Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Amid Escalating Israel-Iran Tensions, a Glimmer of Hope?

Although Israel and its U.S. backers are pushing for action to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment, the Obama administration is giving negotiations and sanctions more time—and the Iranians may be coming around.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

After weeks of rapidly escalating tensions, particularly between Israel and Iran, signs emerged this week both in the United States and in Tehran that serious negotiations over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme may soon get underway.

The most concrete step was a long-awaited positive RSVP from Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalali, to an invitation extended last October by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to meet with the P5+1 (the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany) for a new round of talks.

"We voice our readiness for dialogue on a spectrum of various issues, which can provide grounds for constructive and forward-looking co-operation," Jalali wrote in his letter.

In response, both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ashton herself emerged from a meeting here Friday expressing cautious optimism about prospects for a resumption of negotiations, which have been effectively suspended for more than a year.

"…(W)e think this is an important step and we welcome the letter," Clinton told reporters, adding that Jalili's letter "appeared to acknowledge and accept" a Western condition that Iran has previously resisted: that any talks "begin with a discussion of (Iran's) nuclear programme".

A formal response by the P5+1, whose members are still consulting with each other, may not, however, be forthcoming until after the scheduled visit next week by a high-level delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the second in the past month. If Tehran accedes to certain requests that it denied the delegation in its last visit, confidence will be enhanced, U.S. officials said.

The latest developments come after several months of escalating tensions, the most recent spiral of which began in late December with the adoption of "crippling" sanctions by Washington and the EU and threats by some Iranian officials to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Since then, officials in the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its allies here repeatedly urged Washington to build up its forces in and around the Gulf to make the threat of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities more credible. They have also warned that Israel may attack Iran unilaterally as early as this spring without necessarily consulting the U.S. in advance.

Israel also accused Tehran of attempting to carry out a series of bombings against Israeli diplomatic personnel in India, Georgia and Thailand, presumably in retaliation for the assassination of five Iranian nuclear scientists over the past several years, the most recent one on Jan. 11.

Most experts believe Israel's Mossad, possibly with the help of an Iraq-based terrorist group, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, was behind the scientists' killings. For its part, Tehran strongly denied responsibility for this week's bombings.

These developments come amid signs of major differences between Israel and the administration of President Barack Obama with respect both to possible military action against Iran and what each considers an acceptable negotiated solution to its nuclear programme.

The Israelis have argued that Iran, once it decided to build a nuclear bomb, could throw out IAEA inspectors from its new underground Fordow facility near of Qom and begin producing weapons-grade uranium at any time. The facility is buried so deep that it would be impervious to Israel's biggest conventional bombs. In its view, Tehran could thus enter a "zone of immunity" within months.

The administration, however, has argued that the situation is not nearly as urgent, not only because Washington has munitions that could penetrate Fordow, but also because Iran faces many more challenges in building a missile-deliverable weapon, challenges that could be made more difficult to overcome by concerted international action, including ever-tighter sanctions.

The latest estimates suggest that a deliverable bomb would take at least two to three years to build from the time that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, authorised such an effort, a decision that both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies agree he has not yet taken.

In Washington's view, there remains much more time to take military action against Iran's nuclear programme as a last resort. Moreover, absent clear evidence that Iran is indeed building a weapon, any attack would be seen as by the international community as aggression and increase Tehran's determination to build one as a deterrent against future attacks.

The two allies also appear to disagree over the terms of an acceptable negotiated settlement and what constitute "red lines" over which Iran should not be permitted to cross. While administration officials most often insist that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to obtain a nuclear "weapon" or "bomb", the Israelis insist that a nuclear weapons "capability" – a much lower and vaguer threshold – is unacceptable.

Israel opposes any uranium enrichment by Iran, a position that was shared by the administration of President George W. Bush and, at least until very recently, by France, which has consistently demanded that Tehran comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that it suspend its enrichment activities.

Although the Obama administration has not said so in so many words – no doubt to preserve its negotiating position – it has been signaling since Congressional testimony by Clinton last March that it would be prepared to accept Iran's enrichment of uranium to a limit of 3.5 percent, provided that Tehran accept a much more intrusive IAEA inspection regime and clear up all outstanding questions posed by the IAEA regarding evidence of weaponisation activities.

These were the conditions set out explicitly by Obama's former top Iran adviser, Amb. Dennis Ross, in a New York Times op-ed. It also suggested that Washington was open to a step-by-step Russian proposal that called for international sanctions against Iran to be eased in response to confidence-building steps by Tehran, such as halting its 20-percent enrichment programme and shipping its accumulated stock out the country.

He noted that Iran's foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said recently P5+1 talks could be based on the Russian proposal.

Ross's op-ed was regarded as especially significant for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that he continues to dispense advice to the White House from his perch at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank founded by the most powerful organisation in what is known as the Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

For its part, however, AIPAC is lobbying heavily for Israel's position. Half a dozen of its most loyal Senate allies this week introduced a resolution that asserts that the prevention of Iran's acquisition of a "nuclear weapons capability" is "a vital national interest of the United States".

The resolution, which was co-sponsored by some 30 Republicans and Democrats, also insists on a "full and sustained suspension" of all Iran's uranium enrichment activities and "a verified end to (Iran's) ballistic missile program" – demands that appear calculated to sabotage any possible prospects for a successful negotiation.

In a letter to Obama Thursday, the main sponsors, who include Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham, independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and New York's two Democratic senators, said they will oppose "any proposal… in which Iran is permitted to continue enrichment on its territory in any form".

AIPAC is expected to push for a Senate vote on the resolution, as well as a companion measure in the House of Representatives, before or during its annual Washington convention, to be attended by Netanyahu, most members of Congress, and thousands of staunchly pro- Israel activists, in early March, when the P5+1 talks may also get underway.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web. His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.