up Tehran 3 plan, and Lebanon president just boldly confirmed that they will vote No to the new draft resolution, how satisfactory for US that 2 Muslim nations on the UNSC are voting No on this resolution?
Arnold,
Yes precisely the party that was cleverly smoked out and exposed was the US arrogance, and to some extends the UNSC’s P5 structure.
No matter if this new sanctions are approved or not, considering the reaction by P5, to Tehran 3 declaration, UNSC under US’s Hippocratic leadership was exposed by two of its own current members. Truly the angry and hasty reaction by US reps. Rice, Clinton could not have been worst in a view of the rest of the world. 57 member Conference of Islamic States just backed up Tehran 3 plan, and Lebanon president just boldly confirmed that they will vote No to the new draft resolution, how satisfactory for US that 2 Muslim nations on the UNSC are voting No on this resolution?
Note to Eric
Can you please re post the link to your article regarding the election dispute , looks I have misplaced it
Thanks
Charles, thank you for the informative comment. I’ve never heard any of that before: it’s terrible, terrible!
“Ahmadinejad supports Hamas and Hezbollah….Israel suffered 8 years of terror….”
an astonishing revelation, inasmuch as nobody knew anything about Ahmadinejad until he was elected FIVE years ago, but never mind…
You say, “if Ahmadinejad was a good president for HIS people he had to help Israel…”
You must be an American; Americans are easily confused about whether the American president should help “HIS” people or help Israel. The way I look at it is, the American president is elected by and for the American people, and the Iranian president is elected by and for the Iranian people. See how that works? Carry it a step further:
If the Israeli president was a good president for HIS people, he would stop killing Palestinian Arabs, stop stealing other people’s property, stop committing crimes that the world considers to be crimes against humanity. Hezbollah came into existence AFTER Israel invaded Lebanon, a land where Israel had no right to be. If Israel’s president was a good president, he would not have led his state to engage in a criminal act. Bad president, bad.
the rest of your post is not just hasbara, it’s warmed over hasbara.
tell it to someone who cares.
@Charles
Yes, Iran, who has not invaded another country for the last 100 years, has been planning all along to build their nuclear capabilities so they could build a bomb, and then give it (i assume through UPS or FedEx) to a Jihadi terrorist group (most of which hate Iran) so they can blow up Israel.
And the US (who has invaded two countries in the last decade) is the beacon of responsibility because in the two wars, they decided not to blow up millions of people in a nuclear holocaust.
Arnold – the hole people like Persian Gulf and Kooshy allude to when they ask what strategic benefit is there to Iran in agreeing a TRR deal anyway? A deal that requires the export of their hard-won and biggest bargaining chip. You yourself often say Iran is better off keeping a low profile and letting the US stew in its own juices until it either self-destructs regionally or submits to Iran’s agenda.
Perhaps the bigger kids on the block have had enough of it and are not prepared to see their interests jeopardised by having that particular process played out. I actually think they all consider Ahmadinejad a bit of a clown too, but they tolerate him.
Charles,
Enriched uranium at 20 percent in not weapons grade. In any case, it’s for an experimental reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes. Ahmadinejad never denied the holocaust and Israel it the one who terrorizes the Palestinian civilian population…Please don’t pull a Scott Lucas on us. :)
Serifo wrote: “The U.S Empire was built on hypocrisy and double standards , it has done so much harm to mankind , the only justice to the millions of lives destroyed by the Empire is the complete dismantlement of the Empire! ***I feel so happy that Iran`s nuclear program is weakening the imperial U.N security council ! :)***”
I feel so ashamed that not only has my country “done so much harm to mankind,” it’s citizens are utterly lacking in courage to repent and reform it, and will rely upon the continued suffering of the Iranian people to “weaken the imperial” USofA as well as the U N Security Council.
Sorry, but I’m the only who disagree? To show how Brazilian-Turkish Pact (I’m brazilian btw) was ineffective it is mostly because Iran will continue producing weapon-usable enriched uranium (20%). If it was to make a nuclear energy facility for peaceful means is only 2% to 4%. And Iran is increasing his long-reach missiles policy too… Ahmadinejad once told if a pact wasn’t made he will begin to make enriched uranium… he doesn’t change his policy after the Pact.
Don’t forget Ahmadinejad had supported and supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel suffered 8 years of terrorism with these groups who uses his own people (children, women, elders) as human shields. If Ahmadinejad was a good president for his people, he had to help Israel take out these guys, but actually he is only taking out the opposition.
And I even is no need to say Ahmadinejad is a nutjob who says the holocaust never existed, or supports the “Death of Israel”… the guy simply doesn’t have responsibility like USA to handle WMDs, in two wars Bush doesn’t use any nuclear bomb…. this guy is just waiting to give it to some radical jihadists blow up Israel… and I challenge anyone who defends him to move to Israel.
@Arnold Evans:
Ahmadinejad. from the beginning, was very much in favoure of Iran accepting the ElBaradei deal way back in October. He had no problem with it. And in fact Iran accepted the deal in principle. The parties (in Iran) which were against it, were Mousavi (and his gang) and Larijani (and his gang). And the main reason for thie opposition was basically to undermine a possible diplomatic “victory” for Ahmadinejad. It was purely out of personal interest calculations with absolutely no regards for Iran’s interests.
Ahmadinejad said it multiple times that he was very much in favour of that proposal EVEN as it stood in the October 2009. ElBaradei confirmed it too in his interviews that the deal was opposed by Ahmadinejad’s political rivals.
By the way, this deal as it stands is EXCELLENT for Iran from whichever angle you look at it:
1)It EXPLICITLY acknowledges Iran’s right to enrich Uranium on its own soil domestically.
2)It puts no hurdle on Iran’s way to enrich Uranium to the 20% level. As a matter of fact Iranians have declared it openly that they will continue enriching Uranium to 20% level. Furhtermore, thanks to the reaction of USA to this deal, no one can blame or suspect any foul play on Iran’s part for doing so.
3) It has made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to every single country in the world, that it is the West which does not want to resolve the stand-off and not Iran. Because of Tehran declaration Iran has been vindicated.
4) It was a very useful lesson for the Iranians in their future foreign policy plannings.
Alan, what hole do you think Iran was in?
Judging by the Iranian and US reactions, it’s clear that Iran thinks this is a beneficial transaction and the US thinks it is not. At least now and with a more explicit guarantee that Iran will get its fuel back if the US reneges.
What makes you think Iran had to be coerced? Ahmadinejad was smiling with his hands over his head.
The US has been smoked out of its hole. Obama had private plans to use the TRR deal to help force Iran to give up uranium enrichment but these plans only emerged when Iran accepted a deal with terms that are public to see and the US has to explain how, reversing its statements one week ago, that deal is no longer a reasonable confidence-building measure.
“War, what is it good for? It’s good for business.”
Last week, the BBC reported Barack Obama’s request to Congress for $200 million in military aid to assist Israel’s construction of a short-range rocket defence system, Iron Dome. The funding will be in addition to the $3 billion in military aid the US annually sends to Israel. A BBC online article explained:
“The system is designed to shoot down mortars and rockets from Gaza or Southern Lebanon with guided missiles.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8681919.stm,
Details were provided:
“Iron Dome was conceived and developed in Israel following the Lebanon war of 2006, during which Hezbollah launched about 4,000 rockets into northern Israel. Southern Israel has also come under fire, with thousands of rockets and mortars fired by Palestinian militants.”
The BBC failed to mention that during the 2006 war Lebanon was subjected to 12,000 Israeli bombing raids, 2,500 navy shells, 100,000 army shells and 4.6 million cluster bombs. (Jane’s Defence Weekly, ‘The war in numbers,’ August 23, 2006 and ,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/02/17/israel-s-use-cluster-bombs-shows-need-global-ban,
Even prior to the December 27, 2008 Operation Cast Lead offensive – when Israel attacked Gaza with hundreds of bombing raids and drone attacks, and thousands of artillery and tank shells – 14 Israelis had been killed by mostly home-made rockets fired from Gaza over the previous seven years as against 5,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Some 1,400 Palestinians were massacred in the Cast Lead assault.
The BBC reported the US administration’s “unshakeable commitment” to Israeli security, adding that Obama “recognised the threat posed by missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah”.
Obama did not recognise the threat to Palestinians posed by Israeli forces and expressed no “unshakeable commitment” to Palestinian security. This ought to be surprising, given that the mainstream media habitually present the United States as an “honest broker” in the conflict. In 2006, Channel 4’s Jonathan Rugman declared:
“If you think in the last week the US has given up its role as honest broker in the Middle East then now, it seems, they’ve taken it back.” (Channel 4 News, July 21, 2006)
In 2000, a BBC 1 lunchtime news report described then President Bill Clinton as “the man who has spent eight years trying to bring permanent peace to the Middle East”. (BBC1 Lunchtime News, October 16, 2000)
Edward Herman commented recently:
“U.S. officials repeat day-after-day that our ‘solidarity’ with Israel is an ‘unshakeable bond,’ that there is no ‘space’ between us and Israel on the issues, and that we have an ‘absolute commitment to Israel’s security’ (Hillary Clinton). A large fraction of congress and the Senate appear regularly at AIPAC [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee] annual meetings to virtually pledge allegiance to the State of Israel, and Vice President Joseph Biden has publicly declared himself ‘a Zionist,’ with Israel ‘the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as vice president of the United States…’”
“There is also no ‘honest broker’ in this fraudulent ‘peace process’ – honest brokering is inconsistent with complete ‘solidarity’ and a ‘central commitment’ to one side.” (Herman, ‘“Protecting Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing” — Deceptively Called “Protecting Israel’s Security”,’ Z Magazine, May 2010)
This is blindingly obvious, but is somehow not an issue, not a reality, for mainstream journalists. The powers that be pretend that honest brokering is consistent with massively funding and arming one side – the media generally go along with the deception. As with the above BBC report, the mainstream typically portrays Palestinian violence as dominant with Israel merely retaliating. This also, Herman explains, is a lie:
“In reality, the primary violence is Israeli dispossession, which has taken Palestinian land and water for decades, under U.S. and other enlightened states’ protection. Over the years the Palestinians have resisted, mainly peaceably, sometimes by violence, but with very much higher casualty rates suffered by the poorly armed Palestinians (over 20-1 prior to the second intifada, when the rate dropped to 3 or 4 to 1—rising to 100 to 1 in the Gaza war).”
No Logic Whatsoever
The BBC commented on the status of the Iron Dome technology:
“Israel completed tests on the system in January. Officials say the next phase in its development is its integration into the Israeli army.”
It seems there are no investigative journalists at the BBC willing to check the claim that tests on the system have been “completed” so that the system is ready for action. As for questioning who might stand to gain from hyping this expensive technology, that is also not within the remit of BBC journalism. By contrast, the Jerusalem Post quotes the view of Tel Aviv University professor and noted military analyst Reuven Pedatzur:
“The Iron Dome is all a scam. The flight-time of a Kassam rocket to Sderot is 14 seconds, while the time the Iron Dome needs to identify a target and fire is something like 15 seconds. This means it can’t defend against anything fired from fewer than five kilometers; but it probably couldn’t defend against anything fired from 15 km., either.” ,(http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175042,
Pedatzur adds: “Considering the fact that each Iron Dome missile costs about $100,000 and each Kassam $5, all the Palestinians would need to do is build and launch a ton of rockets and hit our pocketbook.”
A second rocket system, David’s Sling, is even less workable, according to Pedatzur:
“Each one of its missiles costs $1 million, and Hizbullah has well over 40,000 rockets. This issue has no logic to it whatsoever.”
Venturing even further beyond the BBC sphere of thinkable thought, we can note that the whole issue of missile defence – which has so far cost US taxpayers alone $100 billion – has long been awash with fraudulent claims. As Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, has noted:
“Getting to ground truth on strategic missile defense is a bit like looking for a faithful reflection in the distorted mirrors of a carnival fun house — nothing is quite what it seems.
“Performance details are shrouded in secrecy on both strategic ballistic missile defenses and the countermeasures that would be used to defeat them. Neither strategic ballistic missile offenses nor defenses have been used in combat. Many experts to whom the public has access have a vested interest in spinning evaluations of their capabilities.” (Greg Thielmann, Arms Control Association, ‘Strategic Missile Defense: A Reality Check’; ,http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/TAB_StrategicMissileDefense.pdf,
During the 1991 Gulf War, the mostly male armchair generals of the media swooned before the power and precision of the Patriot anti-missile interceptor. The Guardian gushed:
“The Patriot, a surface-to-air missile, is first among equals of the equipment demonstrated in the Gulf conflict. Although Raytheon and the Pentagon credited the Patriot with only a ‘secondary anti-missile capability,’ it has succeeded against Iraqi Scuds on each occasion it has been called on. Its performance belies concerns which led the Israelis to decide against buying it.” (Francis Tusa, ‘War in the Gulf: Patriot makers race to keep pace with booming demand,’ The Guardian, January 22, 1991)
MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Leverett, an excellent article.
Given the importance to Turkey and China in particular of regional stability, I get the distinct impression Iran has been smoked out of their hole here. I don’t think Iran has the remotest desire to be abandoned by Turkey, China, or Brazil, and the 3 have made that influence count.
The real question may be whether Turkey, China and Brazil were following their own agendas, or whether Obama has a foot in both camps in order to outmanoeuvre his own hawks. Certainly the statement released last night by Obama regarding his phone call with Erdogan suggested he was open to developments over the TRR, while Erdogan himself appears to be turning the screw on Iran.
Great photo
The drive to sanctions is surprising if one were to believe that this administration ever had the slightest intent to truly negotiate. The “negotiation ruse” by this administration was a tactical and multi-part plan. Part one was the pitch made by a master orator that the US wants to truly engage the Islamic world, and particualrly Iran. For Iran, part 2 played out during the June elections. Irrespective of what one may believe regarding the legitimacy (lack of legitimacy) of elections in Iran, the lens of western media was used to propagandize the “left” wing in the west. This was meant to peel away the supporters of peaceful engagement with Iran by appealing to their emotional response. Part 3 was the backstage browbeating of the IAEA board, lining up of the new IAEA director, and pressure on the security council to push sanctions.
The organizers of this tactical detour toward waging covert war had not planned on the part 4 surprise — the Brazil, Turkey, China axis. The rush to the UNSC by the administration was a clear act of showing displeasure — effectively slapping Turkey and Brazil in the diplomatic public. It was also a statement to the rest of the world — the US remains the unilateral force to reckon with.
But the knee-jerk response of the administration, dictated by forces unconcerned about the viability of American foreign policy and more in line with their own foreign clients, will be increasingly costly. As Turkey and Brazil continue to lobby China and Russia to resist sanctions and continue to advocate the deal with other UNSC members, the US and her allies will find themselves in the spotlight they were trying to shed – the overtly bullish and unilateral policy practiced by the Bush administration. As the diplomatic maneuvering by the NAM, OIC, Turkey, Brazil, China, Russia, and Iran unfolds in the coming days, we will be able to ascertain exactly the extent of damage to US influence and image.
The US is likely to continue the push for sanctions, and it may get them through eventually and in some form — it appears that the Hillary clan has opted for the loose-loose scenario and it has won!
” If he (Obama) does not close this gap, America’s global leadership will continue to decline. And, the institutional architecture for global governance in the 21st century–to which Obama has professed rhetorical support–will be put at risk.”
The U.S Empire was built on hypocrisy and double standards , it has done so much harm to mankind , the only justice to the millions of lives destroyed by the Empire is the complete dismantlement of the Empire! I feel so happy that Iran`s nuclear program is weakening the imperial U.N security council ! :)