Right Web

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

Calls for New Sanctions, Air Strikes Follow IAEA Report

Hawks in Israel, Western Europe, and the U.S. Congress have Iran in their crosshairs since the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran may be developing a nuclear weapon.

Inter Press Service

A significant gap between the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama and staunchly pro-Israel majorities in both houses of Congress appears to have emerged over what to do in reaction to Tuesday's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on possible military applications of Iran's nuclear programme.

Staunchly pro-Israel lawmakers on Capitol Hill are demanding the imposition, unilaterally if necessary, of "crippling sanctions" against Tehran – targeted initially against Iran's central bank and the foreign banks that do business with it. If those fail to bring Iran to heel, some are calling on the administration to prepare for air strikes against Tehran's nuclear facilities and other targets.

If a ramped-up sanctions regime doesn't "doesn't work, the other option is military force", Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told the widely read Cable blog on foreignpolicy.com Tuesday after the report was released.

The administration's reaction has been more cautious. Speaking mainly on background, senior officials have told reporters that neither option is being seriously considered at the moment. Instead, the administration hopes to work with its allies in imposing some new "targeted" sanctions and closing loopholes in existing ones.

It also hopes to persuade China and Russia to go along with a new round of sanctions against Iran at the U.N. Security Council, to which it hopes the IAEA's governing board will formally refer the report when it meets in Vienna late next week. Since 2006, the Council has approved four rounds of sanctions against Tehran.

"(W)hat we've been working towards is reinforcing (existing sanctions), working with countries around the world to make sure that those sanctions are upheld and implemented to the fullest extent possible," said State Department spokesman Mark Toner, who stressed that was "incumbent on Iran to at last engage with the IAEA in a credible and transparent manner to address" the concerns raised in the report.

"I think that as we move forward, we're going to consult and certainly look at ways to impose additional pressure on Iran," he said.

Early indications, however, suggested that the administration will find it hard to get both China and Russia on board. In a rare joint action, the two permanent Security Council members lobbied against the publication of the full report that included detailed evidence that Iran has conducted research and tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device" before its release.

While Beijing, a major importer of oil from Iran, called Wednesday for Tehran to "engage in serious co-operation" with the IAEA to clear up questions raised by the report, Moscow took a harder line.

Additional U.N. sanctions "will be seen in the international community as an instrument for regime change in Iran", Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennadi Gatilov said Wednesday. "That approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals."

Washington's major European allies, on the other hand, were more enthusiastic, with France leading the charge.

"If Iran refuses to conform to the demands of the international community and refuses any serious cooperation, we stand ready to adopt, with other willing countries, sanctions on an unprecedented scale," Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said.

The report, the most sensational parts of which were leaked to various Western media over several days before its actual release, was based on evidence accumulated from 10 member states and a foreign scientist who allegedly worked on the programme, as well as the agency's own work.

The report found that most of the nuclear-related activities that caused it the greatest concern were carried out between the late 1990s and 2003, but that "some activities may still be ongoing".

The U.S. intelligence community concluded in 2007 that key facets of a weaponisation programme ceased in 2003 and had not yet resumed – a position it has taken as recently as last March – and that does not appear to be inconsistent with the IAEA report's main findings.

"The Agency's ability to construct an equally good understanding of activities in Iran after the end of 2003 is reduced due to the more limited information available to the Agency," the report stated.

For its part, Iran, which has long denied any intent to build nuclear weapons, has charged that much of the evidence compiled by the IAEA was fabricated.

"This nation won't retreat one iota from the path it is going," declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a speech to a crowd in Shahr-e-Kord, a city in central Iran. "Why are you ruining the prestige of the (IAEA) for absurd U.S. claims?"

In addition to the leaks of the last few days, the run-up to the report's release was dominated by a flurry of reports from Israel that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his defence minister, Ehud Barak, were trying to persuade their cabinet to approve a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

But Yossi Alpher, a former senior Israeli intelligence officer who publishes the widely read bitterlemons-international.org blog, wrote Wednesday that those reports were apparently designed to take advantage of the forthcoming IAEA report to "generate stronger international sanctions".

"Right now …hype, pressure and deterrence appear to be the name of the game," he wrote in an article published Wednesday by the Forward, a major U.S. Jewish newspaper, although he did not exclude the possibility of an eventual Israeli attack.

For his part, Netanyahu declared Wednesday that the IAEA report "corroborates the position of the international community, and of Israel that Iran is developing nuclear weapons", a conclusion that went significantly beyond the report's actual findings.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu's position was echoed here by lawmakers who particularly close to the Israel lobby, whose leading organisation, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has long sought more confrontational stance toward Tehran.

"If this is not a smoking gun, I don't know what is," said Republican Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, among the biggest recipients of campaign dollars from AIPAC-linked political action committees over the past decade.

Kirk is co-sponsoring legislation with Democratic New York Sen. Charles Schumer that would require Obama to determine within 30 days whether Iran's central bank is providing support for the country's nuclear programme, major conventional weapons systems, or terrorism. If so, the president would have to sanction any international financial companies that do business with the central bank, effectively banning their access to the U.S. financial system.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved a similar measure introduced last week by the Committee's senior Democrat, California Rep. Howard Berman. The report "makes crystal clear to any remaining doubters that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability", Berman said in a statement Tuesday.

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

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