Right Web

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

U.S.-Iran Poised for Breakthrough on Hostage Crisis Anniversary

Even as anti-American hardliners rally in Tehran and hawkish U.S. lawmakers peddle new sanctions legislation against Iran in Washington, experts believe a U.S.-Iran détente could be in the works.

Inter Press Service

On the 34th anniversary of the seizure by Iranian militants of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, a growing number of experts believe Washington and the Islamic Republic may be moving toward détente, if not rapprochement.

While hardline demonstrators in Tehran marked the anniversary with ritual chants outside the long-abandoned embassy of “Death to America!”, U.S. negotiators and their Iranian counterparts were preparing for critical talks in Geneva on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme with their partners from the so-called P5+1 (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China plus Germany).

The talks are also likely to include a bilateral tete-a-tete between the heads of the countries’ delegations. It would be the third such session since Secretary of State John Kerry spent an hour with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif on the sidelines of a P5+1 meeting at the U.N. General Assembly in New York at the end of September.

That meeting – the highest-level talks between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Revolution – was followed by the unprecedented phone call by Barack Obama to Hassan Rouhani, as Iran’s new president was making his way to JFK airport after his highly successful four-day sojourn at the U.N.

The speed and intensity of these exchanges have clearly injected growing confidence in Washington, and apparently in Tehran, too, that both sides are seriously committed to reaching an accord on Iran’s nuclear programme — and thus opening a new chapter in bilateral relations — despite opposition from powerful hard-line constituencies who, for now at least, have been put on the back foot.

Thus, while the recent demonstration in Tehran celebrating the embassy seizure – which launched the 444-day “hostage crisis” that no doubt contributed to the 1980 election defeat of President Jimmy Carter and seared a deeply hostile image of Iran in the U.S. collective consciousness – drew thousands of anti-U.S. protestors, the ruling authorities had made clear in previous days that diplomacy would go forward.

Thus, banners attacking “the Great Satan” and the alleged naivete of Zarif and Rouhani that appeared in various parts of Tehran in advance of the anniversary were removed by municipal workers. According to a tweet by the New York Times correspondent in the Iranian capital, they also “rushed” to the demonstration to quickly dispose of its remnants after the crowd had dispersed.

More important, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had earlier suggested disapproval of Rouhani’s conversation with Obama, came out firmly in favour of the president and his team in a speech to students on the eve of the anniversary.

“No one should consider our negotiators as compromisers. They are our children and children of the revolution. They have a difficult mission, and no one must weaken an official who is doing his job,” he declared in what was widely considered here as his strongest defence of Rouhani and Zarif to date.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has taken pains ever since the last P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva Oct. 15-16 to deal with opposition to engagement both in Washington, where it is centred in Congress where the Israel lobby exerts its greatest influence, and among its allies abroad, notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Israel.

On the home front, a series of high-level meetings appears to have persuaded key senators from both parties to hold off on acting on a pending sanctions bill already passed by the House of Representatives that would punish foreign companies or countries for importing any Iranian oil until at least after the talks,.

Iran experts have warned that new sanctions would almost certainly strengthen Iran’s hard-liners, forcing a suspension in negotiations at the least. The administration also argued that such legislation, coming at a moment of growing optimism, also risked fracturing the international coalition that has so far mostly respected the sanctions regime.

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Sen. Carl Levin, who heads the powerful Armed Services Committee, insisted that Washington had an obligation to test Rouhani’s promises to clear up doubts about the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear programme.

“Whether it is a 10 percent, 40 percent, or 60 percent chance, it should be tested and probed,” he said. “We should not at this time impose additional sanctions.”

Even some Republicans suggested they were willing to be patient. Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, who noted he has voted for every previous sanctions bill, said he was “open” to waiting. “The whole idea behind sanctions was to get people to talk, to deal with the issue,” he told ‘The Hill’ newspaper.

Senior administration officials have also met with leaders of key hawkish Jewish organisations, including the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which, aside from Christian Zionist groups, make up the influential Israel lobby.

Along with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, these groups have pushed hardest for tougher sanctions, as well as concrete moves to make the threat of military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities more credible.

While accounts of these consultations have conflicted, the administration appears to have asked for a pause in lobbying for new sanctions for at least a few months.

The Jewish leaders reportedly agreed to a limited “time out” during which they would neither actively push for nor lobby against any sanctions legislation, although one of the participants, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, called for Senate approval of the pending package in an op-ed published by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper.

On the foreign front, meanwhile, Kerry was dispatched to the Middle East to reassure Saudi Arabia, Tehran’s arch-rival whose recent blunt criticism of U.S. policies in the region has shocked many observers, and its Gulf allies that Obama was indeed determined to prevent Iran’s acquiring a nuclear weapon. He will be travelling on to Israel later this week.

At the same time, Wendy Sherman, Washington’s chief negotiator at the P5+1 talks, appeared on Israel’s Channel 10 news programme to convey a similar message of the administration’s determination. Washington, she said, had no intention of abandoning key oil and banking sanctions until a comprehensive agreement over Iran’s nuclear programme was reached but was prepared to ease some sanctions as part of an interim confidence-building process.

She did not provide details on what a final agreement or interim measures would consist of. While Israel publicly insists that the price for lifting sanctions should be Iran’s total dismantling of its nuclear programme, experts believe that is not a realistic goal.

No matter how devastating the sanctions, no matter how persistent we are at the negotiating table, and no matter how credible the military option we are able to threaten – Iran will not agree to the maximalist terms that the Israeli government and some Americans advocate,” warned Robert Einhorn, who served as a top non-proliferation adviser at the State Department in Obama’s first term, in a widely-noted speech in October in which he laid out details of what he called a “good deal,” as opposed to an “ideal” one.

The former would limit Iran’s ability to quickly achieve “breakout capability” – that is, to move quickly to build a nuclear weapon before the U.S. or the international community could take effective action against stop it. Such a deal would include, among other measures, a significantly enhanced inspection regime by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), strict limits on uranium enrichment (five percent), the number of centrifuges, and stockpiles of enriched uranium.

Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at 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