Right Web

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

How Bibi’s Speech Plays in Tehran

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to convince Congress last week that a nuclear deal with Iran would be bad, a delegation consisting of European Parliament members and former high-ranking diplomats held brainstorming sessions with their Iranian counterparts on a host of issues aimed at improving relations between the EU and Tehran.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress, he insisted that Iran is much more desperate than the US to get a nuclear deal. Therefore, if more pressure is applied on Iran to get what Netanyahu calls a “better deal”—no uranium enrichment at all— Iranians will inevitably cave. The prime minister dismissed the possibility that Iran might instead walk away from the table with the crude Orientalist cliché of Iran’s bargaining in the Persian bazaar.

Yet a European delegation that visited Tehran on March 2-3 got a very different impression. The delegation—made up of members of the European Parliament, former high-ranking diplomats, and experts in the energy field—was organized by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, an influential foundation associated with the Social Democratic Party, currently part of Germany’s ruling coalition. The delegation met with Iranian officials in the foreign ministry and members of the parliament. It also held brainstorming sessions with the foreign ministry’s Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) on the future of EU-Iran relations.

Participants in the discussions emphasized the fundamental divergence of perspectives. Europeans choose to put the nuclear issue at the center of their relations with Iran. But from Tehran’s perspective, the nuclear file is no more than a stumbling block impeding cooperation in a number of areas where the EU and Iran have common interests, such as Iran’s potential role in diversifying the EU’s energy supplies and the fight against the terrorist Islamic State (ISIS or IS). That said, all Iranian interlocutors supported the efforts of the negotiating team led by Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in resolving the nuclear issue.

Significantly, the “principlists,” the conservatives who dominate the Iranian parliament, also conveyed this message. Despite the hype about Iranian hardliners potentially scuppering any deal negotiated by Zarif, they have exercised greater restraint so far than their peers in the US Congress. The powers of the Iranian parliament are not to be underestimated. MPs can sack individual ministers, as they did when they brought down the reformist Minister of Education Reza Faraji-Dana and threatened to impeach another reformist, Minister of Culture Ali Jannati.

Although Zarif has had to face some pretty tough questioning in parliament, the MPs have so far toed the line set by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in support of the negotiations. There is a consensus around what is deemed an acceptable deal. It should not infringe on Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including enrichment. It should contain provisions for the lifting of “unlawful and illegal” sanctions. And any restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program going beyond the NPT should be temporary.

As to the suspected military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program, both MPs and foreign ministry officials, including Zarif himself, keep insisting that the acquisition of nuclear weapons would not improve Iran´s strategic position. In the words of an influential conservative Iranian lawmaker, “the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons does not prevent the US from sending drones to that country.” On the nuclear issue, Iranians generally present a united front, framed in the language of Iran’s national dignity.

Contrary to Netanyahu’s suggestions, the chances are much higher that, if faced with renewed pressure and sanctions, Iran would not succumb. Rather, it would opt out of the negotiations, unilaterally unfreeze the key elements of its nuclear program frozen under the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) of November 2013, and begin to build new centrifuges. Iranians stress that sanctions can’t take away their technical expertise. Nor does Iran feel as isolated as the West sometimes portrays it. The Non-Aligned Movement, a 120 nation-strong bloc, has backed Iran’s nuclear stance. Government officials also point out that China has replaced Germany as Iran’s main trading partner. If the nuclear negotiations collapse due to new American sanctions, Iranians expect that the existing sanctions architecture would crumble, with not only Russia and China, but also EU countries pursuing their economic and energy interests in Iran independently of US sanctions.

That said, the outcome preferred by the mainstream of Iran’s political opinion and the public at large is still clearly to have a deal with the West. Although the wounds in the relations with the US will take time to heal, no such impediments exist in the case of Europe. Iranians from different walks of life still feel a strong cultural affinity with Europe. They also point to a number of shared concerns where cooperation, in Tehran’s view, would be beneficial for both sides.

For instance, at all meetings, the Iranians raised the issues of European fighters joining IS in Syria and Iraq and the spread of the Wahhabi ideology among Muslims in Europe, suggesting the importance of joint efforts to counter these trends. Also mentioned was the diversification of Europe’s oil and gas supplies as well as Iranian interest in European expertise and investment in renewable energy, environment protection, and water management—all areas that, importantly, are not covered by the sanctions regime. Profound disagreements persist in the area of human rights, but most Iranian interlocutors agreed that a way should and could be found to discuss these issues.

Following Netanyahu’s advice would not produce a “better deal.” Renewed sanctions will not cause Iran to make more concessions. It would only kill the opportunity of a historic rapprochement between the West and Iran, potentially paving the way for another disastrous war in the Middle East. And that would be a very bad deal indeed.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

John Yoo is a former deputy assistant attorney general known for his extreme views on executive wartime powers and for helping author the George W. Bush administration’s infamous “torture memos.”


Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


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.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


Print Friendly

“The fundamental conflict at the heart of Israeli-Russian views on Syria is that Israel’s redline is the establishment of a permanent Iranian presence in Syria and Russia’s redline is the elimination of a permanent Iranian presence in Syria.”


Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


RightWeb
share