Right Web

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

Former Hostages Call for Broadened Dialogue with Iran

On the eve of renewed P5+1 negotiations in Kazakhstan, at least two former hostages of the U.S. embassy crisis in Iran have called on the United States to engage with more direct dialogue with Iran.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

On the eve of resumed talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China plus Germany) in Almaty, Kazakhstan over its nuclear programme, two former hostages of the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran argued that the aura of mistrust that has dogged relations for decades must be addressed.

“The ghosts of 1979 will be there and they will do their best to prevent any progress – they will haunt the proceedings, so to speak,” said retired Ambassador John Limbert at a Capitol Hill press conference Monday.

“All concerned should take steps [to address the shared issue of mistrust], particularly the governments of Iran and the United States,” Ambassador Bruce Laingen (retired), the chief of mission held hostage during the 1979 hostage crisis, told IPS.

“The two of us intrude on each other’s interests all the time. We’ve got to find a way reasonably to talk about those interests as they conflict or at least be ready to talk,” he said.

A fluent Persian-speaker and author, Limbert also urged broadening diplomatic efforts with Iran despite the constantly referenced grievances on both sides.

“The U.S. ‘two-track’ policy of engagement and pressure has – in reality – only one track: multilateral and unilateral sanctions, that whatever their stated intention and real effects, are allowing the Iranian government to claim credit for defying an international bully,” he said at the packed event, which was co-hosted by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the National Iranian American Council.

“To move forward, we must stop holding all questions hostage to agreement on the nuclear issue…The United States and Iran must open up dialogue on areas where there is political space on both sides to break the cycle of mistrust,” he said.

“The Islamic Republic, like it or not, is what it is and we have things to talk about, even if we are not friends,” said Limbert, a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy.

The Barack Obama administration maintains that “all options are on the table” to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. “But neither side wants to resort to military action to reach a solution,” said Alireza Nader, a senior policy analyst at the Rand Corporation, during an Arms Control Association briefing Monday.

“A military conflict – you can a make a very good argument – would be against the national interests of all sides,” he said.

Still, what has been assessed by most Western nuclear experts and intelligence agencies as Iran’s slow but steady move towards a nuclear weapon capability has resulted in years of cold and at times tense relations between Iran and the U.S. and Israel, as well as an ongoing “crippling” sanctions regime that led to Iran’s currency losing 40 percent of its value in October 2012, among other economic pain.

Yet Iran continues to insist that its nuclear activities are completely peaceful and has shown no sign that it will submit to P5+1 demands – most recently described as the “stop, shut and ship” demand (Iran should stop enriching uranium to 19.75 percent, shut down its Fordow plant and ship out its stockpile of its 19.75-enriched grade of uranium) – without substantial sanctions relief and acknowledgement of what Iran interprets as its right to enrich uranium according to its interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Hopes for bilateral talks between Iran and the U.S. were also dashed last week after a speech by Iran’s Leader Ali Khamenei was interpreted by the Western press as a rejection of direct talks.

“The U.S. is pointing a gun at Iran and wants us to talk to them. The Iranian nation will not be intimidated by these actions,” said the leader on Feb. 7.

But some analysts contend that bilateral talks, as with progress on the nuclear issue, remains possible.

“[T]he Leader did not explicitly rule out bilateral talks. He merely voiced deep scepticism as to whether they would lead to a resolution of the nuclear dispute,” wrote Peter Jenkins, the UK’s former ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on IPS’s foreign policy blogon Feb. 8.

“To goad Iran into entering direct talks with the U.S., the Americans must come up with ways to show that they are serious about finding a peaceful solution,” Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iranian political analyst based in London, told IPS.

“The Obama administration can do this by either taking on Congress to secure concessions, or pushing the European members of the P5+1 to lift EU sanctions,” he said.

While the P5+1 willreportedlypresent Iran with an updated proposal that will include “sanctions relief” in return for verifiable moves by the Iranians that their nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, few are expecting substantial progress during this round of talks, particularly because Iran is getting ready for its June presidential election.

The Iranians are unlikely to allow substantial nuclear progress to be made while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is president, according to Shabani, who edits the Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs website.

“The best that can be achieved in Kazakhstan is for all sides to agree on some kind of road map for how to end the nuclear crisis down the road, and agree on a series of technical-level meetings to pave the way for high-level political talks later this year,” Shabani told IPS.

“Tearing down the wall of mistrust will not be easy,” said Laingen, who first served in Iran in 1953, during the Capitol Hill briefing Monday.

“But brick by brick, every step toward that goal advances the national security interests of the U.S. and Israel and other allies in the region, which are threatened by the spectre of another war in the powder keg of the Middle East,” he said.

Jasmin Ramsey is a contributor to Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share