(Photo Credit: State Department)
This post also appears at The Washington Note.
Iranian Petroleum Minister Masoud Mirkazemi’s visit to Turkey last week highlighted Turkey’s multifarious equities vis-a-vis Iran.
A new article by Kadir Ustun, “Turkey’s Iran Policy: Between Diplomacy and Sanctions” in the current issue of Insight Turkey offers a Turkish perspective on Ankara’s relations with Tehran in the context of the nuclear issue and relations with the United States.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the piece.
First, while Ustun does not say this explicitly, he indicates that Turkey must keep some distance from the United States in order to maintain its credibility in the Middle East. During the Cold War, many Arab countries viewed Turkey with suspicion due to its close ties with the United States and Turkey has no interest in allowing anti-Americanism to prevent Ankara from exerting regional influence. This sentiment is understandably unpopular in Washington, but it is a fact of life for Turkey.
Second, Turkey sees itself as a natural candidate to mediate regional conflicts. Turkey’s leaders relish this role both because they view the resolution of local conflicts as in Turkey’s national interests and because mediation raises Turkey’s international profile and is popular at home. Effective mediation requires maintaining positive relations with all sides. Therefore, Ustun says that “Turkey saw no choice but to vote ‘no’ to the sanctions [on Iran] in order to protect its reputation as an honest broker.”
It is noteworthy that while Turkey has been (rightly) subjected to vehement criticism in Washington for its over-the-top reaction to the Gaza Flotilla crisis, many of those same people have criticized Ankara for seeking to maintain friendly relations with Tehran. The fact is that Turkey is most valuable as a partner when it enjoys friendly relations with all of the Middle East’s major stakeholders.
With that goal in mind, Ustun’s major theme is that Iran simply believes that diplomacy, rather than sanctions and threats, is the best way for the international community to engage the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is the crux of the problem between Turkey and the United States and will remain so until either the United States engages in more vigorous engagement or Turkey determines that diplomacy has failed and that a more confrontational policy is necessary.
– Ben Katcher
Eric — the bargaining chip I was referring to was signing the AP. Many Southern states refuse to sign it unless they get some concessions from the nuclear-armed countries in return.
Alan,
A primary reason to move forward rapidly with the proposed “exchange” is to establish trust, and demonstrate an ability to make a deal work. Enlarging the scope invites interference from Israel, the Israel lobby, and the neocons (and associated warmongers).
James:
“One element of a deal for Iran to ship LEU to Turkey, for the 20% fuel for the TRR, is that Iran would suspend enrichment to 20%. I would expect this suspension to be permanent. Iranian enrichment to 20% was a primary cause of Russian and Chinese support for the latest UN sanctions.
If the US/EU etc can strike a deal up front for suspension of enrichment to 20%, it already moves beyond a TRR deal and addresses the core of the dispute. In so doing, I think it must also address the UNSC resolutions, sanctions, and Iran’s non-compliance with the IAEA, simply because anything partial to grease the wheels of a TRR deal alone will create too much precedent and/or contradict the international “legal” landscape that is already in force.
I do not think the US/EU will want to provide Iran with any elbow room by separating the TRR from the main issue again.
Mr Hack,
We should keep in mind that the neocons (and associated warmongers) only claim to want Iran to enter into negotiations, and that the sanctions are instead intended to dupe the American public into believing the warmongers tried to achieve a fair resolution of the situation.
This is a primary reason the negotiations should move forward quickly on the “exchange” of LEU for the 20% U for the TRR.
Richard Steven Hack,
Did G W Bush intend to attack Iraq, even before he was elected in 2000? The neocons certainly were conspiring to set up an attack on Iraq, to achieve regime change. Even during the campaign, Bush talked about a modest, quiet foreign policy.
Dreyfuss couldn’t be more wrong on just about everything:
“Talks on Iran’s nuclear program will resume in September, and despite the war bluster from neocons and the far right, the Obama administration seems prepared to try once again.”
Irrelevant. Nobody expects Obama to just arbitrarily launch an attack. Even Bush didn’t do that for over two years, despite having fully intended to attack Iraq since before he was elected.
“From discussions with U.S. officials, here’s what I’ve gleaned about the administration’s policy on Iran. First, there is no appetite whatsoever, and no serious consideration, being given to a military attack on Iran. Not even Dennis Ross, the hawkish aide at the National Security Council, brings up the possibility of a military strike, U.S. officials tell me.”
And those US officials are: a) idiots, or b) liars. This is the same drivel one could get from unnamed “US officials” before the Iraq war. It means nothing. Dreyfuss doesn’t ask the “next question” which is what happens when sanctions fail?
“Second, they say, sanctions against Iran may or may not impact Iran’s decision-making over its nuclear program, and it’s unlikely that sanctions can work effectively; but in any case sanctions are designed for their long-term impact — over years and not weeks or months — so the latest round of sanctions isn’t designed to have immediate impact on how Iran approaches talks later this summer. This means that hawks who call for setting a tight deadline for the sanctions to work are simply trying to use the sanctions as a stepping-stone to war. Obama isn’t listening.”
But here is the contradiction! These unnamed “US officials” ADMIT that sanctions WILL NOT WORK! So they backtrack and say, “Well, it’s just to compel talks!” But if the sanctions don’t work, HOW CAN THEY COMPEL TALKS? It’s nonsense. This is spin to suggest that the recent sanctions are why the Iranians want to restart the talks.
Who says “Obama isn’t listening”? Does Obama think he can run this game for another eight years? Does Obama think he can stave off the Israel Lobby for another eight years? Does Obama think he can corral Netanyahu for another eight years? Of course not. Obama knows that sanctions inevitably lead to war. He is following precisely in the path that Clinton and Bush followed with sanctions against Afghanistan, and then
Iraq. Sure, it wasn’t CLINTON who started the war with Afghanistan and Iraq. But without Clinton, Bush would have had much less leverage to start those wars and it would have taken him perhaps longer. Obama is in the same position. He is ADVANCING the CAUSE for WAR. Whether he starts the war or not is not relevant, except in terms of the timing and whether Israel will wait for another eight years.
“Finally, U.S. officials say, Obama has consistently supported engagement with Iran since the campaign of 2008. He didn’t abandon the policy of engagement and diplomacy under withering attacks from Hillary Clinton in 2008, and he didn’t abandon them under the firestorm of criticism by the likes of the American Enterprise Institute and the Weekly Standard in 2009. The problem is, Iran didn’t or couldn’t respond positively to Obama’s offer to engage, beyond the October 2009 breakthrough in which Iran agreed to ship most of its enriched uranium to France and Russia for reprocessing. That accord broke down when Iran’s fractured political system proved incapable of implementing it.”
This is just ruminant evacation. Obama has not “engaged” Iran at all since his election. And even during his campaign, he argued that if Iran did not comply with ceasing ALL enrichment on Iranian soil, he would procede with sanctions including a blockade of Iran’s importation of petroleum products. And that is exactly what he had done, short of the naval blockade – yet. THAT may still be in the cards if the current sanctions against Iran’s petroleum imports do not work.
“Now, it appears, the talks are back on track.”
Operative word is “it appears”. Nothing is as it seems.
“The State Department announced yesterday that it is prepared to re-engage and restart the aborted talks over the deal reached last October concerning the enriched uranium for Tehran’s research reactor. This is a big deal. Said P.J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman: “We obviously are fully prepared to follow up with Iran on specifics regarding our initial proposal involving the Tehran research reactor … as well as, you know, the broader issues of trying to fully understand the nature of Iran’s nuclear program. We hope to have the same kind of meeting coming up in the coming weeks that we had last October.””
The bit about “the broader issues” is code for: “We’re going back to our demand for suspension of enrichnment.”
“According to U.S. officials, the new talks are likely to begin at the technical level. But they could quickly escalate to more senior officials.”
Meaning they will fail at the technical level, allowing the senior officials to claim they “tried”.
“Catherine Ashton, the chief negotiator for the European Union, also said that the EU — which is represented by the U.K., France and Germany in the so-called P5 + 1 — is ready to start talking again, and she raised the possibility that the talks could expand to broader issues: “I’ve made it clear…that we would like those talks to resume quickly and that we would be very clear that the issue on the table is Iran’s nuclear weapons capability and approach. That is the issue. All other issues can be discussed later.””
As I said, “Suspend enrichment or we’re not talking to you.”
“Significantly, Iran has reportedly told Turkey that it is prepared to halt further enrichment of uranium from 3-5 percent to 20 percent (the level needed for the Tehran medical research reactor) in hope of restarting the accord reached last October in Geneva. If so, that’s a big deal, too, since Turkey and Brazil have been actively engaged in trying to broker a deal with Iran. The hard work by those two countries was disparaged by many in the United States, but it seems to have paid off.”
THIS is the only true part so far. Unfortunately, the Obama reaction to the Turkey-Brazil deal clearly show the bad faith of the US in advance of the new talks.
“The Iranians have also agreed to start talking again in September. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who supported the October deal but failed to get backing either from Ayatollah Khamenei or from the reformist opposition for it, says that Iran will reenter talks, as CNN reports:
“Iran is ready for ‘effective cooperation’ to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview with state media. … ‘We said that we will talk with P5+1 as of early September, but there are some conditions,’ Ahmadinejad told Press TV on Monday. ‘One of the conditions is that others should be present in the discussions as well.’””
In other words, the deal we’re prepared to discuss is the Turkey-Brazil deal, NOT the abortive US October deal which required we trust the bad-faith US and France to give us our stuff when required.
“What does this all mean? It means that despite the huffing and puffing from some quarters, diplomacy is back on track. In both Iran and the United States, there are powerful voices being raised against the idea of accommodating the other side, so talks won’t be easy. The talks may go on for many months, if not years. But the administration, so far, seems prepared to see it through.”
This is just speculative fluff. Talks go on “for years”? They HAVE been going on for years and just as frequently being derailed by US intransigence, and then have been used as excuses to ladle on more sanctions while the US continues to move military assets into place for what is clearly seen as a long-term war.
Dreyfuss is just another person with massive cognitive dissonance about the US bad faith and the consequences of an Iran war.
The bottom line you HAVE to keep in mind at all times: The US KNOWS there IS NO Iranian nuclear weapons program. The ostensible issue is the US is demanding that Iran suspend its LEGAL uranium enrichment permanently regardless of whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The REAL agenda is regime change for the benefit of Israel, and a war for the benefit of the military-industrial complex. You CANNOT understand what is happening here if you ignore these facts.
Alan,
One element of a deal for Iran to ship LEU to Turkey, for the 20% fuel for the TRR, is that Iran would suspend enrichment to 20%. I would expect this suspension to be permanent. Iranian enrichment to 20% was a primary cause of Russian and Chinese support for the latest UN sanctions.
I think Hague can see that making a deal that stops the enrichment to 20%, is well worth pursuing.
Achieving an agreement on the LEU, and supplying the TRR with the needed fuel, would help to build confidence. Efforts to make a larger deal are easier for the Israel lobby and the neocons to derail.
Eric – sorry, I was just commenting on yours and James’ contemplation of new TRR talks – my point, as you spotted in your reply, was simply that I don’t think the US/EU will want the TRR negotiation to reopen at all.
Alan,
“Unlike you and James, I don’t think the US/EU etc. are interested in this deal any more, and don’t much want to talk about it.”
Not sure why you think I disagree with you on this. The fact that I don’t think anything will come of TRR talks implies, I suppose, that the US/EU at least want to talk about the TRR, but I actually don’t know that they do. My only point was that no meaningful TRR deal will come, whether they talk about the TRR or not. You separately point out that the talks might be much broader, and thus include a TRR component, and that may well be the case since that would permit bargaining chips outside the narrow TRR-negotiations sphere to be added to the mix. I’m not optimistic about even such broader talks, though their very broadness makes it far more difficult to predict their outcome.
James – I’m not convinced about British support for a TRR deal. What Cameron said in Turkey the other day didn’t sound promising, but the wider issue is I think they all view the TRR is an unwanted, unimportant distraction. Worse, they may also view its origination last year as a planned move by Iran to justify enrichment to 20%. Either way, I don’t think it holds any attraction any more. What would be the point?
However, if it was incorporated into a larger deal over enrichment, the AP, the outstanding issues with the IAEA, sanctions, and UNSC resolutions, or some combination thereof, then maybe it has legs. But that is where this needs to go. The time for a stand-alone deal over the TRR has gone I think.
James Canning:
yes, it is, I think. I don’t really know what it means to show willingness for normal relation and at the same time wanting to have it only on your terms and conditions. or worse, continuing to do business as usual. that’s basically what many of those people you have referred to are demanding from their gov. Obama has brought that narrative, which I assume was advocated by like minded people for so long, into real life politics. Obama was the worst the U.S president for Iran so far, even more than Mr.Clinton.
James – that isn’t a short term view no, but what are they going to do about it? Nothing. Because they can’t, and because they won’t. They prefer to throw out soundbites because they think it garners a bit of street support in the region, ridiculous platitudes like “the IRGC are ready to escort aid ships to Gaza”. As if.
Mubarak is certainly frightened of the Brothers, but that is entirely a question of their popularity and Mubarak’s repression of democracy. There is no associated fear of militancy or terrorism (assuming that is what you meant?).
On Gaza, I certainly haven’t seen anything that suggests any tangible relief of the blockade by Egypt. It would surprise me if there was, because the genie would be out of the bottle, and Mubarak isn’t about to let that happen. But by all means point me to something that says otherwise.
Persian Gulf,
Re: July 29th, 1055pm – - Is the US in fact a “stubborn adversary” of Iran? I encounter very few Americans who are hostile to Iran, who are not Jewish. Very few. (Not that I claim to mix with a representative selection of the people.) Most rich, well-connected Americans that I know would welcome normal relations with Iran.
Fiorangela,
Re: July 29th, 8:40pm – - The UK does not want another war in the Middle East, and Hague can see that making the deal with Iran so that the TRR fuel is delivered as soon as possible, will help foster further arrangements. I think Cameron and Hague can see that Clinton is something of a captive of the Israel lobby.
Alan,
re: July 30th, 7:32am – - I think William Hague sees the merit in the exchange of Iranian LEU for the 20% U needed for the TRR, and Russia also wants such a deal (which would include a suspension of Iranian enrichment to 20%).
Iran wants an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. This is decidedly not a “short-term” viewpoint.
Alan (and Fiorangela),
Alan makes a crucial point: Palestine need not have total control over the entire area of the West Bank, even for a number of years. The most important issues are establishing the border (which I think should be the Green Line) and confirming that all Israeli soldiers, police and other security forces will be withdrawn.
Alan,
My understanding is that the Rafah crossing allowed rather more to get into Gaza than is suggested by the report I referred you to. I think Mubarak has good reasons to be wary about both the Muslim Brotherhood and Israel’s scheme to force Egypt to take responsibility for Gaza.
James – read the piece you quoted thanks; as I’m sure you realise it’s quite clear that, as usual, Mubarak is up to his eyeballs in complicity with the US and Israel. His much publicised “opening of the border” was no such thing was it?
Fiorangela – I agree, Camille Mansour’s paper is very interesting. As she points out, the issues she raises means that even if Israel got to keep Jerusalem and the settlements, their position on external borders, demilitarization and water issues still totally precludes the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
On the other hand, Palestinians may arguably accept a smaller state that had true sovereignty provided the final borders of the eventual state were declared at the start, even if sovereignty didn’t cover the whole declared area at the start. But that’s a debate for another day. This isn’t entirely dissimilar to Salam Fayyad’s plan I suppose, if you exclude the fact that his plan doesn’t include any sovereignty at all!
Eric,
Interesting article on future talks. I don’t think it is any great surprise that the US and EU want them, they have been pushing for them for years, certainly since 2006, and repeatedly in the first half of this year. From the Iranian side, Ahamdinejad’s “pre-conditions” appear to include nonsense requirements like the other side having to adopt a suitably agreeable stance on Israel’s nukes.
The other thing is where the TRR fits into it. Unlike you and James, I don’t think the US/EU etc. are interested in this deal any more, and don’t much want to talk about it. They want to discuss a comprehensive nuclear deal, and fit a TRR deal into that larger deal. I cannot see any way a TRR deal can be done now without a comprehensive deal first.
James – I disagree about Iranian policy on Palestine. Sure there is the long-term solution they espouse, but I think, today, the way Palestine is exploited by Iran is the epitome of political short-termism. The net result, in my opinion, is the Arab “street” increasingly seeing Iran as something of a busted flush; they certainly see depressingly similar traits in the Iranian attitude to Palestinians as those they have observed in their own governments for so long.
On Gaza, I will look up the article you quote. If any goods got through Rafah it can’t have been much. It hasn’t been used for goods since 2005, and there are still severe restrictions on movement of people.
Eric
I do not agree with many of the assumed and unsubstantiated points on the Brian Downing article including the line you mentioned that he obviously inserted for the real message from his article.
This doesn’t make sense, since it will obviously disturbs Iran’s important Afghan allies up in north if not the NATO.
Kooshy,
Thanks for the citation to the Brian Downing article. Do you (or anyone else) know whether this sentence in the article is correct?
“Nonetheless, Iran sends the Taliban small amounts of weapons and trains a handful of their fighters in the craft of IEDs.”
It’s hard to imagine anything will come of these talks.
Turkey is not exactly high on the list of a certain country that may have some influence over the positions taken by the US in these talks. What does that fact suggest about the odds that Turkey will be approved as the LEU escrow holder? If Turkey isn’t approved as the escrow holder (and it’s fair to assume that that won’t move Brazil or any other neutral country to the top of the list), that puts us back to last October, where Iran’s LEU was to be sent on a journey from Russia to France, almost certainly never to return unless Iran had agreed in the meantime to every over-reaching demand that the US had managed to think up.
When these talks are over, all that’s likely to result is an opportunity for some US government official to stand up and say something like this:
“We’ve tried sanctions; that hasn’t worked. We’ve demanded that Iran comply with its treaty obligations; it’s refused. And now we’ve tried negotiations; that hasn’t worked either.”
If I were Iran, I’d announce sincere hope but realist expectations (as in “low”), keep the talks at a very low level within the respective foreign ministries, and bump them up to some higher level only if and when (as in “never”) it looks highly likely that a deal is going to be reached that both sides consider acceptable.
At the moment, I can’t think of any deal that the US would consider good enough to forego the opportunity for its spokesman to make the sort of statement I set forth two paragraphs above. And if a deal could be struck that the US would find good enough, I can’t imagine that Iran would find it acceptable.
I hope I’m wrong, but I highly doubt that I am.
fyi:
it’s all about technology my friend. Iranians are, as they were in the course of history pre-Islam and during Islamic rule, receptive of technological advancement. unlike most of our neighbors, we are not anti-modern people. so often, American tourists of Iran are surprised by Iranians’ enthusiasm of America. that is always been interpreted as Iranians’ love affair with America. it’s actually America’s scientific leadership that gains the respect of Iranians.
misfortune, there are a lot of them; having stupid and backward leaders is the most important one, somehow mad neighbors (close and distant ones), isolated regionally…and of course a stubborn adversary with global aspirations like the U.S. and so on.
Persian Gulf:
Why is it they (Iranians) bay-and-large want to go to the Christian countries of Western Europe, Oceania, and North America?
Why not Turkey? Or India? Or China?
And what exatly is “misfortune” of Iran, in your opinion?
fyi:
“Why do Iranians nag so much?”
I thought you know the answer(s) very well. when you know the answer, it’s wrong to ask.
when you train your Turkish colleague and then he get back to you with this question, why do want to stay here? when whoever you engage constructively and intelligently with reminds you of your country’s misfortune. when you see your Iranian friends,with almost everyone in the ph.d level, wherever you go in a relatively big city. when whoever chats with you from Iran either wants to get out or suggest you not to get back. when you see the identity of a rich country’s people crushed to the point that we see nowadays….when, when…..and when you see your country is ruled and advised by fools like this one with prefix of Dr., is that really possible not nag?:
http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=55643
when you feel a problem wholeheartedly, you got to scream at some point. this is inevitable.
Persian Gulf:
This site is dedicated to the exploration and issue between 2 states: United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran.
My expectation was that you would have recommendations in that regard.
fyi:
again solution for who? Iran’s leaders? oppositions? ordinary people? ….
I really don’t have any magic solution. and there is probably no solution like that. the problem we face is partly inherent in our collective culture. so, the answer(s) is (are) probably inherent in there too. sometimes the solution is hidden inside the complains!
there was time that I was thinking normal relation with the U.S would be the solution. that is not obviously the case (in that sense, and in a similar way, I am pretty much in love with that “mushroom cloud”!). contrary to my thinking, sometimes such a relation can be counterproductive. you got to know IR’s culture, and based on English proficiency criteria that you have developed, I deserve more than you in that respect! as I am more familiar with the system (I grow up during IR era). unfortunately engagement for the sake of engagement to dissolve IR is not a solution, if you have something like this in mind. Engagement can be pursued to get other foreign policy goals and sometimes irrespective of internal development. IR is actually more opportunistic than people like you and I. look at IRIB, only when outside TVs started to question its propaganda that it tried to be creative; creative in a destructive manner though.
Interesting points, on war with Iran
Whatever Happened to Containment and Diplomacy?
Rising Tensions in the Persian Gulf
By BRIAN M. DOWNING
http://www.counterpunch.org/downing07292010.html
Nasser:
Under the current social and political situation prevailing in Iran, I think Mr. Ahmadinejad has done a decent job of advancing Iranian interests both domestically and externally.
What are your policy recommendations? Both internally and externally that could be implemented under the Islamic Republic.
Keep reminding everyone that pain brings pain and that the dogs of war, unleashed, are happy gnawing on the bones of either side.
Celebrate the joy of birth, the equality of people, the shared values of justice and compassion.
Relax. Refuse to be baited by third parties.
Fiorangela:
Nothing will come out of these meetings.
US & EU have given their best shot for sanctions.
US has spent diplomatic capital destroying any chance of a Russian-Iranian-Indian Entente.
These expenditures will be negated by a settlement.
US & EU have moved towards containment of Iran.
I suppose EU – just like India back in 2006 – expects this to end on US terms.
They are mistaken and as is usual, have been taken in by US adroit diplomacy.
Persian Gulf:
I asked you for your policy recommendations.
Instead you are making incoherent statements.
I am forced to conclude that you are not a problem-solver; just another (Iranian) complainer.
Why do Iranians nag so much?
Fiorangela,
“Let’s indulge in the hope that reasonably honest talks will be held in the next three months.”
Let me first determine whether I can get past this assumption.
Eric Brill, your chance to shine:
Let’s indulge in the hope that reasonably honest talks will be held in the next three months. How should the negotiation be structured so that US and Iran save face all around and to get the deal done at the same time?
That’s your job.
The rest of us: What can we do to make sure Hillary “Lucy” Clinton does not move the football, and how can Iran be encouraged to risk dealing with the US?
Write to our congressmen?
Say nice things about Clinton?
Send Sara Palin on a long vacation on a remote island? With Sean Hannity?
Say nice things about Israel?
Threaten tax revolts?
Hunger strikes?
Pray?
Nasser
This is just one of the reasons I said Iraq and Syria are important for Iran and also Iran for Syria
Iran considering gas exports to Iraq
“The two sides discussed the transit of Iran’s natural gas to Europe via Iraq and Syria, he added.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136693§ionid=351020103
Fiorangela:
we can do an exchange over here. you get our leaders and we get yours. oh no, wait please, you get our leaders and we are ok even without getting anything back! I am sure, you are gonna have a perfect society within few years, like what we have got so far, with the degree of enthusiasm that you have shown. Mr.Khamenei can also proclaim he is the leader of the world at large!
James,
“Thanks. I understand the Iranian LEU would be shipped to Turkey, as agreed in the May 17th Tehran statement.”
Thanks, James. What’s your source on that?
Eric,
I think William Hague would see Turkish custody of the Iranian LEU as a sensible way forward. I think Lady Ashton would agree with him.
Eric,
Thanks. I understand the Iranian LEU would be shipped to Turkey, as agreed in the May 17th Tehran statement.
Don’t miss Gareth Porter’s July 29th piece: “Amiri Told CIA Iran Has No Nuclear Bomb Programme”
http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.phb?idnews=3201
fyi,
“And Mr. Ahmadinejad has a humble degree from a humble university. I just do not understand the issue. And you do not need knowledge of English to understand the world – Russian, Chinese, and Japanese leaders have no such knowledge and are doing fine – it seems.”
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIDoJpz-aYk
And none of the other leaders would ever mutter something so stupid as this: cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/19/world/main6411387.shtml
Robert Dreyfuss’ piece below appeared in The Nation. Not much from which to predict how the new talks might turn out, especially on two key issues: (1) where will the LEU be kept?; and (2) will the US insist on restricting Iran’s LEU enrichment (other than the TRR fuel, which Iran appears willing to accept – James, you get credit for that) as a condition to approving a fuel swap deal?
It would be a stretch to assign too much importance to either remark, but one might speculate from two remarks reported by Mr. Dreyfuss that the US and Iran have different views (quite a surprise) on these two questions, or at least on the first one. Ahmadinejad remarks: “One of the conditions is that others should be present in the discussions as well.” Presumably he’s referring to Turkey and Brazil, which arguably suggests he intends the starting point of discussions to be the May 2010 Tehran Declaration brokered by Turkey and Brazil. On the other hand, we have the remark from the State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley: “We hope to have the same kind of meeting coming up in the coming weeks that we had last October.” That arguably suggests the US intends to start from what was on the table last October, which didn’t include any silly talk about neutral-country escrows.
Even so, it’s probably pointless to draw any conclusions from either remark.
REMAINDER OF POST IS MR. DREYFUSS’ ARTICLE.
United States, Iran to Restart Talks
by Robert Dreyfuss
Talks on Iran’s nuclear program will resume in September, and despite the war bluster from neocons and the far right, the Obama administration seems prepared to try once again.
From discussions with U.S. officials, here’s what I’ve gleaned about the administration’s policy on Iran. First, there is no appetite whatsoever, and no serious consideration, being given to a military attack on Iran. Not even Dennis Ross, the hawkish aide at the National Security Council, brings up the possibility of a military strike, U.S. officials tell me.
Second, they say, sanctions against Iran may or may not impact Iran’s decision-making over its nuclear program, and it’s unlikely that sanctions can work effectively; but in any case sanctions are designed for their long-term impact — over years and not weeks or months — so the latest round of sanctions isn’t designed to have immediate impact on how Iran approaches talks later this summer. This means that hawks who call for setting a tight deadline for the sanctions to work are simply trying to use the sanctions as a stepping-stone to war. Obama isn’t listening.
Finally, U.S. officials say, Obama has consistently supported engagement with Iran since the campaign of 2008. He didn’t abandon the policy of engagement and diplomacy under withering attacks from Hillary Clinton in 2008, and he didn’t abandon them under the firestorm of criticism by the likes of the American Enterprise Institute and the Weekly Standard in 2009. The problem is, Iran didn’t or couldn’t respond positively to Obama’s offer to engage, beyond the October 2009 breakthrough in which Iran agreed to ship most of its enriched uranium to France and Russia for reprocessing. That accord broke down when Iran’s fractured political system proved incapable of implementing it.
Now, it appears, the talks are back on track.
The State Department announced yesterday that it is prepared to re-engage and restart the aborted talks over the deal reached last October concerning the enriched uranium for Tehran’s research reactor. This is a big deal. Said P.J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman: “We obviously are fully prepared to follow up with Iran on specifics regarding our initial proposal involving the Tehran research reactor … as well as, you know, the broader issues of trying to fully understand the nature of Iran’s nuclear program. We hope to have the same kind of meeting coming up in the coming weeks that we had last October.”
According to U.S. officials, the new talks are likely to begin at the technical level. But they could quickly escalate to more senior officials.
Catherine Ashton, the chief negotiator for the European Union, also said that the EU — which is represented by the U.K., France and Germany in the so-called P5 + 1 — is ready to start talking again, and she raised the possibility that the talks could expand to broader issues: “I’ve made it clear…that we would like those talks to resume quickly and that we would be very clear that the issue on the table is Iran’s nuclear weapons capability and approach. That is the issue. All other issues can be discussed later.”
Significantly, Iran has reportedly told Turkey that it is prepared to halt further enrichment of uranium from 3-5 percent to 20 percent (the level needed for the Tehran medical research reactor) in hope of restarting the accord reached last October in Geneva. If so, that’s a big deal, too, since Turkey and Brazil have been actively engaged in trying to broker a deal with Iran. The hard work by those two countries was disparaged by many in the United States, but it seems to have paid off.
The Iranians have also agreed to start talking again in September. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who supported the October deal but failed to get backing either from Ayatollah Khamenei or from the reformist opposition for it, says that Iran will reenter talks, as CNN reports:
“Iran is ready for ‘effective cooperation’ to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview with state media. … ‘We said that we will talk with P5+1 as of early September, but there are some conditions,’ Ahmadinejad told Press TV on Monday. ‘One of the conditions is that others should be present in the discussions as well.’”
What does this all mean? It means that despite the huffing and puffing from some quarters, diplomacy is back on track. In both Iran and the United States, there are powerful voices being raised against the idea of accommodating the other side, so talks won’t be easy. The talks may go on for many months, if not years. But the administration, so far, seems prepared to see it through.
Robert Dreyfuss is a contributing editor to The Nation magazine, and the author of Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Metropolitan).
Copyright © 2010 The Nation — distributed by Agence Global”
I recommend Joshua Holland: “Is Obama Cooking the Intelligence on Iran as Bush did with Iraq?”
http://www.blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/28/is-obama-cooking-the-intelligence-on-iran-as-bush-did-with-iraq/
kooshy,
You make an important point, that Iran has supported Syria in the latter’s effort to achieve peace with Israel (based on total withdrawal of Israelis from the Golan Heights). Charlie Rose was surprised that this was the case. And Syria will not turn on Iran, once the deal is completed (assuming it does go through). (Nor should the US try to cause such a rupture.)
thanks, kooshy.
A rug merchant in Shiraz says that he sends his goods to Canada, thence to several shops in Louisiana.
regarding Jill’s plea for help on the Huffington Post article: the author of the offending (and offensive) article is being pounded by objections to his blatant propaganda. How do propaganda wars end, with a bang or a whimper?
Eric, I think the sanctions that include rugs are from US only.
The restriction on TOEFL testing has been reversed, I see.
Andrew Bacevich’s essay is an important marker in the debate on waning US power and influence in the world.
Persian Gulf wrote: “you want to build a high rise with cheap materials. this is going nowhere, I bet on that.”
Iran boasts some of the most imaginative and precise architecture I’ve seen, and not only its older mosques and shrines but contemporary designs as well. But at the same time, I saw some “high rise” buildings that looked like they’d been planned on a shoestring and held together with duct tape and baling wire. Iran, we Americans demand perfection of you!
Eric and Fiorangela
“Glad to hear that. I wasn’t sure a ban on Iranian pistachios would matter anyway. It’s been a very long time since I’ve ever seen Iranian pistachios at any California supermarket; they’re all grown in CA.”
Eric if you want best quality Iranian dry goods, pistachios and other nuts even some Yazdi sweets and pastry, (if you are familiar with that) the best is from a store called Tavazo in Iran they are also operating in Canada and they ship worldwide, here is the link to their store. In SC all Iranian grocery stores (we have many in every part of city) do sale Iranian imported food.
http://www.tavazo.com/
Kooshy,
“Eric FYI, I wouldn’t be too worried about the “poor Iranian pistachio growers” since I know many of the major current growers of pistachio in Rafsanjan, Kerman and Yazd are now also major California Pistachio growers, they operate major family farms in both countries.”
Glad to hear that. I wasn’t sure a ban on Iranian pistachios would matter anyway. It’s been a very long time since I’ve ever seen Iranian pistachios at any California supermarket; they’re all grown in CA.
fyi:
policy recommendations? for whom? who is gonna implement them. these is not capable to open the country. Mr.Khamenei, Jannati…are part of the problem, how can you find a solution with them? in the past 3 decades, we train so many people from the scratch, often people who did not deserve to even be trained at the first place. look at the ministers, high ranking officials….it was always the dominant of loyalty to professionalism, and it continuous to these days. Mr.AliAbadi was nominated for ministry of power (I hope you know this ministry hired some top university students for the lower ranking positions and has the most professional workers in the Iranian system), that makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s picks for different ministries show the heart of the problem. Should I mention where is somebody like Bazrpash? do you know him at all? do a bit of search my friend. IR is full of these people and yet you want me to give a solution to the same people. you want to build a high rise with cheap materials. this is going nowhere, I bet on that.
well, I see a lot of Indians here from IITs, and many of them get back. they are by no means comparable with Iranians. please, don’t drag people in this silly sort of comparison. India has more than 10 times people than Iran. 20000 people are nothing for India, but they are very important for Iran.
Dr.Ahmadinejad has a ph.d. I didn’t question that. but he emphasizes it so often, to the point of taking advantage from the others, especially in a country like Iran with so many educated people. I remember, few months ago, I saw a footage of his debate with two sociologists in Iranian TV. he was talking to them as if they are dumb and don’t understand their own field of work. his approach to economists is like that too. and the other areas most probably. Ahmadinejad obviously has some psychological problem at the minimum level. it’s unusual to say, you know I have a ph.d, getting real ph.d is tough, especially with his gesture in the nation wide debate.
as your English is obviously better than mine, so I leave it for you to figure out who is more detached from Iranian society.this is based on your argument! you misunderstood my point. he distrusts people outside of his own circle. the leaders of those countries who you referred to seem to have good ears at least, so to listen to the ones who actually know the world.
Persian Gulf:
Almost all of the graduates of the 6 Indian Institute of Technology leave India.
Yet I have never met an Indian that has expressed the kind of sentiment that you have expressed.
So, at least Iranian Government permits people to leave and work abroad, if they can. What is wrong with that?
And Mr. Ahmadinejad has a humble degree from a humble university. I just do not understand the issue. And you do not need knowledge of English to understand the world – Russian, Chinese, and Japanese leaders have no such knowledge and are doing fine – it seems.
In fact, the more an Iranian understands, speaks and writes English the more – it seems to me – that person is out of touch with Iran.
But I digress.
You have not made any recommendations for an alternative course of action. What are your policy recommendations?
“I had not expected Congress would worry its pretty little head about poor Iranian pistachio growers and rug weavers. The UNSC would at least claim to be concerned about “the little guy” – but not Congress.”
Eric FYI, I wouldn’t be too worried about the “poor Iranian pistachio growers” since I know many of the major current growers of pistachio in Rafsanjan, Kerman and Yazd are now also major California Pistachio growers, they operate major family farms in both countries.
Fiorangela,
On the “pistachios and Persian rugs” sanctions, what I’m wondering is whether you meant that those were included in the UNSC resolution (news to me, but I may have missed that) or in the US-only resolutions passed by Congress (clearly).
I had not expected Congress would worry its pretty little head about poor Iranian pistachio growers and rug weavers. The UNSC would at least claim to be concerned about “the little guy” – but not Congress.
Nasser – thanks for your reply, per this new trend, apologetically I am posting my reply on this new tread
Nasser
“You telling me that you don’t see the problem with Iraqis being overrepresented in Iranian security architecture and the government in general?! “
That’s right I don’t see any problem with that same as I don’t see any problems with Kurds or Azeri’s as part of Iranian security architecture, as a part of Iranian security architecture Iran has and should be a melting pot for all surrounding ethnicities and countries, this is a proven fact of history.
“You don’t find it odd or troubling that those that killed a million of your people and continue to oppress others tend to have higher confidence among the present day rulers of Iran than their own people?”
No again, they are not the same Iraqi Arabs who supported Saddam Baathist government. They actually escaped him for safety to Iran.
“I find it offensive that you’d characterize me as one of those Greens. I was quite critical of their chants of “death to Russia and China”. Those that are so willing to sacrifice national foreign policy interests for petty domestic politics get no respect from me.”
I am glad that you clarified your standing with respect to the greens, no disrespect but could it be that you are somewhat “maghz pestehie”
“I never suggested Iran shouldn’t use pan Shiism as a foreign policy tool but simply recognize its limitations and realize that Arab Shias often tend to be more Arab than Shiah. “
Factually wrong, which of the Shieh Arab communities like Hezbollah, Bahrain, SA, Iraq, are supporting their Arab Governments against Iran?
“And with Saddam gone, Syria is really no longer an ally which is why it seems so eager to sign a peace treaty with Israel.”
Again factually wrong, as per Levreets , Iran encouraged the peace talk between Syria and Israel, if this could happen in an acceptable way it will actually reduces Iran’s burden with regard to Arab Sunie Street. Assad told the Levreets that Syria will not abandon its ties with Iran; there are strong reasons for that.
well, when you put a bunch of idiots into the positions of power, shortsightedness is inevitable. they are often too afraid of their jobs. their educational background need not to be mentioned. tied everything to security issues. gmail was down for few days last time I was in Iran. it’s unbelievable. why should a system be so afraid of its own people? IRIB lies to the hilt for internal affairs. it’s as if people are totally dumb.
my department over here is getting full of Iranian students (I am happy to see them and work with them as I do daily; and we are the best to say the least, but that is a different story). when I walk on campus, I know more Iranians than the time when I was at Sharif Univ. few years ago. half of my friends with high education left the country. most of the remaining ones are practically depressed or desperate to get out. the system seems to care more about a bit of women’s hair and dress, men’s hair style, the type of the song people listen to, etc, etc, etc, than their needs. none of my friends actually recommended to get back to Iran. and you know, I have friends in different segments of the society and at different ages. economic growth….is there for you explore, if there is anything promising at all.
if these are not the results of shortsightedness, what are these then?
Khamenei calls his opponents delusional, and yet he is constantly in the illusion of being the leader of the Muslim world. you figure out what being the leader of Muslim world means, after all. surrounded by opportunists, he stays down for good and keep Iran down with himself. you can’t raise your world inside the country and tell directly to Mr.Khamenei that Iran is not going into the right direction even if you are totally wrong.
Look at this guy, Mr.Ahmadinejad. he received a ph.d from not even the top univ. in Iran when he was the governor of Ardabil. and yet, constantly downgrading people with his Ph.D title and extensive knowledge (unable to understand basic english, but claims to know the world pretty well and is ready to lead the world). he is right probably as he doesn’t see people even in his level of education on the top echelon of power. for the first 4 years of his presidency, one would get the impression that he can’t believe that he is the president of Iran. he talked as if he is living in a dream of being the president. and the story goes.
fyi:
should I continue?
Jill linked a remarkable piece of Israeli militarist propaganda, on the Huffington Post site. Expuelas says: “Israelis rightly see a nuclear Iran as an EXISTENTIAL THREAT. . .”, but he fails to mention the CIA has zero intelligence the Iranian government wants to build nukes.
Jill,
Tell us more about Fernando Espuelas. Is he just another propagandist for the neocon warmongers? What total rubbish: “The US has sought to stop Iran’s illegal nuclear ambitions. . .”!
Jill,
The US pressure is on the Palestinians to re-start direct negotiations with Israel. This is what Israel wants! But of course, Israel wants in reality to pretend to be negotiating, while continuing the grotesque illegal colonisation of the West Bank with Tel Aviv suburbs!
Eric and Alan,
A July 20th story by Tally Helfont (ISN – - International Relations and Security Network, Zurich) said Egypt allowed medical supplies and emergency materials to cross, but prevented construction materials and food. Story: “Mavi Marmara, Rafah, Egypt’s Steel Wall”.
Interesting discussion taking place here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fernando-espuelas/the-case-for-attacking-ir_b_658555.html
Could use some help.
fyi,
Regarding the issue of whether Iran’s leaders are shortsighted, as claimed by Persian Gulf, or otherwise, surely the Iranian viewpoint is the long one as to Israel/Palestine. Israel can either end the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights, or it can cease to exist as a “Jewish” state and a democracy. (Perhaps they would put “democracy” inside inverted commas.)
fyi,
It occurs to me that the shepherds that I watched as they herded their flock across 6 lanes of traffic might not have been Bedouin but Bakhtiari tribesmen.
my mistake.
Persian Gulf:
You called the Iranian Leaders “inward looking and short sighted”.
What would be your recommendations?
My understanding is that Turkey is trying to convince Iran that suspending enrichment to 20%, provided the needed fuel is obtained (through its existing IAEA application), and that Iran is amenable to this course of action. PressTV has a story today suggesting Iran would do so.
Fiorangela:
You are not accurate.
The image of bedu has changed over time among the Arabs.
What you have quoted is one among many during historical period.
RS Hack,
Souldn’t Michael Hayden be viewed as a propagandist for the neocons? Or is he just an idiot, promoting an insane war when he knows the CIA has ZERO intelligence that the Iranian government wants nukes.
Fiorangela,
“The latest round of sanctions imposed on Iran includes Persian rugs (and pistachios), formerly exempted from sanctions.”
Can you tell me where you found this?
Eric and Alan,
The Egyptian crossing was open to most goods for a period after the attack on the flotilla. I don’t know if this still obtains. And I believe Israel was monitoring the crossing.
Lord Patton in the Financial Times today called for the US and the EU to recognise Hamas and pressure Israel to end the blockade of Gaza.
RS Hack,
Since the neocons want to arrange for Israel to become a member of Nato, the training missions likely relate to this scheme. (An idiotic scheme, to be sure.)
RS Hack,
Didn’t PJ Crowley, the State Dept. spokesman, say this week that the US supported a deal with Iran for exchange of LEU for the 20% U needed for the research reactor?
PG
“Kooshy– for the record here wrote that Iran will be offered a sit in the UN with the current trajectory.”
PG – did I ever mention that Iran will be offered a sit in UNSC? , I know I have said that china was given one during the butt kissing period of early 70’s when US was desperate to leave Nam
FYI Iran currently has a sit (mission) in UN
Masoud,
Your post was excellent, and I do plan to respond. Promise.
Eric
fyi, re Bedouin:
Bedouin, considered to be among the first Arab groups, are seen as Arab culture’s purest representatives
“Bedouin continue to be hailed by other Arabs as “ideal” Arabs, especially because of their rich oral poetic tradition, their herding lifestyle, and their traditional code of honor.”
Eric,
Are you planning to at some point respond to my post at
July 27, 2010 at 2:52 pm, on the previous thread or can I consider our discussion to be over?
with the EU out of option and so desperate for a transatlantic partnership, and with the U.S preoccupied for the nato’s unity and her power projection in the Russia’ and China’s backyard, Iran’s stupid and inward looking and shortsighted leaders, once again, have lost a golden opportunity. As the events show, it will be just the matter of time when Turkey drags her feet out. Talking about Brazil seems to be pointless already. Iran is left out with a big nuclear compromise, and it was not supposed to be a compromise at the first onset. the “Japan option” was the none-option to start with. Iran is paying, and has been paying, a high price without actually getting there. Khamenei will have to answer why Iran did stop the program in 2003?
Kooshy– for the record here wrote that Iran will be offered a sit in the UN with the current trajectory. this is a serious misreading of international politics. I just hope the fools leading Iran these days not to have the same thing in mind.
when a bunch of fools like Khanemei, Jannati, Shariatmadari, Rohani, Karoubi, Rezaei… are strategic thinkers of a country, no surprise our situation is what we see in today’s Iran. for over 3 decades now, we have been paying a high price to train a bunch of backward people in various positions of power.
Fiorangela:
Bedouin has a very specific meaning in Arabic – from the root ‘bedou’.
The name connotates a primitive and uncouth Arab.
You can’t dispute that Ahmadinejad bloke has sure got his finger on the pulse ….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/jul/28/paul-octopus-iran
Kotsev’s article does make a few more general statements that I don’t agree with or at least which have not been established. However, I agree with the overall point that despite the current situation in the Middle East, there are hints that things are moving along toward war, however slowly.
At least Kotsev explicitly noted that Debka IS an Israeli intelligence front – most media wouldn’t bother to note that.
And no where does he say that Obama is talking with Iran directly. His remarks about negotiations among the parties clearly refers to the probable coordinating going on between such places as the US and Israel, and perhaps the US, Israel and certain other countries who might be willing to provide air bases for the convenience of the Israelis, and quite likely pressure being put on the Saudis and others by the US to accept the inevitability of a war with Iran, however much they don’t like it.
In this regard, Ahmadinejad’s remark about the US about to attack two countries may mean Iranian intelligence has picked up some buzz in some of the other ME countries. Or it may merely mean that Iran has concluded as I have: an attack on Hizballah in Lebanon first, followed by Iran. As the Kotsev article points out, there appears to be another disinformation program being applied to Hizballah based on the Harriri investigation, perhaps to distract Hizballah and embroil it in a political and legal conflict with Lebanese authorities while Israel finishes its preparations for the next Lebanese war.
Given that Israel is allegedly currently running simulations concerned with the logistics of moving troops into south Lebanon, I’d say there is no doubt Israel is planning another attack on Hizballah, just as it was eventually admitted months after the 2006 conflict that Israel had been planning such an attack for up to a year before the soldiers were captured by Hizballah, the ostensible reason for the attack. And in that regard, Israel recently penetrated into Lebanese territory temporarily, clear for provocation purposes, as well as continuing its illegal surveillance overflights of southern Lebanon.
Interesting article, if true:
Israelis, Americans, Killed in Training Exercise for War with Iran
wakeupfromyourslumber dot com/blog/andie531/israelis-americans-killed-training-exercise-war-iran?sms_ss=twitter
Quote: “Romanian press reports indicated that US military personnel were present on board of the helicopter, but the Romanian authorities did not confirm this.”
Israelis and American military personnel in Romania? Another front along with Georgia for a strike on Iran?
Quote: “According to Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, the Israeli army sent on last June 26 more than hundred officers on board of a Boeing 707 aircraft to Romania, Germany and Poland. The Hebrew newspaper claimed that the soldiers were sent to visit the memorial sites and the concentration camps of Jews in Poland, but this makes no sense.”
I wrote earlier:
“If Iran’s AP “chip” has little or no bargaining value – or, as I believe, it actually has more value once played, even if Iran gets no contractual quid pro quo – why not just play it and find out whether, as I predict, it calms the waters a bit?”
In all I’ve written recently, and especially this, I’ve never mentioned what seemed to me not necessary to mention but probably is: Though I wouldn’t waste my time, if I were Iran, trying to negotiate any deal with the US on Iran’s enrichment rights, I certainly WOULD talk privately with Russia and China to extract some commitment, firm or not, not to climb on the sanctions bandwagon next time around. Medvedev recently said that Russia considered it important that Iran take some steps on the disclosure issue, and hinted fairly strongly that Russia would respond favorably if Iran did.
Castellio,
The usual reason is that you’ve inserted more than one link. In one link, delete “http:/” and change “.com” to “DOTcom” and see if that works.
My most recent post was met with the notification: “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. This is a first occasion of that for me on this site. Is it happening to all who post?
Again from Victor Kotsev’s Asia Times article cited by Richard:
“It is practically certain that intense preparations for an attack [on Iran] and difficult negotiations between all the major parties involved are going on as we speak.”
Bet you didn’t know that, eh? Kotsev doesn’t mention why he believes this, but when something is “practically certain,” how much evidence does one need?
No wonder Obama appeared so pre-occupied at tonight’s award ceremony for Paul McCartney. Probably eager to get back on the phone with Khamenei.
As someone pointed out recently, evidence is a bit thin to support the familiar contention that Arab states are encouraging the US to attack Iran. Apparently even thinner than I’d thought. In the Asia Times article cited by Richard, Victor Kotsev dipped to the very bottom of the barrel, relying on none other than Debka:
“Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent Egypt) see the Iranian nuclear program as an even greater existential threat than Israel, and consequently are doing their best to spur the US administration into action. According to Israeli intelligence analysis site Debka, the Saudi king recently presented Obama with a stern ultimatum: “We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.”"
I tried to blockquote the quotes in my last post, but it didn’t work unfortunately.
So let me point out that my comments on the article begin with “I tend to agree”. The material above that from “Quote:” is from the referenced article.
Interesting article here in Asia Times:
Deep undercurrents stir in the Middle East
By Victor Kotsev
www dot atimes dot com/atimes/Middle_East/LG29Ak01.html
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I tend to agree. I also found Ahmadinejad’s remarks about the US “attacking two Middle Eastern countries” within the next three months interesting. Even assuming it was more of his usual hyperbole, I’d say an attack on Lebanon by Israel, and then possibly as a result an attack by Israel on Iran to be quite possible.
Consider this scenario: Israel creates a provocation on the Lebanese border – which it has been doing regularly. Israel uses this provocation as an excuse to attack Hizballah in Lebanon. Perhaps it even uses the excuse of trying to deal a final blow to Hizballah to cut through Syrian territory and attack the Bekaa Valley, thus starting a war with Syria.
Consider then the possibility that Hizballah actually has Iranian missiles in its possession and retaliates against Israel in a very effective manner. Israel then uses the alleged or actual fact that Iran has armed Hizballah – and perhaps that Iran is supporting Syria with arms, if Syria is involved – to justify an attack on Iran.
Even if the Israel attack on Iran involves an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than Iranian arms factories, Israel could claim that such as attack was justified under the conditions of war with Hizballah and Syria, and thus that Israel did not “go behind Obama’s back” to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would give Obama the “excuse” that he was merely supporting Israel against “Hizballah terrorists” and “Syrian and Iranian terrorist support” when he attacks Iran.
I see all that as a completely plausible scenario.
Alan,
“Interesting comment by Ben – I suspect he may be being provocative.”
If so, he certainly succeeded.
Mr. Brill: I prefer as well not to engage with people who argue circularly for the sake of arguing or with some hidden agenda.
Richard,
I won’t be responding to you unless and until your manners improve.
Eric
Mr. Brill: “. If Iran ever stopped digging in its heels on the disclosure issue, this compelling argument would lose its force…”
Still at it, I see.
You might want to consider that the average US electorate member has NO CLUE what the status of Iran’s nuclear program is, and even if Iran disclosed everything that you have so far been unable to specify they disclose, the average US electorate member would STILL not know what the situation is.
“why not just play it and find out whether, as I predict, it calms the waters a bit? It wouldn’t impose much of a burden on Iran. After all, Iran observed the AP for several years a while back and never complained about the additional burden.”
This is truly a ridiculous statement. Iran played the AP chip and not only got nothing for it, the IAEA turned over the case file to the UNSC – illegally.
And yet you have the unmitigated GALL to suggest that if Iran did the same thing NOW, it would get “calmer waters”. Based on WHAT EVIDENCE? None, that’s what. Israel would continue to clamor for war, the neocons would continue to clamor for war, the Obama advisers would continue to clamor for war, and Obama would do nothing differently than he has.
Once again, Obama’s hasty backing away from the Turkey-Brazil deal CLEARLY PROVES that Obama has NO interest in “calming the waters”.
Your notion is speculative at best and nonsense at worst.
Mr. Canning: “The Israeli blockade of Gaza is virtually at an end”
Well, no, as others have pointed out. However, it’s possible that the Viva Palestina land convoy and flotilla might have an impact. Viva Palestina intends to run 500 vehicles over a land route to Gaza, at the same time they are trying to get up as many as sixty ships for a sea flotilla, schedule for the fall.
It will be interesting to see if they succeed in this.
To respond to comments on Mr. Katcher’s “rightly” remark, I think he refers to the fact that Turkey demanded Israel apologize AND lift the Gaza siege or Turkey would cut off relations with Israel. This probably wasn’t feasible, especially given no backing from the US and little from Europe. This is unfortunate, but despite the fact that the furor over the Mami Marvara flotilla has died down, there will be more flotillas, so the issue isn’t going away – it’s merely upped the ante. Turkey may not have gained much in this round, but it isn’t over.
“It is noteworthy that while Turkey has been (rightly) subjected to vehement criticism in Washington for its over-the-top reaction to the Gaza Flotilla crisis . . . ”
Has to be asked: Is Mr. Katcher a Zionist? Because this is very much the same as what Joe Biden said about Israel’s murder of 9 flotilla passengers (“Whats the big deal?”) after having proclaimed himself a Zionist. Being a Zionist may affect your perspective on Israel killing non-Jews, witness Biden. If Katcher is a Zionist, it would be good to say exactly why he is a Zionist. With Biden, we know its because he has taken a great deal of money from the Israel Lobby and wants to take more.
Alan, Thank you for the article. Camille Mansour’s analysis of Palestinian sovereignty needs, linked within the original article, is exceptional.
James Canning, the lord gives and the lord takes away. Your optimism about easing restrictions on Gaza is counterbalanced by yesterday’s destruction of the homes and property of 300 Bedouin Israelis in the Negev.
Interesting contrast: Iran is not fond of its Bedouin, either, but they try to get along. In Iran, Bedouin are granted special protections in order to preserve their migratory cultures and values” in a rapidly modernizing and urbanizing landscape. It is a stringently enforced rule in Iran that shepherds driving their flocks have right-of-way across every road in Iran. On a very busy, 6-lane highway just outside Isfehan, my companions and I joined hundreds of other motorists who came to a standstill while shepherds guided their flock across the road. Iran’s mountain landscape is dotted with the black-tent encampments of migrant shepherds, and it is part of the curriculum for sociology and anthropology students in Iran’s colleges to spend at least one semester living with Iran’s migrant peoples in order to understand and preserve, rather than erase, Bedouin culture.
The latest round of sanctions imposed on Iran includes Persian rugs (and pistachios), formerly exempted from sanctions. Thus, not only will one more major source of Iran’s income be seriously disrupted, affecting most directly Iran’s poorer, rural, and migrant populations, but ages old cultural traditions will be negatively impacted.
The sanctions are sadistic.
In following Arnold’s suggestion that we “air lift” old topics to new threads, and with apologies to others who might disagree with that practice…
Cyrus,
“You have to remember that this conflict is not just about Iran, that there is a bigger North-South conflict over the control of the uranium fuel cycle. The South isn’t going to give up its right to enrichment as the North demands. [Iran's potential commitment to observe the Additional Protocols] is a bargaining chip.”
I’ve never understood this “bargaining chip” element of your and Arnold’s argument. Who among us is suggesting that Iran should give up its enrichment rights? I’ve argued all along that Iran should press forward with its peaceful nuclear program, including LEU enrichment, without regard to the US’ demands that it stop or limit its enrichment activities. Iran is doing just that, and shows no inclination to stop.
What, then, would Iran bargain for? The right to enrich LEU with US approval? That would be nice, but is there any realistic possibility that the US will ever give its formal approval? Even if it did, would the US’ formal approval be worth much? How much did Western promises turn out to be worth the last time Iran agreed to observe the AP?
I believe Iran’s AP “chip” has even less than “little” bargaining value. It has none at all – in fact, even less than none: it is far more valuable to the US government – or at least to the salivating war-mongers whispering in the ear of the US government – while Iran holds onto it. The bomb-Iran crowd’s compelling argument – compelling to a large chunk of the American public, at least – is that Iran is digging in its heels on the disclosure issue because it is hiding a nuclear weapons program. If Iran ever stopped digging in its heels on the disclosure issue, this compelling argument would lose its force (though I acknowledge that die-hard Iran-bashers would continue to make it anyway). That might not silence the drumbeats for war in the US, but those drumbeats would at least be softer and less frequent – a much-needed step in the right direction.
If Iran’s AP “chip” has little or no bargaining value – or, as I believe, it actually has more value once played, even if Iran gets no contractual quid pro quo – why not just play it and find out whether, as I predict, it calms the waters a bit? It wouldn’t impose much of a burden on Iran. After all, Iran observed the AP for several years a while back and never complained about the additional burden. And if Iran’s supporters insist that Iran must retain the ability to achieve the coveted “Japan option,” playing the “AP chip” wouldn’t prevent that. Japan played its own “AP chip” more than a decade ago, after all.
Alan: Thank you for the article. I will read it.
All: My understanding is that the siege continues with marginal improvements. I believe most (almost all?) exports are still not allowed out, and that material going in remains a fraction of what it was prior to the siege, although the list of allowed items has been ‘broadened’. What is ‘given’ on Tuesday can be arbitrarily removed on Wednesday. Emergency medical equipment is still often held up or disallowed, among other more important items. My understanding is that the siege is far from broken.
the contrast is striking between the barren table in this photo and the flowers-on-the-table, flags all around, beaming smiles in photos when Turkey, Brazil, Iran signed the nuclear agreement.
that was about 25 years ago, right? I recall it vaguely; it was so hopeful.
Eric – to all intents and purposes no.
While I hesitate to question James’ encyclopaedic knowledge of world affairs, the Rafah crossing is not even open for free movement of people. Gazans for example are generally not permitted out by Egypt, only those who have special circumstances. As far as goods are concerned, none of these cross via Rafah, they are all diverted to Kerem Shalom and vetted by the Israelis.
Part of the problem is also Abbas, who refuses to relinquish even partial control over the original PA observer role to Hamas. Consequently there is no Palestinian representation at the Rafah terminal, as Egypt “enforces” Abbas’ will there.
There are now something like 600 tunnels under the border.
James,
“Egypt opened the Gaza border crossing after the Israeli attack on the aid flotilla.”
Thanks. I’d heard that right after the “flotilla crisis” occurred, but was wondering whether it continues. Do you know whether Israel formally monitors the flow of goods through this border crossing?
Eric,
Egypt opened the Gaza border crossing after the Israeli attack on the aid flotilla. Egypt has two primary concerns: Hamas political support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Israel’s effort to force Egypt to take custody of the Gaza Strip.
Alan,
“It seems to me much more attention needs to be focused on Egyptian complicity in the blockade. That’s the weak point.”
It certainly does make it a bit harder to criticize only Israel. Has Egypt since eased the blockade?
Alan,
The Israeli blockade of Gaza is virtually at an end, and thanks for this state of affairs is owed in no small part to Turkey. Israel’s foolish effort to treat Gaza as a giant outdorr prison is failing.
Castellio – I agree on the BDS. Israel does fear it; they seem obsessed with the whole “delegitimisation” question.
Have you seen this Palestinian policy brief – Palestine 2010: Time for Plan B – by Mouin Rabbani in Al-Shabaka?
http://al-shabaka.org/policy-brief/politics/palestine-2010-time-plan-b
You might like it too Fiorangela.
Interesting comment by Ben – I suspect he may be being provocative.
It is an interesting point to consider. Diplomatically, would Turkey have been better advised to set out a series of much more achievable demands than the patently unachievable ones they did initially demand? No matter how justified, they could only end in humiliation. Davutoglu I think realised this soon after when he called for calm.
Israel has ridden it out again, Turkey has been left empty handed, Gaza, to all intents and purposes, remains largely unchanged, and the efforts to break the blockade have foundered. The Turks were left either having to offer naval escorts to the aid ships, or to slink away with their tail between their legs.
It seems to me much more attention needs to be focused on Egyptian complicity in the blockade. That’s the weak point.
Fiorangela: I’d rather people engaged in the BDS movement, however difficult it might be, however long it might take, than wait for Mrs. Clinton to hear something or do something… which will be never.
No, Eric, I’m not a subscriber, but I was able to read the entire article on the Jamestown Foundation website
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnewstt_news=36672&tx_ttnewsbackPid=27&cHash=8436c0b638
not sure what fair use is; I can paste several paragraphs.
The other link, to Insight Turkey journal, was tantalizing, but only abstracts were accessible. I’d like to read more of this article:
Mrs. Clinton?? Are you listening??
Fiorangela,
I wasn’t able to get the article. Are you a subscriber?
Eric
from the first linked article:
“Turkey wanted to invest $5.5 billion in the South Pars field to produce 20-35 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas annually. Ankara would receive operation rights for three offshore gas fields in South Pars. Under US pressure, Turkey shelved this agreement. Later, it was rekindled in October 2009 during Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s, visit to Tehran, defying objections from Washington.”
What is the underlying assumption in US thinking? How can US be so irrational as to believe that forcing Turkey to back away from the S. Pars development deal can have anything but negative impacts on Iran, on the region, on US economy, on China, on India?
Is there some other underlying agenda, other than Israel’s objections to all things related to Iran, that causes Americans to lose behave irrationally when dealing with Iran?
Does the real reason Israel is so intent on marginalizing Iran have to do with Israel’s own eagerness to re-establish the oil-to-Europe trade it conducted, in partnership with Iran, during the Shah’s era? And does Israel’s eagerness to shut Iran out of oil, gas, pipeline deals have anything to do with Israel’s own gas resources in the Mediterranean? Israel’s wars against Gaza (littoral gas fields), Syria (Golan water) and Lebanon (Litani water) and West Bank (aquifirs) are resource wars, perhaps first and foremost.
Another reason why BDS will be a hard slog to tame Israel: its economy is highly diversified; networks extend far afield; and Jewish people have a long history of conducting commerce within economies all over the globe. In contrast, Iran is relatively easy to sanction since its economy is not as diversified — in part, the result of US sanctions, in part, because mullahs had to take crash courses in How to Run A State Economy (and balance a checkbook).
Regarding this sentence:
“It is noteworthy that while Turkey has been (rightly) subjected to vehement criticism in Washington for its over-the-top reaction to the Gaza Flotilla crisis, many of those same people have criticized Ankara for seeking to maintain friendly relations with Tehran. The fact is that Turkey is most valuable as a partner when it enjoys friendly relations with all of the Middle East’s major stakeholders.”
If Ben’s purpose here was to get across his view that Turkey’s reaction to the flotilla crisis was “over the top,” he should have devoted a bit more writing to explain his position (knowing, as he must, that it is not shared by most readers on this site), not simply present it as if it were a generally accepted view that doesn’t require explanation – especially in a piece that otherwise does not even mention the flotilla crisis. Why slip such a predictably controversial assertion into a sentence that has utterly no need for it? Couldn’t the point of his two sentences have been established just as well without it? For example:
“Although many people have criticized Ankara for seeking to maintain friendly relations with Tehran, the fact is that Turkey is most valuable as a partner when it enjoys friendly relations with all of the Middle East’s major stakeholders.”
The only reason I can think of for Ben’s having included his “flotilla crisis” assertion was to point out that the people who criticize Turkey’s effort to maintain friendly relations with Iran include some people whose views generally are entitled to respect because (in Ben’s view) they expressed the correct view on the flotilla crisis. If that was Ben’s reason, I think it would have been simple enough (and less distracting) to get across the “gravitas” of these people without mentioning the flotilla crisis.
Ben, this has generated enough confusion and concern that you may want to weigh in.
The article by Saban Kardas (linked in the posted piece) states that Iranian natural gas production has been hampered by the US effort to isolate Iran. I think the problem was more a matter of management failure, and underinvestment by the Iranian government even when foreign companies were willing to help develop the huge Iranian gas fields.
off topic (tho I agree with the criticism of the statement, “Turkey has been rightly subjected to vehement criticism…)
An American who now lives in Turkey has spoken with Furkan Dogan’s father several times and written about the conversations here The same person has also written about the status of the three American hikers held in Tehran; that article included some very interesting comments about MEK. www dot dailykos dot com/hotlist/add/2010/7/26/17538/5063/displaystory//.
Oops, “towards Israel” I meant…
Yeah, I’m chiming in too on the ridiculous assertion that Turkey’s reaction to the Flotilla attack has ‘rightly’ been called ‘over the top’. Then again, by comparison to the Obama Regime’s obsequious bowing and scraping towards Iran, I suppose…
I agree with Castellio and Arnold that Turkey’s reaction to the Israeli attack on the Gaza relief convoy was not “over-the-top”. For that matter, I thought Erdogan was quite right to be furious at the insult to Turkey that took place at the conference (or symposium) in Davos. Turkey has been doing Israel a great service in trying to achieve peace between Syria and Israel.
Why does Katcher write: It is noteworthy that while Turkey has been (rightly) subjected to vehement criticism in Washington for its over-the-top reaction to the Gaza Flotilla crisis…”
Maybe he could make precise which part of the criticism is ‘rightly’ over the top, and explain why.
It is noteworthy that while Turkey has been (rightly) subjected to vehement criticism in Washington for its over-the-top reaction to the Gaza Flotilla crisis, many of those same people have criticized Ankara for seeking to maintain friendly relations with Tehran.
9 Turkish citizens were killed by Israel in international waters in a Turkish flagged ship as they forcefully boarded without permission late at night.
I’m not sure Washington’s criticism is (rightly).
Turkey is quite right to insist on a diplomatic solution to the dispute regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. This of course does assume one is available, which seems certainly to be the case though there are many people in Washington trying to prevent a diplomatic resolution of the matter.