The compromise agreement on refueling the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) mediated by Brazil and Turkey is a truly big deal. From a “macro” perspective, this is a watershed event: two rising economic powers from what we condescendingly used to call the “Third World” have asserted consequential political and strategic influence on a high-profile matter of international peace and security. Furthermore, they have done so in a manner that politely but clearly signals that rising powers will no longer let the United States unilaterally define the terms for managing major challenges to global security.
We will have more to say about the global strategic importance of the Brazil-Turkey TRR deal in coming days. At this point, we would note that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ham-handed statement about the deal to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today and the Obama Administration’s subsequent circulation of a draft sanctions resolution to the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council (including Brazil and Turkey) raises the chances of serious international backlash against the United States on the issue.
Obviously, the deal is also very important in terms of its implications for U.S.-Iranian dynamics, on the nuclear issue and beyond. On these points, we want to highlight an edgy and excellent piece published today by our friend and colleague Rami Khouri, Editor-at-large of The Daily Star (Beirut) and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Rami argues that
“the political agreement on Iran’s nuclear fuel announced Monday after mediation by the Turkish and Brazilian governments should be good news for those who seek to use the rule of law to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. From both the American and Iranian perspectives, the political dimension of the current dynamic is more important than the technical one. Also, this accord should remind us that the style and tone of a diplomatic process is as important as its substance.
Iran and its assorted international negotiating partners in the past half decade have not reached agreement on Iran’s nuclear programs to a large extent because American- and Israeli-led concerns have been translated into an aggressive, accusatory, sanctions-and-threats-based style of diplomacy that Iran in turn has responded to with defiance and resistance.
Iran’s crime, in the eyes of its main critics in Washington and Tel Aviv (they are the two that matter most, as other Western powers play only supporting roles), is not primarily that it enriches uranium, but that it defies American-Israeli orders to stop doing so. (The Iranian response, rather reasonable in my view, is that it suspended uranium enrichment half a decade ago and did not receive the promises it expected from the United States and its allies on continuing with its plans for the peaceful use of nuclear technology—so why should it suspend enrichment again?)…
The political imperative in the agreement announced this week is clear, and repeats the basic principles that Iran and American-led negotiators agreed on in principle last autumn: sending abroad Iran’s low-grade enriched uranium and transforming it into fuel rods for use in Tehran’s research reactor. The political dynamics now should also be clear: Iran is willing to negotiate seriously and enter into agreements that honor the nuclear non-proliferation treaty’s dictates, if such talks are conducted in a non-colonial manner and also acknowledge Iran’s own national interests.
The first paragraph of the 12-point agreement is the most important, with Brazil, Turkey and Iran stating that: ‘We reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in accordance with the related articles of the NPT, recall the right of all State Parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination.’ Article 2 speaks of looking ahead to a ‘positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.’
These suggest that a win-win option is available (and always has been, in my view and that of many others in this region) that respects sovereign rights on nuclear development while prevents nuclear weapons proliferation. Whether this option will be pursued reflects political, rather than technical, dictates. The available signs indicate that the Obama administration remains committed to its schizophrenic policy of reaching out to Iran while also sermonizing to it with condescension and even some disdain. This was most recently reflected in Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s statement a few days ago, after predicting incorrectly that the Turkish-Brazilian mediation would fail, ‘Every step of the way has demonstrated clearly to the world that Iran is not participating in the international arena in the way that we had asked them to do, and that they continued to pursue their nuclear program.’
This presumptuous, aggressive approach has failed to change Iran’s nuclear strategy, while the Turkish-Brazilian approach has been more successful. The coming days and weeks will clarify if the US-Israel-led side finally grasps the important political lessons of the Turkish-Brazilian mediation: Drop the arrogance and double standards, negotiate fairly and realistically, and accept that Iran is a power that is at once strong, technically proficient, and proud of its sovereignty, and on that basis agree lock in its respect for existing nuclear non-proliferation standards and conventions.”
Rami closes with an important observation about the Middle East’s changing political dynamics and the challenge that poses for the United States and its allies:
“Iran and Turkey represent something novel and historically significant in the Middle East: Muslim-majority countries that are politically self-confident and dare to stand up to the United States, Israel or anyone else who encroaches on what they see as their strategic national interests. Washington and Tel Aviv remain confused on how to deal with such new phenomena.”
The Obama Administration’s initial response to the Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal suggests that confusion continues to run high in official Washington.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Masoud,
The Russians have a large nuclear energy industry, but apparently they do not see it as cost-effective to develop the ability to create the fuel plates (or whatever) the Tehran reactor would use. Would it not be better for Iran to take the opportunity to participate in the global nuclear energy market, and buy the plates from France, and sell the LEU to Russia? Ceasing enrichment of the 20% U seems the logical way forward, in that it alleviates a concern that needlessly stresses a number of people watching the situation closely.
Masoud
“I think Hillary Clinton has been worse for the US than Avidgor Leiberman has for Israel”
They are one sole in two bodies
James,
I understand your fears about fear mongering, but it’s no different than the fear mongering associated with 3 percent, or more centrifuges, or newer centrifuges, or holes in a mountain nearby Qom. Fear mongering is fear mongering, and the US will never stop. If Iran doesn’t engage in a domestic fuel plate production program it will never get anything out of the west to fuel the TRR. There is an additional danger of precedent-setting, now that the ‘international community’ has put it’s foot down. I think enrichment up to 20 percent is a throwaway item, now that Iran has got the hang of it, but it should still make efforts at producing the specialized alloys needed for plate fuel, although I wouldn’t mind if it agreed wind down it’s program if it got sufficient concessions in negotiations.
Kooshy,
I think Hillary Clinton has been worse for the US than Avidgor Leiberman has for Israel, and that’s some trick to pull off.
Masoud
Pak
you made a valid point in your post.
You wrote:
“I do however blame Israel. They are so afraid of having a nuclear nation within their “sphere of influence” that they will go to any extent to stop such an outcome. They will not stand idly by and allow Iran to gain the capacity to resist Israeli hegemony. I am afraid that military intervention looks more probable every day, because Israel has once again demonstrated that confrontation is its doctrine. They know nothing better.”
James by now you should know my position on this issue better? :-)
In my opinion, “greater Israel” (and Zionism) is not an end in itself. The main purpose of creation of Israel and keeping it alive -in my opinion- has always been to serve the Western imperialsim and sustaining its (West’s) hegemony in the middle east. And again in my opinion, Israel has performed its duty way up until mid 90s handsomely.
We may argue that the current western policies to protect Israel have become harmful to Imperialisms (and to even Israeli) interests and therefore stupid; however, the main point -in my opinion- is that the “perception” by the dominant forces in the Capitalist elite in USA is that STILL protecting the Israeli hegemony at “any cost” is in the interests of the US capitalist elite.
You have to remember that the coup of 1953 was not done by Israel! The current US policies are a continuation of that.
And there is a point in their thinking too. If today, Iran can become “independent” and get away with it, tomorrow all other regional countries will want the same. So it is more than just a hegemony on Iran which is at stake here.
Pirouz-2,
Are you suggesting the blather about Iran’s nuclear programme is cover for foolish US efforts to retard the economic growth of Iran? The sheer stupidity of such a programme by the US should be only too obvious.
I think the hubub about the Iranian nuclear programme is cover for idiotic US support (in effect) for the Greater Israel project.
Pirouz_2
I think for Iranian’s this has already been written, even more prominently then gold, we just have to pay more closer attention to it’s actual meaning
چو ایران نباشد تن من مبا د
Salamat bashi
@Kooshy:
“I did mention sanctions have nothing to do with the nuclear issue, sanctions are always been a tool to contain Iran’s economic growth in comparison to other countries in the region, Iran was to be contained since Feb 1979 for one reason and another, as I mentioned short of bringing
Back shah from the grave and having him call Cyrus the great, you will have sanctions, look for a while Iran was to be contained by Iraq (war) then dual containment sanctioning, Iraq (1992) and Iran (1995), when Iraq was attacked Iran’s sanctions need to be more international (UN sanctions), US policy has not changed and I suspect it will not change, no matter who is the president or what party is in power in US. If Iranians want a real democracy they will need to stand up to foreign hegemonic interference first.”
EXCELLENT COMMENT!
I AGREE WITH EVERY SINGLE WORD OF YOUR COMMENT 100%, AND I AGREE WITH THE LAST SENTENCE EVEN MORE THAN 100%!!!
I THINK YOUR LAST SENTENCE MUST BE WRITTEN IN “آب طلا” !
Obama talks with Democrat Jewish lawmakers:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iILwNb_DaShXrTsj6tLdI3UCcolg
It’s quite obvious the loyalty of these Jewish Democrats is to Israel and not America. They should be arrested for treason!
Obama has assured 37 Jew Democrat lawmakers that even though Islamic Republic has negotiated a nuclear deal with Turkey and Brazil, he still has the ‘crippling sanctions’ and millitary option on the table.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1057606/1/.html
Masoud
It is most interesting to observe how much 1+4+1 was pressure by the Tehran 3 declaration, which felt necessity for an urgent frustrated same day show of a hastily put UNSC draft distribution, this didn’t escaped most international observers including the FM of Turkey and Brazil
John H, agreed, “The more Israel is seen as the prime instigator of US behavior, the harder it will be on Jews in general…”
Israel’s assault on Gaza, and the continuing oppression of Gaza and Arabs, has motivated many American Jews to rethink and speak out against an implicit notion that ALL Jews unconditionally support Israeli/zionist goals.
I would peel one more layer from the onion, however. I suspect that as historians (even the armchair variety) as well as students of religion observe the dissonance between the conventional wisdom about Christianity’s Old Testament roots (or lack of same), and about the ’secular’ history of the Jewish people, some long-standing pillars of American culture may shatter and reveal their bases in myth and political expediency rather than in admirable or cherished value systems. Harbingers of a “new beginning” indeed.
masoud,
Interesting observations. We can be sure the Israel-first crowd will try to pressure Obama to act even further against Iran, even if it makes little or no sense. I think Iran should cease enriching uranium to 20%. Giving this amunition to the anti-Iran crowd is not the best way forward for the Iranian government. It may partly explain why the Russians are acting as they are.
This initial draft is simply meant to cover up the Obama administration’s embarrassment over the South’s open defiance. It would naturally be maximalist , and even then doesn’t contain many new features, but instead simply reiterates all the measures already taken against it. Now, taken in all at once, it looks scary, but it’s nothing new. They’ve abandoned the features they have most been after in order to get something past China.
Even though the US is acting wildly out of proportion to it’s strength, they are still quite strong, and important for China’s economy. We also shouldn’t be at all surprised at Russia’s behavior, considering Russia and Iran have always been regional rivals, and Russia has history of only looking out for number 1. Either they felt Iran wasn’t being cooperative enough on other issues to deserve Russian assistance, or they got something really sweet from the US.
In any case I interpret yesterday’s draft mainly as an escape valve to allow the US to let off steam and posture for it’s domestic audience.
Also interesting is that the white house seems to be significantly less enraged by the Tehran declaration than the state department.
Masoud
Khurshid
Interesting article on FT
‘South-south’ diplomacy put to the test
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5b130342-62a4-11df-b1d1-00144feab49a.html
Kathleen,
You might try PressTV
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=126992§ionid=351020104
Fiorangela,
Do the Israelis actually fear Iran, in the sense of worrying about a missile strike (on a first-strike basis)? Israel is much stronger militarily than is Iran. I think the supposed fear is overblown, to conceal the deeper agenda of trying to coerce Iran into ceasing its support of Syria (and, of course, Hezbollah and Hamas).
The Greater Israel project will certainly fail, unless Israel can dupe the US (or explit the stupidity of US leaders) into attacking Iran. Even then, meaning even with a change of government, I think Israel’s attempt to keep the Golan Heights is reckless and a threat to the national security of the US.
JohnH
Aipac has been pushing for a military confrontation for years. If you visit their site you will witness the most deceptive spin take place.
Tough for them to oppose they have been pushing hard and lobbying for a confrontation with Iran.
Seem to be going their way at this point in time
“James Canning says:
May 19, 2010 at 1:30 pm
The head of the Iranian nuclear agency said today that the US is trying to push Iran into confrontation with the west, and to avoid the diplomatic solution that Iran favors. This appears to be an accurate assessment of the situation.”
do you have links to this?
Fiorangela Leone agree. The host do not challenge the unsubstantiated and very serious false claims when people call in. But if you listen to Washington Journal over the years more people are calling in questioning the illegal activity of Israel, their unwillingness to sign the NPT and Israel’s push to take the U.S. into another unnecessary confrontation with Iran
Kathleen,
Susan Rice apparently agreed to have the issue of a nuke-free Middle East discussed at the UN next month, and this will entail discussions of Israel’s nuclear weapons and refusal to sign the NPT.
JohnH,
Bravo! Indeed it is time for Obama to start living up to the lofty values he expressed during the campaign in 2008.
The head of the Iranian nuclear agency said today that the US is trying to push Iran into confrontation with the west, and to avoid the diplomatic solution that Iran favors. This appears to be an accurate assessment of the situation.
khurshid
“ at geo-politics it is CRISTAL CLEAR that US is having serious problem coming in terms with the fact that it can no longer coerce other countries to adopt its will and follow it blindly – Brazil and Turkey have proved that now. This is indeed a new beginning for international politics. I am pretty sure that in near future world will see more assertive decision taking by independent states.”
I agree and this is exactly what the significance of Tehran declaration was, any new measures by US/UNSC is now after the fact and less effective
khurshid, I believe that what you say — and others have said– is true and welcome: “This is a new beginning for international politics.” But do not expect the ‘old’ world orderists to concede ground quietly. Consider a oak tree when it is dying: it creates an overabundance of acorns, a hedge against its demise. Nature pulls out all the stops in its battle with mortality; we should expect nothing less of the combined forces of neocons, zionists, and US imperialists.
The last is the most dangerous of all, for the US is not only a rapidly waning international power, it’s broke, economically and morally; a wounded giant. The hyperinflation that Weimar Germany endured was deliberate plunder of German wealth by London and American banking concerns: desperate societies resort to plunder when their larders are bare and their bellies empty. The United States is already engaged in plunder of Iranian wealth; their bandit/front man is Stuart Levey; he’s already extorted cash payments from several Swiss- and London-based banks.
The other two groups, neocons and zionists, have been aware of the looming danger of Iran assertions of self-confidence, and have been preparing against the day that the Iranian example of self-assertion took hold in the leadership of other Middle Eastern states. David Wurmser articulated the fear in comments he made at a conference sponsored by the Israel Project, held just days before the international community met in Annapolis, MD, in a meeting ostensibly called to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, but in fact intended to isolate Iran.
US and Israel NEVER had any intention of accepting any deal with Iran. However, looking strictly at geo-politics it is CRISTAL CLEAR that US is having serious problem coming in terms with the fact that it can no longer coerce other countries to adopt its will and follow it blindly – Brazil and Turkey have proved that now. This is indeed a new beginning for international politics. I am pretty sure that in near future world will see more assertive decision taking by independent states.
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.
Kathleen, C Span is slowly but steadily edging its way onto the list of fact-challenged but not falsehood-challenging media. No statement that demonizes Iran is ever challenged by a C Span ‘journalist’-moderator. If at all possible, C Span’s morning news roundup will include an item that casts Iran in an unfavorable light; on the other hand, if IDF shoots an unarmed Palestinian farmer in the head and kills him, and if videos of the shooting and XRays of the bullet in the young man’s head are displayed on reputable (but not MSM) fora, C Span journalists remain blissfully unaware of the occurrence — or of the fact that it is business-as-usual for Israelis to oppress, humiliate, kill Palestinian Arabs.
C Span declares itself ‘balanced’ because it regurgitates the news from Washington Times AND Washington Post; both ends of the spectrum, in C Span’s hermetically sealed world view.
I heard a zionist lobbying trainer remind his audience that “it only takes a few phone calls” to influence a congressperson, — or to intimidate an entire broadcasting network. C Span had a dust-up involving Deborah Lipstadt back in 2005; Lipstadt seems to have got the better of C Span and put the fear of the lord in C Span production values.
The takeover is nearly complete.
Pak “What a surprise – the “international community” have rejected pretty much the same deal they tried to broker less than a year ago.
I do not blame USA to a full extent, because Obama must have resisted a lot of pressure to allow Brazil and Turkey to pursue these negotiations in the first place. I do however blame Israel. They are so afraid of having a nuclear nation within their “sphere of influence” that they will go to any extent to stop such an outcome. They will not stand idly by and allow Iran to gain the capacity to resist Israeli hegemony. I am afraid that military intervention looks more probable every day, because Israel has once again demonstrated that confrontation is its doctrine. They know nothing better.”
Really something how Israels continued refusal to sign on to the NPT never gets brought up. Never. How Israel’s undeclared and un inspected stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have been and continue to be a constant threat to peace in the middle east. Shhhh. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and the rest of the so called progressive media just go right along with the Israeli lobby program.
Rachel, Keith, Matthews Ed etc did not even whisper about the GOLDSTONE REPORT.
Israel’s nuclear capability and threat
http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC49/GC49Documents/English/gc49-10_en.pdf
Rehmat “Now, its western media mouthpieces like Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Streel Journal, Washington Post, etc. are supporting Tel Aviv’s arrogance by saying that Tehran is agreeing with Turkey and Brazil – just to avoid further UNSC sanctions, and therefore, cannot be trusted for its sincerity.
Some others are repeating the old Zionist mantra – Why a oil/gas rich country like Iran would need nuclear plants for it power-generation needs? Now, how one could convince these propaganda idiots that the US, Russia and China, all have abundance of oil/gas/coal, but they have plenty of nuclear plants producing electricity and ultimately nuclear bombs. We, in Canada have plenty of oil in Calgary and off-shore, but we use 22 nuclear reactors to produce electricity plus two 10 mW each nuclear reactor to produce isotopes for cancer treatment.
As I said before, the P5+1 pressure on Islamic Republic for its nuclear program is not for their national security – but for the security of the Zionist regime in the Occupied Palestine.”
You can add NPR to that list. I have heard Talk of the Nations host Neil Conan allow John Bolton and others to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran over and over with absolutely no challenging questions coming out of Neil Conan’s mouth.
Npr’s Fresh Air host Terri Gross has not only allowed her guest to repeat the debunked “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” hogwash. Terri Gross has endlessly repeated herself.
Scott Simon has done the same on his Saturday news program.
Have a list of Chris Matthews, RAchel Maddow, Diane Rehms and others allowing inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims to be repeated with no challenges coming from them.
I know history repeats itself but this is insane. The warmongers are “moving forward, turning the page” on the dead, injured and displaced in Iraq and headed towards Iran.
Sick sick sick
Lysander–China and Russia’s behavior can be explained by their being part of the nuclear cartel. Cartels succeed only when they shut out competition. Iran’s nuclear enrichment threatens to bust the cartel, particularly if they chose to begin exporting.
So there are two dynamics going on here. One is nuclear non-proliferation. The other is economics and monopoly power. We only hear about non-proliferation.
There are only two ways that the monopoly can succeed. One way is to force potential new rivals out of business by any means, legal or not. The other way is to make it unattractive to develop an alternative supply by assuring that the market readily meets customers’ needs at an attractive price.
The problem here is that the nuclear cartel wants to have its monopoly and hold the world hostage to its supply, making that supply unreliable. The United States, in particular, refuses to guarantee Iran’s access to the nuclear fuel market. Russian reliability in supplying the Bushehr reactor is also questionable. And so, Iran feels it must develop its own nuclear fuel or potentially go without at some future, critical moment.
If the P5 were serious about non-proliferation, they would find a way to guarantee Iran a supply of nuclear fuel. But then they would have to abandon the use nuclear fuel as a potential weapon, something than Washington is loathe to do.
Rehmat “The Turkey-Brazil-Iran proposal (which is not ‘new’ for Tehran) has already been rejected by the Zionist regime. Now, its western media mouthpieces like Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Streel Journal, Washington Post, etc. are supporting Tel Aviv’s arrogance by saying that Tehran is agreeing with Turkey and Brazil – just to avoid further UNSC sanctions, and therefore, cannot be trusted for its sincerity.
Some others are repeating the old Zionist mantra – Why a oil/gas rich country like Iran would need nuclear plants for it power-generation needs? Now, how one could convince these propaganda idiots that the US, Russia and China, all have abundance of oil/gas/coal, but they have plenty of nuclear plants producing electricity and ultimately nuclear bombs. We, in Canada have plenty of oil in Calgary and off-shore, but we use 22 nuclear reactors to produce electricity plus two 10 mW each nuclear reactor to produce isotopes for cancer treatment.”
This is exactly what Hillary ‘warmongering” Clinton was pushing yesterday at this hearing yesterday
Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Hearing on START Treaty (May 18, 2010)
Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Hearing on START Treaty In April, Pres. Obama and Russian Pres. Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that will limit long-range nuclear weapons. Sec. of State Clinton, Defense Sec. Gates and Jt. Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mullen discussed the treaty at a Senate Foreign Relations Cmte hearing. This would replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
Washington, DC : 2 hr. 16 min.
http://www.c-span.org/
During this hearing Clinton claimed Iran was all ready enriching uranium more than 20%
folks should listen to what Clinton was saying
Wigwag heard from, again. Spewing war rhetoric again. You’ve been laying low Wigwag!
By agreeing with him/her/it (I don’t know what you are, I presume you are male) you give credence to the nutcase idea of war. To his ilk (Kristol, Bolton, etc.) war is all that matters. Doesn’t matter that the US can’t educate it’s children, can’t make a good car, it’s industry and economy are in tatters. WAR, he screams. The ticking clock is a symbol that makes his wet dream come true. See through him for what he is, a warmonger hell bent on getting what he wants. Women and children be damned.
US actions no longer surprise me. If you assume a strong tendency to act more in Israel’s favor than its own, the sanctions push makes sense.
But the Shock is Russia and especially China. I’m at wit’s end trying to figure their actions out. The only thing I could think of is that they, along with US/UK/France all value their permanent UNSC council seats and their role as the arbiters of international disputes. What Brazil and Turkey did by trying to mediate a high profile dispute was dilute the value of the UNSC.
I don’t know if that is correct, but it’s the only thing I can think of.
Masoud, you wrote (at 3:58 am)
“Notably, there are no new anti banking measures. Nor are there any petrochemical related sanctions. So it seems the US has given up hope of blacklisting Iran’s central bank, or imposing gasoline sanctions.”
The war on Iran’s banks continues apace, by other means:
Mondoweiss and Tikun Olam reported recently that Stuart Levey, whose position was created by WINEP under the Bush administration, is not only still on board but is increasing his swagger:
www dot washingtonpost dot com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042004292_pf.html
“The administration knows the resolution will be watered down by Russia and China, but it wants the U.N. sanctions anyway — as a platform for additional measures by the United States and its allies. It’s these private and unilateral sanctions that will have real bite: As the Iranians try to evade them, their deception will trigger additional punitive measures.
“If you focus on bad conduct, their evasion doesn’t undermine sanctions but escalates them,” explains one senior official.
An example of how the sticky trap can work is the case of the state-owned Bank Sepah. The United States imposed sanctions in January 2007, alleging that the bank had financed development of missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. The United Nations added its own sanctions against the bank in March 2007.
The Iranians allegedly then turned to two other state-owned institutions to finance nuclear activities, Bank Melli and Bank Mellat. The United States hit them with sanctions, too, and pressured international banks to stop doing business with them. Banks that allegedly helped the Iranians evade controls were whacked with big fines. To settle U.S. government charges last December, the British bank Lloyds agreed to pay $217 million and Credit Suisse agreed to pay $536 million. Most global banks have decided that doing business with Tehran isn’t worth the risk.
The trap also squeezed the state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line, which was cited in 2008 sanctions by the United States. The company allegedly tried to escape the dragnet by renaming some of its ships. The British stripped the shipping line of its insurance; the Iranians sought coverage in Russia and then Bermuda, but they were pursued by U.S. monitors who argued that the company’s deceptive conduct was evidence of its unreliability as an insurance risk. ”
the “private and unilateral sanctions” tactic is the brainchild of Stuart Levey.
Robin Wright profiled Levey in 2008: www dot nytimes dot com/2008/11/02/magazine/02IRAN-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print; I was intrigued with the subtitle to Wright’s article: “The Sanctions that Could Coax Iran.” Coax Iran to do WHAT? WHY? By whose authority? By what right?
Recently, Financial Times reported that KPMG had been scared off doing business with Iran www dot ft dot com/cms/s/0/2f514e22-3e77-11df-a706-00144feabdc0.html
through pressure from a “lobby group” that reminded KPMG of its “reputational risk,” (Stuart Levey-talk for ‘Israel doesn’t like it’). That lobby group is:
http unitedagainstnucleariran dot com/about/coalition; Dennis Ross is among the advisors; James Woolsey has his thumb in the pie;
Coalition members include the usual suspects:
Christians Leaders for a nuclear free Iran, http clnfi dot org/ whose flagship ‘Christian’ is John Hagee, with Pat Robertson, James Robison etc.;
Foundation for Defense of Democracy, which is Michael Ledeen’s project; Iran Task Force, a project of United Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh; and several others.
Jeffrey Blankfort posted this brief, link-rich item yesterday: “Bush-Obama Neocon at Treasury is Lobby’s Hope re Iran.” The main thrust of Blankfort’s report is that the Israel Lobby feels the State Department has been ineffective in sanctioning Iran and the job should be turned over to Levey at US Department of Treasury. This suggests that Hil Clinton is being pressured from two directions — as we’ve posted earlier, Haim Saban has given Clinton a good talking to; in the event Saban was insufficiently persuasive, bureaucratic pressures are ready to undercut her power and supplant State Dept prerogatives with Treasury department manipulations.
Financial manipulations of the sort Levey is engineering, with significant participation of major Jewish groups in the US, IS NOT NEW. It has been done before. It was done before in Europe, in the 1920s and 1930s. The outcome of the manipulation that destroyed Germany’s economy was a world war that resulted in the deaths of upward of 50 million people.
THIS is what the US government, Hillary Clinton, Stuart Levey, are scheming to do. They’ve got to be stopped.
Pak – if they trust the Turks, there is no reason why they shouldn’t because if the P5+1 shoot the deal down, they can call the LEU back to their rather heightened moral ground.
Much is made of the historical Chinese desire to not be isolated in international affairs. I don’t think Iran likes it much either. Apparently, Iran’s ties to the NAM are being strained, some might say severely, at the NPT Review Conference. If the Chinese are indeed putting pressure on them as well, there must be at least a chance they will do it.
dear Alan,
Do you think Iran will deliver?
Erdogan, while making disparaging remarks about the sanctions push, has also implied that the onus is still on Iran to deliver, no matter what the UNSC says. He said Iran has a month to cough up the LEU. That would neatly kill the “we want deeds not words” argument.
It appears there is considerable pressure being exerted on Iran by Turkey (and Brazil) here, and it wouldn’t be the greatest surprise to discover the Chinese are in on it too.
Iran`s nuclear program was never a big issue for the U.S , the big issue is Iran`s growing regional influence.The U.S doesn`t want to recognize Iran as a regional power , therefore those fat cats in Washington are trying everything they can to undermine Iran`s growth , even if their actions can possibly backfire at U.S strategic interest !
Just a final observation, if the U.S triggers another military conflict in the region , it will fight it alone without the key European allies ! With the current economic turmoil facing Europe , I doubt if Britain , France and others will follow the U.S adventure !
This must have lit a firecracker under the backside of the NPT Review Conference.
I don’t think we’re nailed on for war yet. Davutoglu has been saying the Turks have a letter from (the very quiet) Obama authorising a swap deal at 1200kg, while the Chinese, on the very same day, welcomed the TRR deal AND approved the sanctions draft. You’ve got to reckon they’re up to something.
Also, the risk of nuclear fallout all over the Gulf as a result of bombing Iranian facilities surely guarantees no Gulf state would support an attack, and I can’t believe the US could tolerate it either.
The Turkey-Brazil-Iran proposal (which is not ‘new’ for Tehran) has already been rejected by the Zionist regime. Now, its western media mouthpieces like Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Streel Journal, Washington Post, etc. are supporting Tel Aviv’s arrogance by saying that Tehran is agreeing with Turkey and Brazil – just to avoid further UNSC sanctions, and therefore, cannot be trusted for its sincerity.
Some others are repeating the old Zionist mantra – Why a oil/gas rich country like Iran would need nuclear plants for it power-generation needs? Now, how one could convince these propaganda idiots that the US, Russia and China, all have abundance of oil/gas/coal, but they have plenty of nuclear plants producing electricity and ultimately nuclear bombs. We, in Canada have plenty of oil in Calgary and off-shore, but we use 22 nuclear reactors to produce electricity plus two 10 mW each nuclear reactor to produce isotopes for cancer treatment.
As I said before, the P5+1 pressure on Islamic Republic for its nuclear program is not for their national security – but for the security of the Zionist regime in the Occupied Palestine.
I posted last year…..
“Gary Samor, Obama’s White House adviser on Iran’s nuclear program and Brookings’ Bruce Reidel had prepared an 18-month study for the joint Zionist think tanks Brookings-CFR during 2007-08. It described in details how the next president (Barack Obama) should stop or set-back Iran’s nuclear program in order to maintain Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Muslim heartland. It was Samor who sold to IAEA and Russia the idea of Iran’s low-enriched uranium being shipped to Russia for conversion into more highly-enriched fuel rods – during his Obama’s visit to Moscow. Thus setting back Iranian breakout capability for a few years……”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/israel-behind-us-iran-nuclear-conflict/
Hi Mark,
Regarding Iran’s ‘nuclear capable’ missiles, how much would international sanctions affect Iran’s capabilities to produce these? Or for that matter, it’s other missile projects? Do you think the PRC would abide by this resolution or simply quietly violate it?
Masoud
Initial thoughts:
At first glance I thought it was a scary looking resolution, but going through all the previous resolutions, 1696,1737,1747, and 1803, to clarify for myself the allusions it makes to those, there is very little in the new resolution that was not already included in the previous resolutions, other than bluster about how the unsc has decided how such and such legal standard relating to Iran’s safeguards agreement is to be interpreted.
Notably, there are no new anti banking measures. Nor are there any petrochemical related sanctions. So it seems the US has given up hope of blacklisting Iran’s central bank, or imposing gasoline sanctions.
There does seems to be new some new shipping material: the resolution authorizes states to seize and destroy any weapons materials it finds during ship searches it had previously and again calls on states to carry out, and also decides that states should seize the funds belonging to IRISL, and not provide bunkering services if they have reason to suspect blah blah blah.
I think it would be dangerous for sanctions resolutions to be passed in this state. If the US or it’s allies actually try to interfere with Iran’s normal shipping activities, it’ll be war for sure, which may explain Iran’s prolonged military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman as of late. Per the resolution, any searches still seem to have to be carried out in accordance with standard international law, eg the Law of the Sea.
Also quite disturbing was this gem:
“PP 15: Recognizing that access to diverse, reliable energy is critical for sustainable growth and development, while noting the potential connection between Iran’s revenues derived from its energy sector and the funding of Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities, and further noting that chemical process equipment and materials required for the petrochemical industry have much in common with those required for certain sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities,”
There is a ban on Iran mining Uranium in other countries. There is a blanket ban on selling Iran conventional arms, as opposed to just a ban on helping Iran develop ballistic missiles. I don’t recall that being in place before. I would be shocked if China/Russia are happy with that, and let that stand unchallenged in the final draft.
There’s a whole bunch of “Call upon”, and also sanctions qualified by “if the state in question information” that such and such act is directly related to nuclear weapons activity or the like. Most significant of these are calls for sates to avoid providing Iran financial/insurance services.
All in all, things aren’t pretty by any stretch of the imagniation, but the US has been pushing for a lot worse. From the US view, it’s been a complete waste of two years.
On the bright side, here is XINHUA’s take:
“The circulation of the draft resolution at the Security Council does not mean the door for the diplomatic efforts has been closed,” the diplomatic source from the Chinese Mission to the UN told Xinhua.
The draft was agreed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — and Germany (P5+1) after rounds of intensive consultations in New York since April.
The diplomat said the five permanent members have agreed to give enough time for the 10 non-permanent members to ponder over the “very complicated” draft resolution, adding it probably takes two to three weeks for the Council to vote on the draft.
“This will be a period for the Council members to accumulate consensus through further diplomatic efforts,” said the diplomat.
.
.
With the efforts of China and Russia, the draft circulated to the Council includes contents like disapproving the use of force and the threat to use force as well as maintaining the rights and obligations of international economic and trade.
.
.
“Countries maintain regular, legitimate economic and trade relations with Iran should not be punished due to the Iran nuclear issue,” the diplomat said.
“We believe that the above-mentioned principles have been embodied in the draft resolution, therefore the condition is mature for the circulation of the draft to the entire Council,” he said.
The diplomat said during the process of the negotiation of the draft resolution, China has maintained good contacts with all concerned parties, including Iran. China has updated Iran with the latest development of the discussion and encouraged it to cooperate fully with the international community.
China’s efforts also won recognition from Brazil and Turkey, whose leaders mediated the issue and signed a nuclear fuel swap deal with Iran Monday, said the diplomat.
—————————————————————————–
The question now is whether Lebanaon, Brazil, and Turkey will bargain with their votes to further water down the draft resolution, or simply not engage with the process. I think Iran can live with the current resolution(it may still be able to lean on China and Russia to water down the language with respect to IRISL, which seems to be the only new development of substance), and it’s interests would be best served if it’s allies simply vote against/abstain from the current resolution.(Of course Iran’s allies will be acting now as always, in their own interests)
It’s late and I may be missing a lot.(actually that’s quite likely)
Masoud
b, like the last round of sanctions, a lot has to do with how these potential sanctions are implemented. Last time around, a number of US Navy observers speculated that a literal reading of the sanctions resolution empowered the US to stop Iran related ships. It didn’t happen. Whether or not it will happen with this coming round is again, at this point, an unanswered question.
I’m concerned over the focus on missiles. Missiles are the cornerstone of Iran’s defense, which is based on deterrence. Take away that deterrence from attack, and Iran is pretty much as vulnerable as Iraq was in 2003. Now, there are several types of missiles Iran depends on. There are the anti-Ship variety,some of which Iran assembles from Chinese sources. There are the anti-Aircraft variety, of which Iran has recently purchased the S-300 but Russia is stalling its delivery (under the sanctions, they will be non-deliverable). And most importantly, there are the short range (SRBM) and medium range (MRBM) ballistic missiles, which provide the main deterrent force to Iran’s defense. Once again, it’s open to interpretation, but the sanctions prohibit construction and test use of “nuclear capable” missiles. It’s likely that the US will consider the Shahab and Sejil type MRBMs “nuclear capable”. Also likely to be included are Iran’s space launch vehicles (SLVs), such as the previous Safir series, but most importantly the upcoming Simorgh type (which some observers accuse Iran of a dual-use technology effort toward an ICBM or more efficient nuclear capable MRBM). Keep in mind, that using the so-called nuclear “alleged studies” as a justification, the US (and Israel) are already seeking classified information regarding Iran’s MRBM reentry/warhead design, which would enable their efforts to undermine this missile system. This is the reason Iran pushes back on this particular IAEA request. This element of the newly proposed sanctions further empowers these efforts against Iran’s vital defenses.
Again, b, it’s all in the implementation, as Iran isn’t going to suspend its missile defense or space launch efforts. As such, it certainly represents an escalation of confrontation, inescapable confrontational events in the future (such as MRBM test launches and SLV launches) and the potential for points of actual conflict, particularly at sea.
I love how you two found the most demanding looking/This world is mine pic of Hillary. Hilarious!!
b:
Really quickly, anyone stops an Iranian vessel and we’ve taken a major step on the spiral of hostility. Nothing that has direct Iranian fingerpoints, but Americans definitely die when Iranian ships are stopped.
The resolution just would mean that Bush’s agreement that Iran doesn’t increase its enrichment rate and the US doesn’t bring new sanctions is over. The direct impact of the sanctions is much less than the symbolism.
It’s late and I can’t really give as thoughtful look at the resolution as I’d like. Stopping ships would be an escalation and on first read, the US could claim that is authorized.
THE NYT has the Draft Resolution Clinton wants to push through:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/UNSCR_Iran_18_May_2010_to_UNSC.pdf
On the first view I do not find anything really new in there and certainly nothing “crippling”. This is a dud resolution and even that will not get full UN Security Council acclamation.
What do other folks read from it?
What a surprise – the “international community” have rejected pretty much the same deal they tried to broker less than a year ago.
I do not blame USA to a full extent, because Obama must have resisted a lot of pressure to allow Brazil and Turkey to pursue these negotiations in the first place. I do however blame Israel. They are so afraid of having a nuclear nation within their “sphere of influence” that they will go to any extent to stop such an outcome. They will not stand idly by and allow Iran to gain the capacity to resist Israeli hegemony. I am afraid that military intervention looks more probable every day, because Israel has once again demonstrated that confrontation is its doctrine. They know nothing better.
Other than the obvious disasters of war, I am most afraid that military intervention will retard political reform in Iran. I find it amusing that many people accuse the West and the Zionists of fermenting unrest in Iran, because the West and the Zionists benefit most from the current regime’s confrontational attitude and incompetence. Imagine how “dangerous” a democratic and prosperous Iran would be, threatening the hegemony in the Middle East and wider world!
Persian Gulf
If you are referring to our discussion yesterday, I did mention sanctions have nothing to do with the nuclear issue, sanctions are always been a tool to contain Iran’s economic growth in comparison to other countries in the region, Iran was to be contained since Feb 1979 for one reason and another, as I mentioned short of bringing
Back shah from the grave and having him call Cyrus the great, you will have sanctions, look for a while Iran was to be contained by Iraq (war) then dual containment sanctioning, Iraq (1992) and Iran (1995), when Iraq was attacked Iran’s sanctions need to be more international (UN sanctions), US policy has not changed and I suspect it will not change, no matter who is the president or what party is in power in US. If Iranians want a real democracy they will need to stand up to foreign hegemonic interference first.
INFIDEL:
For your information, at the time you have referred to for Iraq-Iran war, I just started to speak my mother tongue (which happened to be slightly different from the official language of the country). so by no means I can be judged for any wrongdoing at that time! or not raising my voice for to suggest something else! however, as I grew up, I have tried to read different aspects of that history. besides, some of the main actors are still alive, and as they get left out of the daily politics!, I hope they would come up with their first hand information. Masoud also tried to answer you partly. after all, Saddam’s invasion of your current country had vindicated the decision makers in Tehran in not trusting him at all. it is seriously doubtful there was any deal, as is claimed these days, on the table at that time. there was no firm justification for accepting it also. when you are winning a war and have the unique chance to remove a mortal enemy and an aggressor (even though indirectly), there is no reason to do otherwise. you have to see the history as it was. you can’t turn the clock back and judge based on the events that have not come yet. you may rightly say, that is the kind of the job strategic thinkers of a country at the highest level are supposed to do. this is, though a reasonable expectation, not all the time possible in the real life.
as for the old technology; I am myself an engineer, and I do research in the West at the moment. so, I am kind of familiar with the state of the arts, LOL. it is not as easy you think. we have pretty good engineers in Iran seriously speaking. here also you have pointed your gun to the wrong direction. let’s accept your words for the old technology. what is wrong with us to say leave us alone, we want to be happy with that old technology? if it is that old and easy to grasp, it shouldn’t make that much of uneasiness arguably. it shouldn’t bother the advanced west at all. they should instead be happy that we are wasting out time and energy on the wrong direction! after all, you have to start from somewhere. you can’t sleep at night and wake up in the morning with the latest version of Mercedes. and yes, at some point, you have to inject the pride. it’s also a source of national unity and identity (absent any other immediate and viable options) too.
at the end, I didn’t really understand what do you expect of us to do. should we confront whoever has done a damage to us? or go to the engagement direction?
Persian Gulf
“kooshy
at the minimum, I have more to say about the way the deal was brokered. however, as it is now signed by consensus, it is no longer important to stick to the wrong points. we can stand on the deal as it is, and wish for a pleasant outcome.”
Can you please explain what are you referring to?
kooshy
at the minimum, I have more to say about the way the deal was brokered. however, as it is now signed by consensus, it is no longer important to stick to the wrong points. we can stand on the deal as it is, and wish for a pleasant outcome.
Wigwag “The countdown to an American bombing campaign against Iran has begun.”
The countdown started the minute we invaded Iraq. I have been following the Aipac site for seven years. After they changed their action box that was focused on attacking Iraq they switched to being focused on attacking Iran. Had one action effort after the next focused on sanctions against Iran. The last Aipac conference that Ariel Sharon attended there was a Hollywood set to look like an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons site at the conference. Aipac and other Israeli lobbyist have been pounding the hill for seven long years pushing for more aggressive action towards Iran based on unsubstantiated claims.
We have heard the debunked by Professor Juan Cole alleged statement by the Iranian President ‘Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” repeated so many times on our national news outlets it has been hard to keep count. Heard this lie repeated on MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR. Heard David Gregory, Stephanapoulous, Rachel Maddow, Diane Rehm of NPR, Scott Simon Talk of the Nations Neil Conan allow guest after guest repeat this hogwash along with claiming that Iran all ready has a nuclear weapons program. NONE OF THESE CLAIMS CHALLENGED. Hell I have heard Fresh Air’s host Terri Gross repeat these false claims out of her own mouth so many times.
The stage has been set..the lies have been told. Now we are seeing energy commercials that show U.S. tanks being blown up in Iraq with a soldier saying we have to get off middle east oil and then always a picture of Iranian President Ahmadenjad image being shown and claims about how much money we are spending with this “madman” “terrorist”
Oh the I lobby and other warmongers have been setting the stage for an attack on Iran for quite some time. Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration are clearly on board
Not enough people murdered in Iraq for these warmongers. Next stop Iran
“The Obama Administration’s initial response to the Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal suggests that confusion continues to run high in official Washington.”
I don’t think there is confusion I think they know exactly what they are doing. Next stop Iran. No accountability for the deaths, injuries and displaced in Iraq based on a “pack of lies”
Hillary warmongering Clinton made some claims today during this hearing that I hope the leveretts will go over and explain or let us know if what she claimed about Iran is anywhere close to the truth. Clinton said that Iran is enriching uranium above the 20% that they are allowed according to the NPT
Hope folks will listen to what Clinton had to say today
Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Hearing on START Treaty (May 18, 2010)
http://www.c-span.org/
Clinton said today that she had China and Russia on board for more sanctions
Clinton, Obama, our Reps keep repeating “move forward, next chapter, turn the page” “don’t be about retribution, revenge” When was it during the last eight years that justice and accountability for very serious crimes started being defined as “retribution” instead of justice and accountability.
Hundreds of thousands are dead, injured, millions displaced in Iraq and Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration are headed towards more aggression towards Iran.
I know history repeats itself but this is insane and criminal
Unfortunately, I am with WigWag on this. America can’t stand effectively losing against Iraq (Shia control friendly to Iran), Afghanistan (stalemate with time running out) and Iran (a detested regime still in place). Heavier weapons will be called upon: in which case the American people will “unite” (sic), and significant members of a certain unmentionable population will find themselves being bussed at night to Jordan.
But I can’t understand how Liz gets to her conclusion of American ‘defeat’. I think the word victory will be defined by the level of damage done, which will be very great. In terms of damage done, America will ‘win’, Syria, Iran and Lebanon will ‘lose’, and the promise of nuclear damage to come unless friendlier governments are formed will be explicit.
By the way, what is a more reasonable way to define American victory in the Middle East at this point? What would it look like? What is the shape of it? Is it sustainable? Is there evidence of any policy consistent with that broad direction? Or is it like plans for Palestinian statehood: always too little too late, and never meant seriously in the first place?
If Russia hasn’t sent the S-300s yet, it won’t anytime soon. If Russia sends the S-300’s, which I don’t expect, then perhaps the ticking slows.
Did people really expect anything different when the president decides to keep people like Clinton, Gates and Ross in important foreign policy jobs?
The president is no doubt a clever man, and such calculation from him clearly demonstrates that it is more about politics and less about common sense.
It would be a devastating war for everyone. There is no doubt in my mind that it would lead to a global economic desaster and that ultimately the US would be defeated and that it would have to withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan.
You could be right, WigWag.
The countdown to an American bombing campaign against Iran has begun.
“In the end, Clinton is a tragic figure.” If you’re a prostitute, you have to expect to get screwed…
Same goes for Obama. He’s too clever by half, as the whole Iranian “negotiation” showed. Time for him to start living up to the lofty values he espoused during his 2008 campaign.
“In her first game of high-stakes diplomatic poker, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is leaving the table dressed only in a barrel. ” – WSJ May 18 2010
If I were rich as Croesus, or at least Saban, I’d plaster that beauty on billboards from Florida to Washington state, from California to New Hampshire.
You rock, Hil. Now you can roll, too.
In the end, Clinton is a tragic figure: Twice now the entire world has watched as she’s been used and betrayed first by her husband, now, by the influence peddlars who own her. Sad Rahab.
Rehmat,
Great post. The calculated subversion of the national security establishment of the US, by “supporters” of Israel, is one of the great stories of our time. But of course you will not read about it in The New York Times, the Washinton Post, etc etc etc. The US Congress has been totally comprmised.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at the UNSC tomorrow when Hillary circulates the draft…
(I hope the recycling bin is handy!)
In the US, no political leader can dream of working for the interests of his own country. They all compete with each other to prove to the Israel lobby groups (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, etc.) that he/she can look after the interests of a foreign country (Israel) better than his/her opponents. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has pulled the mask from the US democratic charade: “There are many Members of Congress who wants to be free. I am one of them. I wanted to be free to vote according to my conscience, but I had been told that if I did not sign a pledge supporting the military superiority of Israel, no support would come my way. And sure enough, I did not sign the pledge and no support came my way. I suffered silently year in and year out, because I refused to sign the pledge. An then like a slave that found a way to buy his freedom – I went to work – I wanted to be free – Free to cast the vote in US Congress as I saw fit and not as I was dictated to…..” – former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/it-is-not-a-democracy-stupid/
kooshy,
Is Obama the dupe of the warmongers in the US, who want Israel to keep the Golan Heights? Turkey and Russia have told Israel to get out of the Golan Heights. Obama should be saying the same thing. Instead, he accused Syria – — SYRIA – - – of being a threat to the national security of the US! Astounding cr*ap from the president of the US. Do we thank Dennis Ross?
I thought yesterday was a sad day for the American politics and diplomacy, I was wrong, today tops yesterday
Who’s surprised Hillary Clinton utterly fails to see the merits of the proposed deal?
Or, should I venture to say she does not want to recognize the merits of the proposed deal?
The Financial Times had a good leader today on the matter: “Tehran promises exit from labyrinth” (May 18th).