Right Web

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

Israel and the Gulf Increasingly Nervous Over Iran-U.S. Détente

As Iranian diplomats meet with their western counterparts in Geneva, Israel and the Gulf monarchies are united in their opposition to a U.S. peace agreement with Iran.

Inter Press Service

As hopeful, albeit vague, statements about talks in Geneva between Iran and the great powers continued to issue from the Swiss city, foes of détente between Washington and Tehran maintained their own high tempo of work.

The government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and its supporters in the powerful Israel lobby, which exerts its greatest influence through Congress, appear to be working overtime to persuade the administration of President Barack Obama not to ease economic sanctions on Iran until their maximalist demands are met.

On the eve of the two-day talks between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 (United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany), a bipartisan group of ten key U.S. senators published a letter they sent to President Barack Obama urging Washington’s delegation to stake out positions in Geneva – specifically, that Iran end all uranium enrichment on its own soil – which most Iran specialists believe are certain to kill prospects for a deal.

While insisting that they “support your efforts to explore a diplomatic opening,” the senators wrote Obama that they were “prepared to move forward with new sanctions to increase pressure” on Tehran unless it takes “concrete …actions” to dismantle its nuclear programme, beginning with the suspension of all enrichment.

If Iran complies, they said, they would suspend action on pending sanctions legislation that otherwise could be taken up as early as next week.

The letter reflected the position of Netanyahu, who has been campaigning tirelessly for several weeks, particularly since Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, made a highly successful visit last month to New York for the U.N. General Assembly, against any agreement between the P5+1 and Tehran that would not require Iran to totally abandon its nuclear programme, including enrichment capabilities.

On the second day of talks, Netanyahu publicly released what veteran Israel-watchers called an unprecedented “Security Cabinet Statement” detailing alleged violations by Iran of U.N. Security Council resolutions and warning the P5+1 against any “premature” easing of economic sanctions, which last year halved the value of Iran’s currency.

“It would be an historic mistake not to take full advantage of the sanctions, by making concessions before ensuring the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” the statement asserted.

It then laid out conditions, including the cessation of all nuclear enrichment and the removal from Iran’s territory of all stockpiles of enriched uranium, that would result in Israel’s “embrace [of] a genuine diplomatic solution”.

A possible deal

The wave of attacks comes amidst growing speculation that the latest talks might provide an unprecedented opening for a deal.

For the first time, Washington appears willing to seriously address a proposed end-state that will meet a long-standing Iranian demand to maintain an enrichment programme in exchange for accepting tight constraints and a strict inspection regime to ensure against any “break-out capacity” that would enable Tehran to produce a nuclear weapon on short notice.

Until recently, U.S. policy had essentially adopted Israel’s position that Iran could not be trusted with an enrichment programme on its own soil. Lately, however, the administration has hinted that while it will not formally recognise Iran’s “right to enrich” under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it could live with such a limited programme as part of a comprehensive deal.

The deal includes Tehran’s disposing of its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, dismantling its capacity to enrich at higher levels, and addressing concerns about its heavy-water facility at Arak, which could begin producing plutonium when it opens some time next year.

As Iran verifiably implements such a deal, according to U.S. officials, the administration and its P5+1 partners would lift sanctions.

While no one expects a comprehensive agreement to be concluded during the Geneva talks, the apparently positive reception by U.S. and western delegations to a presentation by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif of what Tehran is willing to do under such an accord suggests that confidence-building measures (CBMs) and proportionate sanctions relief may quickly follow.

That prospect worries Israel and the Gulf states – particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain – who not only oppose Iran’s retaining any enrichment capabilities but also fear that a nuclear deal between Iran and the West that results in lifting sanctions will inevitably alter the strategic balance throughout the region, facilitating Iran’s re-emergence as a major power at their expense.

“They’re doing everything they can to make sure it doesn’t happen because they fear that any outcome based on these negotiations is going to be a net negative for them compared to the status quo,” according to Trita Parsi, NIAC’s president.

But such a view is short-sighted, he told IPS, “because it doesn’t take into account how this game-changer can also open up new opportunities” by creating a new security structure that can help reduce sectarian conflicts and restore some stability to a region in turmoil.

Ire from Saudi Arabia

Even Saudi Arabia, while less vocal and powerful than Israel in U.S. domestic politics, took its own shots at the negotiations and possible rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.

In a remarkable appearance at the annual leadership convention of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Tuesday, Riyadh’s former ambassador to London and Washington, Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud, warned, “Rouhani will have to deliver before others take him seriously,” and bemoaned the fact that the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), of which it is the leading member, had been excluded from the P5+1 talks.

While he insisted that the Riyadh “favours engagement with Iran,” he also accused Tehran of seeking regional “hegemony” and intervening in Arab countries. Its alleged direct military involvement in the “killing” in Syria, he stressed, should disqualify it from participating in talks in Geneva to end that country’s civil war.

Rouhani, he said, “has to shed Khomeini’s interventionist legacy and, like his own discourse, adopt sensible policies.”

Jim Lobe is a contributor to Right Web and blogs on foreign policy at 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