Two documents are driving the Iran-related news these days: the agreement announced Monday on refueling the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) brokered by Brazil and Turkey and the draft “Elements” of a potential new Iran sanctions resolution agreed by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and circulated yesterday to the Council’s 10 non-permanent members. Unfortunately, much of the media has misunderstood the relationship between these two documents.
Clearly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rushed to announce the text of the draft “elements” for a new sanctions resolution to push back against the Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal and show the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—before which she was committed to appear to discuss the new U.S.-Russia “START” agreement—that Washington was still “in control” of the Iranian nuclear issue. Her actions reflected considerable disregard, to say the least, for Brazilian and Turkish diplomatic efforts. As Tehran University professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi said, “The United States just slapped Turkey and Brazil in the face and spit on them afterwards”. (Mohammad went on to describe the United States as “throwing a tantrum”.)
Her actions may also have reflected a certain amount of dishonesty—we do not know what other word to use—on the Obama Administration’s part. In the wake of the Brazil-Turkey deal, the Administration is once again requiring Iran’s suspension of all activities related to uranium enrichment to avoid the imposition of new sanctions. As of Monday, the Administration’s position is that, even if Tehran carried out the steps specified in its agreement with Brazil and Turkey, new sanctions should be adopted unless Iran suspends enrichment activities.
But that had not been the Administration’s position since the Baradei proposal for refueling the TRR was first tabled in October. From that point until this Monday, the Administration repeatedly indicated that Iranian acceptance of the Baradei proposal would preclude the imposition of further sanctions, at least until there had been further negotiations about the broader range of issues associated with the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. At least in the near term, the avoidance of new sanctions was no longer linked to suspension. (Senior British officials told us last fall that this was why, as a matter of policy, Her Majesty’s Government did not want to see the TRR deal go through—because it would then be practically impossible to sanction Iran over its continued refusal to abide by Security Council resolutions calling for suspension.)
Now that Tehran has accepted the main elements of the Baradei proposal—the transfer of 1,200 kilos of low-enriched uranium out of Iran in exchange for new fuel for the TRR—the United States has unilaterally changed the game.
Most of the Western media bought into Secretary Clinton’s narrative before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday—that Washington has regained the diplomatic upper hand, and the P-5 are ready to go forward with new sanctions. We believe that the situation is much more complicated—and much riskier for the United States—than conventional wisdom currently allows. Getting P-5 agreement on a substantially watered-down and incomplete draft sanctions resolution (more on that below) is one thing. Getting P-5 agreement on scheduling that draft resolution for formal discussion and, ultimately, a vote in the Security Council is something else. Ensuring nine affirmative votes for the resolution—and avoiding deep divisions in the Council—is something else again.
Brazil and Turkey—both non-permanent members of the Security Council—are already indicating that they are not about to roll over in the face of Secretary Clinton’s bluster. Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoğlu says that Prime Minister Erdoğan will personally lobby his P-5 counterparts not to torpedo the Brazil-Turkey deal by prematurely passing a new sanctions resolution; Davutoğlu himself will work with the 10 non-permanent members. We expect that Brazil will also be intensively involved in efforts to slow the sanctions train. And, behind China’s statement of ongoing support for the two-track approach, Chinese sources are indicating that, while it may not be harmful to have the language of a new sanctions resolution ready to go in case the Brazil-Turkey deal falls apart, successful implementation of that deal could obviate the need for new sanctions.
With regard to a potential new sanctions resolution, the draft “elements” circulated to the full membership of the Security Council yesterday reflect—as we have been predicting for some time—major substantive concessions/surrenders by the Obama Administration.
–To win Russian and Chinese support, Washington had to give up on any idea of a ban on new investment or other measures that might have impeded Iran’s ability to produce and export hydrocarbons.
–The Administration had wanted a comprehensive embargo on arms sales to Iran, but had to settle for restrictions on transfers of a few specific categories of weapons systems.
–The Administration had wanted a comprehensive ban on financial dealings with the Revolutionary Guards and Revolutionary Guards-affiliated entities, but had to settle for the application of previously authorized asset freezes and travel restrictions to specified Revolutionary Guards elements, to be identified in one of the annexes to a new resolution. Tellingly, there is, at this point, no agreement among the Security Council’s permanent members regarding which Revolutionary Guards elements are to be included in the annex.
–Contrary to some media reports, the draft language would not authorize forcible boarding of Iranian vessels on the high seas.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
I have been looking all over for your knowledge… I am relieved anybody definitely has got the reply to an incredibly simple subject. You’ve virtually no perception the quantity of webpages We have also been to throughout the last hour or so. Regards for that info
Fiorangela,
I recommend David Blair’s comments in the Financial Times May 20th: “Threat of war across region is unspoken realisation”.
I think the US has no reason to attack Iran, but I am concerned that those warmongers and proponents of the insane “Greater Israel” scheme will set up yet another idiotic war, rather than do the obvious correct move: Tell Israel to end the occupation of the Golan Heights and the West Bank.
Fiorangela,
I agree totally that a relentless effort to expose the lying, deceptions, ruses, scams, etc., that set up the illegal invasion of Iraq and that may very well set up an insane war with Iran, should go forward. I think the campaign fares better, and obtains important confidential information more readily, if it is clearer that Iran in fact is not trying to build nukes on the sly. Keep in mind here the ten-minute maximum attention frame possessed by most Americans.
Bussed-In Basiji, The US has become too big to fail. The resolution of that situation on a federal level is the same as it is regarding too big to fail financial conglomerates: let them fail, break them up. Defederalized states — and community banks — can more closely represent the people they serve and reflect their community’s values. Perhaps if enough stated seceded from the union, Washington and the Pentagon would be forced to rely on only the resources of K Street to wage wars; starve the beast can apply to defense contractors as well as to ‘entitlement’ programs, and (are you listening Grover Norquist?) a battleship can be run aground for lack of funds as readily as a government agency can be drowned in a bathtub.
Over a 1400 year period after the collapse of the Roman empire, Italy survived and prospered as a series of (disputatious) city-states. The varying states developed innovative ways of governing, of conducting trade and commerce, of art and culture. Good things come in small packages!
James Canning, while I understand and am sympathetic with your view that Iran should try to stay under the radar by not enriching to 20%, a view that is fundamentally consistent with Eric’s belief that Iran should try to weather the storm from the West while developing relationships with regional partners, I don’t think creating a record of virtue will in any way affect the propaganda machine. Propaganda starts in the mind and agenda of the creator of the misinformation, not on the facts of the target. The only way I know to counter propaganda is by exposing its falsehoods, as many times as the lie is repeated, if that’s possible.
“After nearly a solid week of railing against the supposed “threat” posed by Iran’s move to enrich uranium to 20 percent, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the US “do not believe they have the capability” to enrich the uranium to the 20 percent level, as President Ahmadinejad claimed earlier today.” http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/11/white-house-iran-doesnt-have-ability-to-enrich-uranium-to-20-percent/ — Antiwar.com Feb. 11.
The USA can’t seem to keep its story straight, and for that reason the real “international community” (most of the world) is getting ever more sick of Washington’s hypocrisy and posturing on Iran, Israel, the NPT, etc. in obvious preparation for a repeat of the Iraqi adventure. The price of oil would soar so high that the debt ridden EU countries would bankrupt, and the rest of the world’s economies would be strongly set back. Brazil and Turkey, the BRIC countries, UNASUR, and others have to act to deter US lunacy.
Dan,
I agree that a number of US leaders want to punish Iran for its support of the Palestinians and the Syrians, and that the nuclear issue is a covenient excuse they exploit. On the other hand, far too many Americans actually believe Iran is trying to develop nukes for use in a surprise attack. If Iran continues to enrich U to 20% even when it is obvious that the fuel rods for the Tehran reactor cannot be made by Iran, the suspicions and fears of millions of Americans are easily aroused on this score.
Of course Californians would also be justified to be upset that Ross, Holbrooke, Emanuel etc. have decided that their children should be sent overseas to be killed and maimed to guarantee the return of Baathis to power in Iraq and in order to make power-sharing deals with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Fio Leo
Good to have you on board. Some thoughts for your pleasure.
Because of the legacy of the civil rights movement, progressives in the US have unfortunately stuck to very rigid dogma that glorifies strong federalism and federal government, pacificism and US global presence. This dogma has fostered a Democratic party that never seriously challenged American imperialism and the effects this has on American republicanism and democracy. The result is the Democratic party of Hillary, Albright, Ross, Holbrook, Rahm Emanuel etc.
Progressives should reconsider their devotion to federalism. There was a time when a strong progressive federal govt. stood up to regressive and racist state govt. Today its the opposite in the case of progressive states like California (or Vermont or New Mexico). A strong regressive fed govt. dominated by a combination of conservative and zionists pressuring relatively progressive populations of the mentioned states and creating a democratic deficit in the country. It would be very reasonable if the citizens of California decided to go it alone because they have had enough of their taxes being spent on imperial wars based decisions made by nutcases from Wyoming (Cheney) and Conneticut (Lieberman).
Progs. should reconsider their blind support of all things global. A little isolationism is not so bad.
Progs. should reconsider their pacificism. Everybody in the US is armed except progressives (the feds, the tea partyers, the various gangs this and that side of the border). Being armed helps you when you are peacefully negotiating.
r – I thought about the Civil war and decided it was not a rebellion against government for some reason, perhaps because the war was fought by opposing armies, not by citizens massed against their government, and because I could not categorize it as an attempt to overthrow the existing government.
The Viet Nam war protests may rise to the level of rebellion; I’d weasel that the rebellion was against a policy, not to overthrow existing government. I’d just watched reports of the mayhem in Thailand and used that as benchmark; Viet Nam protests did not rise to the same level of suffering endured, disruption inflicted. But you may be right….
In any event, we need a rebellion now. Our government is oppressing its citizens and it is carrying out homicidal policies against others, in our name and with our collusion. In 13th century Italy, to resist paying taxes was considered an act of patriotism since the governments were oppressing their own people as well as other, and courageous people did not wish to collude in that. I don’t see such a sentiment in the US.
We told you so.
Washington and Tel Aviv have always been looking for an excuse to isolate or attack Iran.
No matter what Iran does, the west will imposing sanctions on Iran and will reject any deal in order to satisfy their masters “the Israel power configurations”.
Even if Iran did not have a nuclear program, they would have found another excuse to impose sanctions.
Fiorangela wrote and I quote:
“The US is not bargaining in good faith, it never has and it never will.
If Iran agrees to a certain standard, US will move the bar.”
This is exactly what has been happening recently.
Iran’s crime is its independence and its technological success.
Iran has improved tremendously in the field of science and technology and is becoming a big power and a big player in the Middle East. This is intolerable to Israel and its backers in the USA.
The more you think about it, the more you realize what a perfect move this was. Even some internal critics who claim that this deal could have been done back in October are wrong. It would have been wrong to do it in October. By doing it now, between Turkey and Brazil (and not the West) is the best move.
Its obvious that Turkey was sure that this deal would get the west’s approval, otherwise the PM would not have canceled his Azerbaijan trip and rushed to Iran to close it. This, for him, was to be the missing link between the West & East, something Turkey has been working on. But with the West’s defiance, it pushes Turkey more towards the East’s side. With Turkey being ignored by EU, its defense of the Palestinians, its recent tv shows and music being devoured by the middle east, and this deal, it is slowly becoming the champion of the muslims. Turkey is one of the few countries in the middle east that its growing influence will not harm Iran but help it, and I think vise versa. The Arabs are growing irrelevant as the future of the middle east looks bright for Turkey & Iran being the new champions of the Middle East, as I’m sure Iran will grow slightly more secular and Turkey more Islamist as they find the balance religion needs to find in the middle east.
And at the same time you have Brazil. An emerging economic powerhouse that US, like all arrogant superpowers, will ignore until its too late. Brazil has the ability to fill in the leadership void that South America has had for decades that no leader has been able to fill. Hugo Chavez while having some charisma and machismo to appeal to the masses, does not have the economy to pull the neighbors towards him. Brazil does, and for countries that are tired of US imperialism but are concerned about Chavez style populism, Brazil is the perfect alternative.
And someone said that China & Russia may not be happy about Brazil and Turkey’s new rising influences so would support the sanctions strongly. I would disagree. China & Russia have no concerns about Brazil & Turkey’s power. For China & Russia, both these two new emerging powers are playing in USA’s field. Brazil being in South America and Turkey in Middle East, two regions that are under America’s sphere of influence. Therefore, the growth of Turkey & Brazil is not eating in their pie, but America, which is something that would benefit Russia and China.
It also lifts the Iran pressure from them. China & Russia have always wanted weak sanctions on Iran but they did not want to actively defend Iran as it would cost them their relationship with America, so they were always doing a balancing act. With this new deal, Russia and China can let Turkey and Brazil do the heavy work and they can relax a bit. They can throw a few breadcrumbs at America and sit back and relax.
Aside from America, China, and Russia, the rest of the P5+1 can be ignored as they are just US drones for now.
As Iranians correctly suspected, US was completely dishonest in Oct. Geneva negotiation with Iran
U.S. Says Only Reason for Talks with Iran Is Enrichment Halt
Analysis by Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, May 19, 2010 (IPS) – The agreement on draft Security Council resolution sanctions against Iran has grabbed the headlines on the Barack Obama administration’s response to Iran’s nuclear swap proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. But the more consequential response is the acknowledgement by the U.S. State Department Monday that the administration is not willing to hold talks with Iran unless it agrees to a complete halt in uranium enrichment.
That announcement was accompanied by the revelation that the objective of the original swap proposal last autumn was to get Iran to agree to eventually to suspend its enrichment programme.
The Obama administration had not previously declared publicly that it was demanding an end to all enrichment by Iran, and had suggested directly and indirectly that it wanted a broader diplomatic engagement with Iran covering issues of concern to both states.
The new hard line ruling out broader diplomatic engagement with Iran and the new light on the strategy behind last year’s swap proposal confirms what has long been suspected – that the debate within the Obama administration last year over whether to abandon the demand for an end to Iranian uranium enrichment as unrealistic had been won by proponents of the zero enrichment demand by late summer 2009.
U.S. State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Monday the United States would not negotiate with Iran on its proposal to send 1,200 kilogrammes of low enriched uranium to Turkey to be replaced with 120 kilogrammes of fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor, unless the Iranians agree to take up the broader subject of their nuclear programme – and specifically an end to their uranium enrichment programme.
Responding to a question about the U.S. willingness to meet with Iran on the new proposal, Crowley said, “[I]f it’s willing to engage the P5+1, “then it has to commit that it’s willing to engage the P5+1 on its nuclear programme.”
The P5+1 groups the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.
Crowley noted that Iran had offered to have discussions with “the international community” but not about its nuclear programme. “[I]n our view, the only reason to have that discussion,” Crowley said, “first and foremost, would be to address our core concerns in the – with regard to Iran’s nuclear programme.”
Crowley revealed for the first time that the original proposal for Iran to swap 1,200 kilogrammes of low enriched uranium for 120 kilogrammes of uranium enriched to nearly 20 percent roughly a year later “was meant as a means to a larger end, which was to get Iran to fundamentally address its – concerns the international community has”.
He went on to explain that “the fact that Iran…continues to enrich uranium and has failed to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, as has been called for in the U.N. Security Council resolutions: that’s our core concern.”
Crowley was clearly suggesting that the talks which were supposed to follow Iran’s acceptance of the deal would be focused on ending its nuclear enrichment programme rather than on addressing the sources of conflict between the United States and Iran.
Last October, the swap proposal was presented as a “confidence building measure” that would gain enough time for a broader diplomatic dialogue between Iran and the United States to take place. It would allow the Obama administration to argue with Israel that Iran had temporarily given up its “breakout capability” by transferring most of its low enriched uranium abroad.
Mohammed ElBaradei, the lame duck director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), declared on Oct. 21 that the swap agreement “could pave the way for a complete normalisation of relations between Iran and the international community”.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly argued, moreover, that the swap proposal implicitly accepted Iran’s right to enrich uranium, although nothing in the proposal addressed that issue.
The history of the swap proposal shows, however, that its origins were intertwined with the objective of halting Iranian uranium enrichment.
Gary Samore, Obama’s chief adviser on nuclear proliferation, devised the swap deal. He had published a paper in December 2008 with co-author Bruce Reidel of the Brookings Institution proposing that the new administration demand that Iran’s LEU be exported to Russia to be converted into fuel rods for the Bushehr reactor in order take away Iran’s nuclear “break-out capability”.
Ironically, it was Ahmadinejad’s public suggestion of interest in a straight commercial deal under which Iran would send LEU to any country that would enrich it to 20 percent for the Tehran Research Reactor that led to the formulation of the swap proposal.
Samore simply shifted the focus of that proposal from Bushehr to the Tehran Research Reactor, and it quickly became a P5+1 initiative to temporarily strip Iran of nearly 80 percent of its low enriched uranium.
Samore was known to be a strong proponent of demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment programme, who privately expressed certainty that Iran intends to manufacture nuclear weapons. He had publicly expressed pessimism that Iran would accept any proposal demanding an end to enrichment without a credible military threat, whether by the United States or Israel.
Before entering the administration Samore had advocated offering a lifting of economic sanctions, assurances against regime change and even normalisation of relations as inducements to accept that demand.
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.
Proponents of the zero enrichment option were confident enough to leak to the press the fact that the aim of broader talks with Iran would be to end enrichment entirely. The Washington Post reported Oct. 22, 2009 that U.S. officials commenting on the proposed uranium swap “stressed that the deal would be only the first step in a difficult process to persuade Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and that suspension remains the primary goal”.
Now the administration has given up whatever flexibility it had previously retained to adjust its position in the face of a firm Iranian rejection of the zero enrichment demand. That position portends a continuation of high and possibly rising tensions between the United States and Iran for the remainder of Obama’s administration.
*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.
Oh God, I just had to share this with someone. I mean how often is Fox News right on the money?
BAIER: The administration is bringing new sanctions against Iran to the U.N. Security Council, and they say it looks optimistic. We’ve heard that before. But the Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice came out late this afternoon saying the goal of the new resolution is to increase the cost to Iran’s leadership for their continued defiance, and second, to persuade Iran that it is in its continued interest to peacefully resolve concerns about its nuclear program.
What about this latest effort after the latest moves by Iran? We’re back with the panel. Charles?
KRAUTHAMMER: I will go out on a limb and say that this resolution will not persuade Iran to abandon its nukes. It’s incredibly weak. First of all, we say the Russians and the Chinese are on board, yes. But the State Department even admits they will be stripping stuff from the existing resolution as it’s presented.
Secondly, it doesn’t even include anything of importance. For example, the blacklisting of the Iranian central bank would have been extremely effective in cutting off investment. The Russians stripped it out in advance. It’s not in there.
Second, there is nothing about restrictions on oil and gas, which is the lifeline of the Iranian regime.
Third, there’s nothing about preventing insuring Iranian cargo, which if it had gone in effect, prevention of that, would cripple its trade. So nothing of the effectiveness is left in there and it’s going to be weakened further.
And I would add that Turkey and Brazil, who yesterday conspired in this sham uranium maneuver, are on the Security Council and will oppose even these sanctions. Lebanon is the chairman. It’s under Syrian control. It will also oppose these sanctions. These are very few and weak sanctions and they will squeak through.
BAIER: A.B., looking at that picture, Secretary Clinton testified today about the START treaty separately, but said: “With all due respect to my Turkish and Brazilian friends, the fact we had Russia on board and China on board on this new resolution, we were moving,” namely today, she said, “for this text to put pressure on Iran, and they somehow reached a deal.”
This was a bad picture for the administration.
STODDARD: It puts them in an extremely awkward position. The deal with Brazil and Turkey frightens the Israelis and brings Iran closer to break-out capacity. They are on the march for nuclear weapons capability before our very eyes.
And our question now is those briefed on the sanctions agreement say that the door remains open to Iran and that it still seeks to engage Iran. And we just need to know what this means. How? And what does China or Russia plan to strip out or water down? I think we don’t know tonight what it means.
BAIER: Steve?
HAYES: This is not just a failure or collapse of the policy. It’s a humiliation. In part because what you see Iran doing deftly is use exactly the arguments that the administration used in first several months talking about how it will engage the international community. There wasn’t going to be one group of nations that was more powerful than another. This was all going to be done on a cooperative basis. Nobody would be bossing others around, nobody was going to be telling people what to do.
That is exactly what we have seen happen and the Iranians are saying, look we say could strike a deal with Turkey and Brazil that means every bit as much as the deal you’re striking with Russia and China and you have to deal with it.
These are sanctions that if they had been put into place in 2004 we might be seeing some of the effects today. But you’re talking about something that is way too little and far too late to have any serious effect.
BAIER: And Charles, we always point out that all along Iran is still enriching uranium.
KRAUTHAMMER: Nothing is stopping it, even the agreement with the Turks and Brazilians is meaningless in terms of stopping its program. These sanctions will have zero effect. We will have lateral sanctions afterwards and they will have zero effect as well. We have no policy remaining.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593179,00.html
The US has definitely alienated Brazil and Turkey, two members of the UNSC: “Brazil and Turkey on Wednesday called on the other members of the United Nations Security Council to refrain from adopting sanctions against Iran.”
“Negotiations on the individuals and entities to be subjected to travel bans and asset freezes began Tuesday evening with Brazil refusing to engage in any dialogue, French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud told reporters here on Wednesday.”
“When a reporter asked if France was seeking a consensus on the resolution, Araud said: ‘No, we want a resolution.’”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-05/20/c_13304442.htm
Lots of palms are going to be greased in Gabon, Nigeria, Uganda, Lebanon and Mexico, all currently on the UNSC.
The Iran nuclear deal and the new premier league of global powers
Brazil and Turkey are determined to pursue diplomacy and compromise – even if it means upsetting Washington
By Simon Tisdall
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25481.htm
“Americans have never rebelled against their own government, certainly not to end a neoimperialist war which, by definition, is waged on another’s soil.” (Fiorangela Leone, 19 May, 5:22pm)
– I think you have missed the civil war and the general (mainly student) uprisings about the Vietnam war (remember the Kent State University killings?)
“Non-Stop Lies and Ruthless propaganda” over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons to turn the international public opinion against Iran, will be counterproductive.
The west must treat Israel, Iran and North Korea equally.
Crime is a crime, whether it is committed by Israel, Iran or North Korea, the punishment and the sanction should apply equally to each one of them.
As Israel is already an illegal possessor of nuclear weapons and has a fanatical government that is capable of using them, crippling sanctions should be applied to Israel to force it to disarm and not to Iran.
The hypocrisy is almost impossible to stomach; the West preaches democracy yet violates its fundamental principles.
The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian none-existent nuclear weapon suggests that many American and Israelis have a stake in the outcome.
Much of the uproar, Lies and propaganda over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons is done by the Israeli lobby.
It is merely a way to paint Iran as a threat in order to brainwash the international public opinion and justify an attack.
Under pressure from Israel lobby, Obama is now employing the same tactic, creating fear over nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons.
If we don’t heed the lessons of history about the evil propaganda that USA and Israel used against Sadaam’s WMD, and if we ignore how sophisticated and evil the present PR campaigns are against IRI and Iran’s none existent nu-clear weapons , then we will have another tragedy in Iran far greater than Iraq.
This will be the catalyst for a million more tragedies in the years to come – the only difference being that you won’t see the deaths of those Iranian victims being broadcast on the BBC, Fox News or CNN, as the tragic death of Neda was for propaganda purpose.
Liz wrote:
“Ordinary people were outraged, but government officially seemed to be expecting the US to push forward with new sanctions and greater confrontation. People that I know think the Tehran declaration was a very clever move and they were very impressed.”
Well done, Ms. Clinton. You’ve enhanced the image of Iran’s “odious, repressive, needs to be overthrown regime” in the eyes of ordinary Iranians.
_____
Had anyone noticed that late March/early April, Ahmadinejad travelled to Qom to mend fences with ayatollahs. They counseled him to dial back the 12th Imam rhetoric, but not too much else to criticize. Interesting that Ahmadinejad “engages with the adversary.”
It would be interesting to know how Mousavi, the Greens, the mullahs, Rafsanjani, etc. are viewing this nuclear debacle. Nothing like a common enemy to galvanize a stressed political system. otoh, if US and Israel keep up the pressure, which is likely (Israel played another round of war games of the How will Israel fare against nuclear Iran? variety), Iranian reform will likely slide further down the list of priorities; Iran will have to concentrate on defense, prepare for assaults. Government will become more, not less, authoritarian. Trying to decide if the proper word to characterize US behavior is Stupid or Evil. Leaning toward evil. certainly unhelpful and maliciously so.
James Canning,
Nothing happens in the international arena in a jiffy, well, unless you discount Hill’s recent tantrums. This issue will be milked to it’s fullest before the fuel is delivered to Iran. The fuel that Iran has the right to purchase outright without any swap. BTW, the TRR requires plated U20% (addition of aluminum to stabilize the material for long term usage), technology that from what I understand Iran does not possess.
State Terror in the Name of Peace
Three US Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, Clinton, Bush and Obama provided billions of dollars in arms, and hundreds of advisers to promote 30,000 narco death squad killers and 300,000 soldiers who are instrumental in Uribe’s achievement of “world records”.
Let us remember, and punish, past and present crimes against humanity, but let us also move ahead in the quest for dialogue among those willing because they are the majority who believe in peace through Justice.
The first casualty of state terror is the corruption of language, the invention of euphemisms, where words mean their opposite and slogans cover great crimes: There is no longer a world consensus that condemns crimes against humanity.
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1805&more=1&c=1
Sakineh,
One issue worth exploring is whether the necessary nuclear material is currently available from France. If so, delivery should be something that could be arranged fairly quickly. If Iran continues to enrich to 20%, even if the delivery of the 20% U from France was imminent, very little would be created in a short time frame.
The question really is what measures would benefit Iran most in the arena of world public opinion, as compared with domestic opinion.
Castellio
Precisely the main aim of any siege including the last 30 years of Iran’s is to facilitate and encourage an internal uprising so there wouldn’t be a need don’t to get down and dirty and actually fight, I will be much less costly if you can make them surrender. But admittedly US’s 3 decades of siege on Iran has not bear fruit, and I can’t see how it ever will.
James Canning,
Under IAEA safeguards Iran is allowed to enrich U to 19.9%.
US is asking for full suspension now. Iranians are not going to suspend the 3.5 or 19.9 needed for the TRR. There is nothing that says the deal won’t fall through and they’d be left high and dry vis-a-vis TRR. You cannot ask them to stop until the fuel is delivered.
It seems the former western colonial powers are about to replay their treacherous tricks as they did in 1948 to bring Israel into UN – backdoor bargaining and blackmail of the 10 non-permanent members.
Anyone who study Zionist past history in Europe objectively, would find that they lied, deceived and cheated people German by collaborating with Nazis; Russians under the guise of Communism; Italian while co-operating with Musolini’s fascist regime; British by declaring war against Germany, and American by draging them into WW II on British side, which promised them to divide Muslim-majority Palestine for European Jewry. Herzl even tried to fool Vatican – when he suggested to world Jewish leaders to convert to Catholism in a public ceremony, if the Pope promise to eradicate anti-Semitism within Christian societies.
Karl Marx, Lenin and Herzl – though pretended to be Atheists – but they could not get rid of their inborn hatred of Gentile. Under Communist rule, thousands of churches and mosques were destroyed, but not a single Synagogue was touched. Similarly, both Christian and Muslim communities were persecuted and tens of millions of Christians and Muslims were killed – but not a single Jewish community was persecuted.
Edwin N. Wright, an American State official and expert on Middle East affairs – and the author of book The Greatest Zionist Cover-up said in an interview:
“President Truman was a US politician, needed Jewish money and votes to win an election. To the Zionists, Truman was a Messianic Savior chosen by Destiny…..I am not sure the Esther model is the one to hope for. Esther got her Gentile King (of Persia) drunk, then wheedled his signet ring and then sent an order to the Jews – so they slew 75,000 innocent Persians (Esther 9:16). The Book of Esther is not history. It is a parody. The Ahasuerus of Esther is probably the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes (165 BC) and Mordechai is probably a symbol for Judas Macabues. Esther represents the beautiful dream of a Messianic Jewish state. There is lesson nevertheless in this immoral and violent story. A political marriage of any political power with Messianic Zionism is certain to produce disaster.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/how-the-west-got-fooled/
Cyrus,
You underscore the utter imbecility of US policy toward Iran. But I think Iran would be wise to suspend the 20% U enrichment.
Fiorangela,
Yes, the warmongers and neocons swim in a cess pit, and Stuart Levey does their bidding. Is Obama becoming a stooge of the Israel lobby?
Why are we even here? Because the US didn’t allow Iran to simply buy the fuel for the TRR. Excuse me for tooting my own horn: From IranAffairs.com:
The TRR is a relatively small and quite well-known nuclear reactor which operates under full IAEA safeguards; it is not a weapons risk except to the most feverish imagination, and has a legitimate, humanitarian purpose. So, why did the US insist that Iran not be permitted to buy the fuel on the open market as usual to power the reactor as in the past? After all, the US is the party who argues that Iran doesn’t really need any indigenous enrichment capability because it can always freely buy all the reactor fuel it needs on the open market … Well, obviously not!
And if the purpose was to prevent Iran from getting closer to making nuclear weapons, then surely this was a ridiculous thing to do since the Iranians simply turned around and started making 20% enriched uranium on their own, which (as our media tell us constantly) puts Iran closer to making bombs than ever before.
And if the purpose was to “close the loophole in the NPT” which allows countries to enrich their own uranium by restricting uranium enrichment to a few countries, then the signatures of two major “emerging nations” — Turkey and Brazil — on the swap proposal, which explicitly asserts that enrichment as a right in its very first Article, has to be seen as another defeat for the US position.
Nevermind the greater opportunity this fiasco has provided the Iranian government to burnish its nationalistic credentials at home where Iran’s nuclear program is massively popular, whilst portraying the US as intransigent and untrustworthy.
JohnH,
My understanding is that the Chinese investment programme in Iranian oil and gas, will continue. Iran already has under construction additional refinery capacity, to ensure an ability to produce sufficient petrol to supply the domestic market.
Hillary Clinton is turning in a pathetic performance, which of course was to be expected.
The Leveretts and Ben should be awarded some major award on the strength of their pictures alone. This is something i’ve wanted to comment on for months, but it always somehow escapes me.
I say give em at least a Pulitzer.
Masoud
Under what authority does Stuart Levey and the US Dept of Treasury implement constraints on other nations’s financial institutions dealing with Iran?
Even more: recently Financial Times reported that KPMG had terminated dealings with Iran after being pressured to do so by a LOBBYING group. Where does a lobby group find authority to act in the name of the United States to coerce corporations in other nations to restrict commerce with Iran?
The lobby organization in the KPMG situation is United Against Nuclear Iran, http://unitedagainstnucleariran.com/about/coalition It looks suspiciously like a new iteration of one of its members, the Iran Task Force organized by UJF Pittsburgh in early 2007, padded out with such worthies as John Hagee, Michael Ledeen, Pat Robertson, and waving the affirmation of Dennis Ross, James Woolsey, and fellow swimmers in the neocon cesspool.
Does anyone know the status of Sinopec’s MOU with Iran? Last November Sinopec agreed to double Iran’s oil refining capacity, which would essentially eliminate Iran’s need to import refined oil products, which constitute 80% of their overall imports.
For sanctions to work, Iran has to import something. Unfortunately for Washington, Iran has been on an import substitution binge. And they are plowing lots of money into universities educating scientists and technical people, which will allow them to start producing more high tech products, further reducing their remaining import dependency.
Fiorangela Leone,
Yes. I live in Iran at the moment. Ordinary people were outraged, but government officially seemed to be expecting the US to push forward with new sanctions and greater confrontation. People that I know think the Tehran declaration was a very clever move and they were very impressed.
Liz, 3 thoughts:
1. do you have links to reactions among Iranian public?
2. what a grand irony: one of the explicitly stated purposes of the first rounds of sanctions on Iran was to so enrage the Iranian public that they would riot, rise up against their government and overthrow the regime.
3. as I type this I’m listening to a lecture by Robert Higgs http://www.fff.org/comment/com0810d.asp title, How Neo Imperialist Wars End. One major point Higgs drives home is that to the elites who wage war IN THEIR OWN INTEREST, the public does not matter. Further, Higgs says, ominously, “only when it appears the elites may be required to pay a personal price that outbalances their self-interest, will the war end.”
Americans have never rebelled against their own government, certainly not to end a neoimperialist war which, by definition, is waged on another’s soil.
Iranians, Thai, Palestinians — all have proven themselves more courageous than Americans, who are, oh dear, growing weary of war.
4th point: Americans look to Iran to save America from America’s government.
Where is b____ basiji to embroider the scarlet letter C on our tunics?
You may be right, Kooshy, but let’s remember that the US is fighting both outside Iran, trying to reduce its imports and exports, and within Iran, funding and coordinating anti-state activities.
The policy is not simply a siege, it’s a siege plus an uprising. And I think Obama has bought right into that two-track strategy. Nor do I think there is much light between HRC and him on that.
Now everyone should understand why Iran correctly and smartly was insisting on objective guarantee for the fuel leaving Iran, for sure Iran wouldn’t have seen any 20% TRR fuel returned
The October deal was a sham, which was to take majority of processed LEU out of Iran, and later declare since based on UNSC resolutions, this LEU was processed illegally it can’t be returned or accepted, in case you missed it the new Tehran 3 declaration specifically mentions that Iran like other signatories of NPT has the right to full fuel cycle, if this declaration is accepted by the 1+4+1 then the previous UNSC sanctions ordering Iran to stop enrichment becomes irrelevant and knoll, but as suspected by Iran this is not about the nuclear fuel of 3.5% or 20% , it was always is about the sanctions.
For US strategic planners sanctions are suppose to work like in the way of old world’s wars, a concurring army completely encircles a town or fortress till they surrender. But not necessarily this tactic will always work in many cases the concurring army has worn down and eventually agrees to a peace declaration, or ultimately is been defeated. By just looking at the history of US wars in past 50 years, and specially the current domestic and international US positions one can’t be optimistic that US can ultimately achieve to bend Iran’s will.
There doesn’t seem to be anyone in the White House that realizes how angry the Iranian public is towards the US after what Clinton said.
On the other side of the coin, what pressure is Iran under, from Turkey, China and Brazil?
This is exactly why the Islamic Republic of Iran felt it required guarantees for the nuclear swap. Now that the “world arrogance” has once again moved the nuclear goal posts, this time around it isn’t just lonely old Iran. It’s Iran+Brazil+Turkey. And even though that doesn’t match the power wielded by the “world arrogance”, the “world arrogance” is forfeiting a lot of credibility in its exposed game of obvious hypocrisy and double standard.