Right Web

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

P5+1 Coalition Fraying on Eve of Second Almaty Talks with Iran

Tensions over Syria may undermine the unity of the P5+1 powers as they go back to Kazakhstan to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program.

Inter Press Service

On the eve of its second round of talks with Iran on curbing its nuclear programme in Almaty, Kazakhstan, the so-called P5+1 (U.S., Britain, France, China, and Russia plus Germany) is showing signs of growing disunity, according to the European Union’s former top foreign policy official.

Speaking at a forum at the Brookings Institution, Javier Solana, a former NATO secretary-general who was Iran’s chief European interlocutor from 2003 to 2009, suggested that Russia and China, in particular, are likely to oppose any additional sanctions or other pressure against Tehran if the Almaty talks, currently scheduled for Apr. 5-6, fail to yield much progress.

“I think that the level of consistency and coherence of the P5 (+1) is diminishing,” he told a standing-room-only audience. “It is diminishing first because of Syria. Remember that (on) Syria, China and Russia are not in the same place (as) the Americans and the Europeans, and that is an important issue. It is not a minor issue, because… (for) Iran, Syria has an important relationship. If on that we are not together, it will be more difficult to solve” the problem.

Syria was so important to Iran, he went on, that he did not think it possible to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme without also addressing Syria.

But Syria is not the only issue, he added, noting that at the recent so-called BRICS summit in South Africa, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and the host country, who have historically confined their statements to economic issues, jointly expressed growing concern about “threats of military action as well as unilateral sanctions” against Iran and urged all “disagreements with Tehran to be resolved by political and diplomatic means” alone.

Emerging powers, said Solana, are increasingly unhappy with Western pressure to curb imports of Iranian oil and gas, especially in light of the latest estimates of a possible spike in energy prices next year if Iranian supplies are kept off the market.

“That is something the Chinese (and) nobody wants,” he said, adding that China may be forced to increase Iranian imports to maintain its high economic growth rate.

Solana’s remarks come amid bubbling speculation about possible progress at Almaty which will take place two weeks after technical talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Istanbul.

According to Laura Rozen, an especially well-informed observer of the talks for the Al-Monitor website, the Iranian delegation agreed to consider suspending their 20-percent enrichment of uranium for a six-month period and to convert their existing 20-percent stockpile to uranium oxide for medical use in exchange for some relaxation of Western economic sanctions as a confidence-building agreement.

Their presentation was regarded as moving Tehran marginally closer to a P5+1 offer tabled during the first Almaty round in February.

At that time, the six powers agreed to provide modest sanctions relief, primarily by permitting Turkey and other countries that have traditionally imported Iranian oil and gas to pay in gold in exchange for Tehran’s suspension of 20-percent enrichment operations at its underground Fordo facility, shipping its 20-percent stockpile out of the country; and ramping up inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to Rozen’s sources, however, Iran raised numerous objections to the proposal at the Istanbul meeting.

Gary Samore, who served as President Barack Obama’s top nuclear adviser during his first term, told the Brookings audience that he thought the P5+1 offer was a “good deal” for Iran “if it is looking at ways to create a respite” from further economic sanctions which, he added, Washington and the three European countries are certain to push through in the absence of some interim agreement.

But he was doubtful that one would be achieved later this week in Almaty. “I have such low expectations for what’s going to come out of this next round of talks that I think it’s a mistake to try to set the bar,” he said. “If they agree to another round of meetings, that will be the process continuing, but I think that it really is unrealistic to expect that there’d be some kind of breakthrough in these talks.”

“Both sides are using diplomacy for their own purposes: the Iranians use diplomacy in an effort to show there’s progress and therefore no further sanctions are justified, and to the extent it looks like there’s progress, it helps maintain the value of the rial,” said Samore, who is now at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

“The U.S. and the P5+1 use diplomacy in order to demonstrate that Iran is being intransigent and unreasonable, and therefore more sanctions are required.”

“And that process is going to continue. …(I)f this next round of talks doesn’t produce results, the U.S. and the EU will be looking for additional sanctions in order to increase pressure,” he said. “…I think it’s possible Iran could decide after the presidential elections (in June) to accept the small deal on the table now.”

He stressed that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, both wants to avoid a U.S. military attack and to obtain a “nuclear weapons capacity” because he views the nuclear issue as part of a much broader struggle with the United States (which) “he believes is trying to destroy the Islamic Republic.”

On Syria, Samore argued that regime change will make a deal with Iran “more likely because the Supreme Leader will feel more isolated, under greater pressure, more likely to make tactical concessions in order to relieve further isolation and pressure.

“Of course that’s not going to change his fundamental interest to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity. I think it will confirm for him is the best way to defend himself against countries like the United States is to have that capacity.”

For his part, however, Solana said the West should be “much more engaged with Russia” on both Syria and Iran. Having met with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow two weeks ago, Solana reported a high level of distrust vis-à-vis the U.S. and regarding Washington’s intentions in Syria, and “my fear is that they may get cooler with relation (to) Iran, and we may break an agreement that the P5 may be maintained.”

He said the cohesion the P5+1 has maintained to date had been a “miracle” but suggested it was increasingly under threat.

Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


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.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share