Right Web

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

Are Iran and the United States Headed Towards a “Heroic Agreement”?

Despite strident opposition in some quarters to efforts to reach an accord between Washington and Tehran, circumstances are gradually changing in favor of a deal.

Inter Press Service

Signs of rapprochement between Tehran and Washington are growing. A new era seems about to begin. It is now possible to imagine a political solution that would put an end to the 33-year confrontation between Iran and the United States.

In early September, we were once more on the verge of war in the Middle East. The big global media players published headline after headline on the United States’ “imminent attack” on Syria, a key ally of Iran, accused of committing a “chemical massacre” on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21.

All signs pointed to a new conflict – which, in that danger zone, ran the risk of soon turning into a regional conflagration.

Russia (which has a geostrategic naval base in Tartus, on the Syrian coast, and supplies Damascus with weapons on a large scale) and China (in the name of the principle of national sovereignty) had warned that they would veto any request for United Nations Security Council approval for an attack.

For its part, Tehran, while it denounced the use of chemical weapons, also opposed a military intervention, because it feared that Israel would take advantage of the occasion to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear installations…

Hence, the powder kegs in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey, faced a risk of exploding.

But all of a sudden the “imminent attack” was abandoned. Why?

In first place, there was strong rejection on the part of Western public opinion, which was largely hostile to a new conflict whose main beneficiaries, on the ground, could only be Jihadists linked to Al Qaeda – against whom the Western forces are fighting in Libya, Mali, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere.

Later, on Aug. 29, came David Cameron’s humiliating defeat in the British parliament, which left Britain out of the game.

Then on Aug. 31 came the shift by Barack Obama, who decided, to gain time, to ask for a green light from the U.S. Congress.

And last, on Sep. 5, during the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin suggested putting Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal under U.N. control, so it could eventually be destroyed.

This solution, an indisputable diplomatic triumph by Moscow, was in the interests of Washington as well as Paris, Damascus and Tehran.

But it also meant, paradoxically, a diplomatic defeat for some of the United States’ allies (and enemies of Iran): namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

There is no doubt that this solution should transform the diplomatic atmosphere and accelerate the rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.

Actually everything had started on Jun. 14, when Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran, to succeed the polemic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At his Aug. 4 inauguration, the new president said a different era was starting, and that he would, through dialogue, pull his country out of its diplomatic isolation and confrontation with the West over its nuclear programme.

His principal objective, he said, was to ease the pressure of the international sanctions that are strangling the Iranian economy.

The sanctions are among the toughest ever imposed on a country in peace time.

On Sep. 25, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif held, for the first time since relations between the two countries were broken off on Apr. 7, 1980, a bilateral diplomatic meeting, on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The atmosphere, characterised by a conciliatory tone and small steps on the road to reconciliation, was seen more spectacularly during the now-famous Sep. 27 telephone conversation between Obama and Rouhani.

With the exception of Israel’s ultra-conservative government, which is trying to torpedo the rapprochement, other U.S. allies do not want to be the last to jump on the peace bandwagon. And above all, they do not want to let juicy trade deals with a country of 80 million consumers escape.

So everything indicates that the current thaw will intensify. Objectively, Iran and the United States have an interest in making peace.

On the geostrategic front, Obama is trying to free himself up in the Middle East in order to focus more on Asia, which the U.S. sees “as the future in terms of economic growth in the 21st century,” in the words of Simon Kahn, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore.

U.S. involvement in the Middle East, which has been steady since the end of World War II, was justified by the existence in the region of most of the world’s oil reserves, essential for the U.S. productive machine.

But that has changed since the discovery of large shale gas and oil deposits in the United States, which could help the country make significant progress towards energy autonomy.

Tehran, for its part, needs this deal to ease the pressure of the sanctions and reduce the difficulties plaguing Iranians in their day-to-day lives – because the country is not safe from a major social uprising.

With respect to the nuclear question, Iran seems to have understood that having a nuclear bomb that it would not be able to use, and finding itself in the same situation as North Korea, is not an option.

At the same time, the status of regional power to which Tehran has always aspired would require an agreement (or even alliance) with the United States, as is the case with Israel and Turkey.

And finally, a far from negligible aspect: time presses. There is a risk that Obama’s successor will turn out to be more intransigent, three years from now.

There will be no shortage of obstacles on either side. The adversaries of an accord are not few, and they have power. To sign any deal, Washington, for example, needs approval from Congress, where Israel has many friends. In Tehran there are also fearsome adversaries of an agreement.

But everything points to the end of a cycle. The logic of history is pushing Iran and the United States, which share a common faith in economic liberalism, towards what we could call “a heroic agreement”.

Ignacio Ramonet is a contributor to Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share