Archive for the ‘Sanctions’ category

Iran president cheers nuclear talks, says deal is getting closer

February 4, 2015

Iran president cheers nuclear talks, says deal is getting closer, Hot Air, Ed Morrossey, February 4, 2015

This deal is a surrender, not just in Iran but throughout the entire region. The only thing missing is the little piece of paper and the declaration of peace in our time.

********************

Hassan Rouhani has plenty of reasons to feel cheerful, as the US attempts to deal its way out of a four-decade standoff with Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry has loosened up billions of dollars to rescue the Iranian economy in exchange for nothing but talk, for one thing. Now, though, it appears that Kerry will cut a deal that not only allows Iran to keep all of its centrifuges, but also grants them de facto hegemony over the Middle East and Afghanistan to boot — and does so behind the backs of our European Union allies.

Smart power:

With time for negotiations running short, the U.S and Iran are discussing a compromise that would let Iran keep much of its uranium-enriching technology but reduce its potential to make nuclear weapons, two diplomats tell The Associated Press.

Such a compromise could break the decade-long deadlock on attempts to limit Iranian activities that could be used to make such arms: Tehran refuses to meet U.S.-led demands for deep cuts in the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium, a process that can create material for anything from chemotherapy to the core of an atomic bomb.

So what’s the solution that Kerry’s offering? A pledge from Iran to, er, not spin the centrifuges really fast. No, that’s actually what this compromise is:

The possible compromise under consideration, according to the AP, would see most of the 10,000 centrifuges in operation left in place but reconfigured so that they would be less productive. One way of doing that would be to spin the centrifuges more slowly. Other measures would be agreed upon to reassure the west that Iran could not make a warhead quickly, such as reducing its stockpile of uranium hexafluoride gas – the form in which uranium can be enriched by centrifuge.

Both the Guardian and the AP note that any change in either centrifuge speed or stocking of uranium hexafluoride gas would be immediately reported by the IAEA to the rest of the world. That, however, ignores the fact that Iran kept its nuclear-weapons program hidden successfully from the IAEA for most of a decade. Pardon us for not exactly considering that a fail-safe.

It also assumes that such a violation would return us to the status quo ante. It wouldn’t, on two levels. First, such a violation would occur when Iran builds its bomb, so by the time word got out, the bomb would almost certainly exists. Second, the current coalition would be very unlikely to reform to oppose Iran’s nuclear-weapons ambitions. It’s fraying at the edges already, or was until oil prices collapsed, and pressures in Ukraine have all but severed Russia from any interest in assisting the West. Cutting a bad deal now would end the effective opposition to Iranian nukes, and Iran knows it.

And what does Iran get for this fig leaf of a concession? Regional domination (via Jeff Dunetz):

According to EU officials, US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, have discussed increasing the number of centrifuges which Iran would be permitted to keep. In exchange, the Iranians would undertake an obligation to bring their influence to bear in order to ensure quiet in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

European diplomats are quoted by Israeli officials as saying that the US in recent weeks has made significant concessions in its talks with Iran, so much so that it is willing to permit Tehran to operate 6,500 centrifuges while lifting sanctions that have hurt its economy this past decade.

The Europeans have told the Israelis that these concessions were offered in exchange for Iranian promises to maintain regional stability. According to Army Radio, the EU is opposed to the proposed linkage between the nuclear issue and other geopolitical matters. In fact, the Europeans suspect that Washington is operating behind Brussels’ back and that Kerry has not bothered to keep them in the loop in his talks with Zarif.

In other words, the US is about to rubber-stamp Tehran’s domination in Syria, less than two years after Barack Obama wanted to bomb their ally Bashar al-Assad for fighting against the Sunni uprising there. While we’re trying to woo Sunni tribes away from ISIS in Iraq — and working with a coalition of Sunni Arab states to fight them, instead of going there ourselves — Kerry wants to hand off Iraq to Iranian domination. And suddenly we’re ceding our authority in Afghanistan to the mullahs in Tehran, to boot.

Jeff pulls out the Chamberlain umbrella to explain the inexplicable:

A nuclear Iran is not only a threat to Israel but thanks to a missile deal with Russia, a threat to  Europe and the US mainland.  Beyond the threat from Iran directly, as one of the largest supporter of terrorism in the world Iran may very well share a nuclear weapon with Hezbollah, ISIS,  its on -again buddy Hamas, or one of the other terrorist groups it supports.

President Obama is willing to sacrifice our safety and the safety of much of the world to give him a legacy of being a peacemaker, but it is more likely that like Neville Chamberlain before him, this President’s legacy will be as an appeaser who created many more deaths than he tried to save.

This deal is a surrender, not just in Iran but throughout the entire region. The only thing missing is the little piece of paper and the declaration of peace in our time.

Obama targets Netanyahu, Iran targets Israel

January 29, 2015

Obama targets Netanyahu, Iran targets Israel, Israel Hayom, Richard Baehr, January 29, 2015

Obama will tell himself and anyone who wants to ‎hear that he has brought Iran back into the community of nations. ‎Obama, after all, is a rare man. How many others can make 118 ‎self-referential mentions in a half hour talk, as Obama did in India ‎this week?

Is it any wonder ‎why someone who stands for something, say a country’s security, ‎as Netanyahu does, gets under the skin of a man who is primarily ‎concerned with little more than his own greatness, and whose ‎presidency, in a word, has been a “selfie”?‎

**********************

There is a bit of difference between Iran and U.S. President Barack Obama when it comes to ‎Israel. Iran has never been reticent that its goal is to eliminate the State of Israel, ‎and Israelis too while they are it. Iran’s proxy terror army of Hezbollah ‎contributed their part on Wednesday, killing two Israeli soldiers and wounding seven with anti-tank ‎fire from southern Lebanon directed at an Israeli convoy. Obama seems more ‎interested, at least in the next two months, in eliminating one Israeli — namely, Prime ‎Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ‎

It has been a remarkable two weeks in U.S.-Israel relations. The president ‎delivered his State of the Union address, in which he argued for staying the course ‎with negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, overselling what has already ‎been achieved, as well as what might be achieved. He also threatened to veto new ‎sanctions legislation that might be passed by Congress, where some have called for ‎tougher sanctions to be applied to Iran if a satisfactory deal were not struck ‎between the P5+1 and the Iranians by June 30. Obama argued that passing such a ‎measure now would be a sign of bad faith and drive the Iranians from the ‎negotiating table. It was, of course, an odd prediction, since one area in which the ‎Iranians have shown remarkable consistency has been in negotiating with ‎European powers, or the now expanded negotiating group for over 10 years, ‎always without a satisfactory outcome. The Iranians seem to like being seen as ‎negotiating while their nuclear program advances.‎

Fact checkers awarded Obama a bunch of “pinocchios” for his latest effort, suggesting he was all ‎but lying on the matter. No, the Iranians have not dismantled any centrifuges (they ‎have more running than before), they have not removed any fissile material from ‎the country for safekeeping, they have not allowed inspections on demand, they ‎have not disabled their Arak heavy-water reactor, they have not agreed to end any ‎missile program they are working on for delivery of a nuclear bomb. ‎

‎”Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran,” Obama said, ‎‎”where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of ‎its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.”

James Robbins, a senior fellow in national security affairs at the ‎American Foreign Policy Council, begged to disagree:‎

‎”But has Iran’s stockpile shrunk? Under a deal concluded last ‎November, Iran halted work on the most dangerous material, 20 ‎percent refined uranium. However, Iran is still making lower-grade ‎uranium. According to a report from the International Atomic ‎Energy Agency last November, Iran’s stockpiles of low-enriched ‎uranium gas and 5 percent enriched uranium were both growing. ‎Also, the agency cautioned that their figures only covered ‎‎’declared sites,’ the nuclear facilities Iran has publicly ‎acknowledged and allowed to be inspected.”‎

In the days after his address to Congress, the president repeated ‎his threats about vetoing new sanctions legislation, when meeting ‎with Democratic senators, several of whom, along with a few ‎Republican colleagues, had been lobbied on the matter by Britain’s ‎visiting Prime Minister David Cameron. The president upped the ‎ante, accusing Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New ‎Jersey, a leader in the attempt to pass new sanctions, of not ‎thinking long-term, but just trying to make his donors (could ‎Obama have meant Jewish donors?) happy.

The idea of a foreign leader directly lobbying members of ‎Congress on an issue like the Iranian sanctions bill took on a new ‎life when House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to ‎address a joint session of Congress on the Iranian issue on ‎February 11. The White House predictably blew its lid, accusing ‎Boehner of breaking established protocol for such an invitation. (It ‎should have been coordinated with the White House.) The usual ‎Obama water carriers like Jeffrey Goldberg were quick to lambaste ‎Netanyahu for stage managing the invitation so as to embarrass ‎Obama, and in the process threaten U.S.-Israel relations. As Joel ‎Pollak describes Goldberg’s argument:‎

‎”In his most recent Atlantic column, he claims, for example, ‎that Obama worked ‘in tandem’ with Netanyahu to promote ‎sanctions on Iran: ‘Netanyahu traveled the world arguing for ‎stringent sanctions, and Obama did much the same.’‎

“That is simply factually untrue. Obama resisted Iran sanctions ‎for months, defying even a unanimous vote in the Democrat-‎controlled Senate. Not only was Israel frustrated, and ‎Congress, but Europe as well, which accused Obama of re-‎inventing the wheel, resetting diplomacy that had started ‎under (gasp) George W. Bush.‎

“In fact, Obama pushed the world towards a more lenient ‎position on Iran, allowing nuclear enrichment in defiance of ‎U.N. Security Council resolutions.”

And then there is this doozy:‎

‎”It is Netanyahu’s job, Goldberg says, as ‘the junior partner in ‎the Israel-U.S. relationship,’ to make concessions.”‎

When it comes to negotiating with Iran, Netanyahu does not ‎sit at the table with the Iranians, but Obama’s representatives ‎do. And it is U.S. negotiators who have been making ‎concessions month after month since the talks began, in what ‎appears to be a desperate attempt to salvage some deal they ‎can broadcast as having achieved a minimal set of objectives. ‎That objective has now been reduced to providing some ‎minimum breakout time for Iran to achieve nuclear weapons ‎capability if they ditch the deal. What will the West do in that ‎time if Iran moves towards the bomb? It is pretty clear, any ‎military response from Obama is out of the question.‎

The administration has further demonstrated its unhappiness ‎about Netanyahu’s impudence in scheming with ‎Boehner, by announcing that neither the president nor his secretary of state will meet with Netanyahu when he visits ‎Washington, a date now moved back three weeks to overlap ‎his visit to the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. The excuse, ‎couched in a diplomatic smokescreen, is that it would be ‎improper for the president to meet with a candidate for office ‎abroad so close to the time of that country’s election. That ‎would be equivalent to electioneering and interference in the ‎other country’s race. Presumably when President Bill Clinton ‎met with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres just weeks ‎before his election contest with Netanyahu in 1996, at a time ‎when Israeli prime ministers were elected in a head-to-head ‎battle, electioneering was the furthest thing from Clinton’s ‎mind. ‎

The Obama team may not meet with Netanyahu when he ‎visits, but an experienced Obama campaign team from 2012 ‎is now in Israel working to defeat Netanyahu. That, in and ‎of itself, is nothing new for Israeli elections. Experienced ‎American campaign teams have aided Israeli candidates from ‎the Left and Right in recent decades. What is new is that the ‎current anti-Netanyahu campaign includes a State ‎Department funded group:‎

‎”U.S.-based activist group OneVoice International has partnered ‎with V15, an ‘independent grass-roots movement’ in Israel that is ‎actively opposing Netanyahu’s party in the upcoming elections, ‎Haaretz reported on Monday. Former national field director for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign Jeremy Bird is also ‎reportedly involved in the effort.‎

“OneVoice development and grants officer Christina Taler said the ‎group would be working with V15 on voter registration and get-out-‎the-vote efforts but would not engage in overtly partisan activities. ‎She said OneVoice and V15 are still formalizing the partnership.”‎

Obama’s team has gone further to poison the waters for ‎Netanyahu, planting a story in Haaretz that the Mossad was ‎opposed to new sanctions legislation, a charge they publicly ‎rebutted.‎

The Goldberg article was designed to deliver a message that Israel ‎has two important objectives now — to keep Iran from going nuclear ‎‎(for which their best hope of course is to count on Obama to do the ‎job for them in negotiations), and second, to keep American close ‎and happy with Israel’s behavior. Netanyahu, according to Goldberg, is ‎killing the good vibes that presumably must have existed during the ‎Obama years by his recent behavior.‎

There is an alternative interpretation for what is going on. Obama is ‎really not terribly bothered by a nuclear Iran. A bad deal that looks ‎like it delays Iran’s entry to the nuclear club is therefore not a bad ‎option. It also allows Obama to check off one more box on his ‎achievements list before his formal request to have his likeness ‎carved into Mount Rushmore. Pakistan has a bomb. Israel has the ‎bomb. Why not Iran, the leading Shiite nation? Iran, after all, is now ‎our strategic partner, fighting with us to battle ISIS in Iraq. ‎

The latest evidence that Obama is now on the Iranian team is the ‎New York Times editorial calling for accepting that having Assad ‎hang on in Syria is the least bad result, so backing a non-ISIS ‎Syrian rebel team is a bad idea. The New York Times editorial ‎page is little more than a conveyance tool for White House ‎messaging at this point, and so this is now clearly Obama’s ‎posture. How can we fight alongside Iran in Iraq, but support a side ‎that is fighting Iran’s ally Assad in Syria?

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is stepping up its activities in the Golan. The ‎Iranian goal appears to be to establish a base in Syria where Israel ‎can be targeted by the Lebanese group, without getting an Israeli ‎response in Lebanon itself. What is clear is that Hezbollah and Iran ‎have Israel in their sights. If Iran gets the bomb, the retaliation ‎options for Israel when Hezbollah pressure is applied, will be much ‎more limited. There is no certainty that Iran subscribes to the ‎mutually assured destruction deterrence club.‎

But not to worry. Obama will tell himself and anyone who wants to ‎hear that he has brought Iran back into the community of nations. ‎Obama, after all, is a rare man. How many others can make 118 ‎self-referential mentions in a half hour talk, as Obama did in India ‎this week?

Is it any wonder ‎why someone who stands for something, say a country’s security, ‎as Netanyahu does, gets under the skin of a man who is primarily ‎concerned with little more than his own greatness, and whose ‎presidency, in a word, has been a “selfie”?‎

John Bolton on WMAL 1-22-15

January 23, 2015

John Bolton on WMAL 1-22-15, via You Tube, January 22, 2015

(Audio only. Amb. Bolton speaks of PM Netanyahu’s address to Congress, no-go zones and Obama’s fantasies about Islamic terrorism, the Islamic State and Iran. — DM)

 

The death of an Iranian general on the Golan gave US Senators’ Iran sanctions bills military muscle

January 22, 2015

The death of an Iranian general on the Golan gave US Senators’ Iran sanctions bills military muscle, DEBKAfile, January 22, 2015

This was a dual threat: Israel would not stand by if Iranian and Hizballah forces moved into the Syrian Golan right up against its frontier. But in the wider context, Binyamin Netanyahu was signaling Obama in Washington and Khamenei in Tehran, that he no longer had any qualms about striking Iranian military targets if the two rulers failed to forge a workable, credible accord for keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands.

The Israeli action added military muscle to the US Senate legislation on Iran –  in the face of Obama’s reluctance to embrace tactics he believes would be disincentives for Khamenei to play ball on the ongoing multilateral nuclear diplomatic track in Geneva.

*****************

netanyahu_us_congress_11.2.15Binyamin Netanyahu in former address to US Congress

It is hard to believe that the White House was caught by surprise over House leader John Boehner’s unusual invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to address Congress on Feb. 11. After all, prior arrangements must have kept the Israeli embassy in Washington busy for weeks in a city, whose life blood is kept flowing by the mining and trading of information and secrets about friends and rivals alike.

All the same, it suited the four parties involved in this extraordinary event – Republican and Democratic lawmakers, the White House and Netanyahu – to pretend they were taken aback on Wednesday, Jan. 21 by the Speaker’s announcement of the prime minister’s coming address on “the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life.”

He accused President Barack Obama of “papering over” these threats over in his State of the Union speech a few hours earlier.

The White House said the invitation breached “typical protocol” but the administration would reserve judgment until they heard from Netanyahu about his plans.

The assumed air of astonishment greeting the invitation added an element of drama to the event. It also had the effect of further polarizing the camps for and against the Obama administration’s insistence on banking solely on diplomacy for containing Iran’s nuclear program.

Inevitable showdown

Obama and Netanyahu, who could never stand each other, have been at loggerheads for most of the six years of the former’s presidency over what is widely seen as the dead-end US Middle East policies he pursued in most major arenas such as Iraq, Yemen and Libya, the futile US air strikes against marching Islamist State soldiers, the unending Syrian conflict and the Palestinian issue.

The showdown building up for years between them may now be at hand. It will catch Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry fully engaged in a desperate pursuit of a comprehensive nuclear deal between Iran and the Six-World-Powers group. This deal could then be presented as an unquestioned success of Obama’s Middle East policies – indeed the only one.

Together with Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohamed Zarif, US officials have roughed out a draft accord. But most American nuclear experts and Israel’s top political and military leaders view this paper as a bad agreement, because it would leave Tehran with the freedom and resources to jump back from low-grade enrichment to full-dress production of a nuclear bomb and missiles when international and economic circumstances were more convenient.

But Obama and Kerry are counting on the ayatollahs holding their horses until the end of 2016, when the US administration changes hands. The Iranian nuclear deal’s inevitable breakdown would then land squarely on the shoulders of the next president and secretary of state taking over in Washington, while Obama would have formally honored his commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Khamenei between two compulsions

But this plan faces an outsize impediment: Rouhani and Zarif are holding back from putting pen to paper because of the strong objections posed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards military chiefs.

Earlier this month, the issue reached boiling point in Tehran, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report: The Guards threatened to unseat Khamenei by a military coup if he let Rouhani and Zarif sign the draft into a comprehensive, binding nuclear accord.

Khamenei, never lost for a devious maneuver, began weaving between the two compulsions – American demands for more concessions to finalize the deal and demands by hardliners at home not to give way. The move he made was to throw a bone in the form of an offer to cut down on the number of centrifuges used in uranium enrichment.

Obama and Kerry hailed this as a breakthrough toward a deal, although the experts dismissed it as meaningless.

Obama propositions Netanyahu

On this basis, Obama phoned Netanyahu Monday night, Jan. 13, to ask him for Israel’s support for the evolving comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran.

In return, he offered closer US cooperation in various areas of interest to Israel, such as the Palestinian issue, if the prime minister would withhold or cool his support for US Senate sanctions legislation:

The Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez seek to enact new sanctions on Iran if nuclear negotiations fail to meet their June 30 deadline for an accord.

Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — supported by Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain — is pushing for legislation which does not contain sanctions but would require a Senate vote on any pact that is agreed upon in Geneva.

Netanyahu rejected Obama’s proposition.

The US President was therefore adamant in his State of the Union references to the Iranian nuclear issue: “New sanctions on Iran would all but guarantee that diplomacy fails, heightening the prospects of war.” He said.: “Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran, secures America and our allies – including Israel – while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict.”

Obama did not elaborate on the parties who would take part in this hypothetical conflict, or explain why he limited himself to only two extreme scenarios – either a deal with Iran or tighter sanctions that would precipitate war.

Israel takes direct aim at Iran

It was no accident that two days before this speech, Obama had his answer from Israel. Sunday, Jan. 19, Israeli Air Force drones struck an Iranian-Hizballah military convoy near the Syrian Golan town of Quneitra. Six Iranian officers were killed, led by Gen. Mohamad Ali Allah Dadi, as well as the same number of high-ranking Hizballah operatives.

This was a dual threat: Israel would not stand by if Iranian and Hizballah forces moved into the Syrian Golan right up against its frontier. But in the wider context, Binyamin Netanyahu was signaling Obama in Washington and Khamenei in Tehran, that he no longer had any qualms about striking Iranian military targets if the two rulers failed to forge a workable, credible accord for keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands.

The Israeli action added military muscle to the US Senate legislation on Iran –  in the face of Obama’s reluctance to embrace tactics he believes would be disincentives for Khamenei to play ball on the ongoing multilateral nuclear diplomatic track in Geneva.

It also explains why John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address Congress on Feb. 11.

However, until then, Iran, Hizballah, Syria and even Israel may not stand idle. And the Obama administration may also decide to round up its assets in a bid to spoil the prime minister’s run for re-election on March 17.

Mossad denies opposing harsher sanctions on Iran

January 22, 2015

Mossad denies opposing harsher sanctions on Iran, Ynet News, Itamar Eichner, January 22, 2015

Head of Israeli spy agency releases statement denying it was working with the Obama administration against Netanyahu on Iran issue.

In an unusual step, the Israeli spy agency Mossad released an official statement on Thursday afternoon in which it denied that it opposes imposing additional sanctions on Iran, as reported in a Bloomberg report earlier in the day.

The Mossad statement said, “Mossad chief Tamir Pardo met with a delegation of American senators on January 19, 2015. The meeting was held at the request of the senators and with the approval of the prime minister. Contrary to the report, the head of the Mossad did not say that he opposed additional sanctions on Iran. The Mossad chief emphasized in the meeting the remarkable efficacy of the sanctions imposed on Iran over the last few years in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.

“The Mossad chief stated that when negotiating with Iran, the ‘carrots and sticks’ approach needs to be taken and at present, there aren’t enough ‘sticks.’ The Mossad chief noted that without strong pressure, it would not be possible to bring to meaningful compromises from the Iranian side.

56024560100388640360noPardo and Netanyahu: On the same page (Photo: GPO)

“As for the use of the term ‘grenade’, the Mossad chief did not use that with regards to imposing sanctions, which, as mentioned, he considers to be the ‘sticks’ that would aid in achieving a good agreement. He used this term to describe the possibility of creating a temporary crisis in the talks, at the end of which the negotiations will be renewed under better terms. The Mossad chief specifically stated that the agreement currently being formulated with Iran is bad and might lead to a regional arms race.”

The Bloomberg report was published after US House Speaker John Boehner invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress about the Iranian nuclear threat. Netanyahu has been urging the American administration to harden its sanctions policy. The Obama administration, Bloomberg reported, has been using the internal divide between the Mossad and Netanyahu to torpedo the bi-partisan proposal, penned by Senators Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez.

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has teamed up with Lindsay Graham and John McCain to propose a bill requiring the White House bring any deal with Iran to a vote in Congress.

The Obama administration opposes both measures and has warned the Senate to stay away from the delicate negotiations between Iran and world powers.

According to the report, Mossad officials have briefed the White House, as well as Republican legislators, on their opposition to the Kirk-Menendez bill, which would implement new sanctions on Iran if the negotiations fail to yield results by June 30 or the Islamic Republic fails to live up to its commitments.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, has expressed his support for the legislation, in particular, and sanctions on Iran, in general.

Evidence to Israeli interference in the Iran-US talks comes from comments made by Secretary of State John Kerry, who said an unnamed Israeli intelligence official had said the new sanctions bill would be “like throwing a grenade into the process.” When Menendez heard about the Mossad briefing, he demanded clarifications from Israel’s Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer.

Thawing U.S. ties: Cuba today, Iran tomorrow?

December 26, 2014

Thawing U.S. ties: Cuba today, Iran tomorrow? Al Arabiya NewsMajid Rafizadeh, December 26, 2014

(Please see also Obama’s Worst Lie About his Dirty Castro Deal is in his First Sentence.

Obama Cuba negotiations

Also, Obama’s need for a legacy consistent with his ideology trumps all else, including Iran’s abysmal human rights record, its theocratic government, its support for terrorism, its hatred for Israel and desire to eliminate her, its duplicity in its P5+1 negotiations and its insistence on getting (or keeping) nukes. True, removal of statutorily based sanctions would require congressional action. However, Obama has little interest in avoiding constitutional irregularities. No congressional approval was granted for the “temporary suspension” of sanctions and laws inconsistent with Obama’s desires can be and are waived. Litigation over the de facto removal of sanctions by executive order would take many years.– DM)

After almost 53 years of Cold War between the U.S. and Cuba, the transformation of ties between these two adversaries has sparked a considerable amount of debate with respect to the normalization of ties with other longstanding rivals. The possibility of resolving other diplomatic imbroglios, specifically the revival of diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Iran is a case that comes to mind.

Some Iranians showed their excitement on Twitter with regards to the Cuban deal. Some showed hope that their government will be next and they could soon see an American embassy in Tehran. However, others thought that an Iran-U.S. deal is an idealistic and unreachable dream.

Indeed, any normalization of diplomatic relationships between the Islamic Republic and the U.S. will likely have significant positive impacts on both nations, leading to a critical strategic and geopolitical shift in the Middle Eastern political chessboard. Currently, both countries have some shared strategic and geopolitical objectives in Iraq and Syria particularly when it comes to fighting ISIS.

A possible Iranian deal will remove the economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic, assisting Tehran to achieve its highest economic potential in exports, imports and wealth. The tourist industry would be revived in Iran, with many European and Americans fond of visiting thousands of years old historical sites in Esfahan Shiraz, Hamadan, and other provinces. Normalization of diplomatic ties will lead to the flow of (primarily) European companies to do business with the Islamic Republic. In addition, as Iranian youth have shown to be in favor of American brands and products, American manufactures will find a share in Iran’s market as well. Further, U.S. airplane companies will begin cooperation with Iranian airlines.

As many people are pondering on the likelihood of a deal similar to the recent Cuba agreement with Iran, the question is whether the executive order to lift the embargo on the Islamic Republic and conducting back channel diplomacy to fully open ties with Tehran is possible?

Iran’s file is more complicated and multilayered

There are some partial similarities between the Obama administration’s method to initiate a deal with Raul Castro’s government and the way it has recently approached the Islamic Republic. The major commonalities are the back channel diplomacy and talks.

Similar to the Cuban deal, the Obama administration has conducted back channel talks with Iranian politicians with respect to Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, President Obama sent a clandestine letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei highlighting some of the shared strategic, national and geopolitical interests that both nations have in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, these commonalities in diplomatic approaches have led some scholars, politicians, and policy analysts to jump to the conclusion that the same deal should be applicable to the case of Iran because such an approach was possible with Cuba and the embargo on Cuba was lifted.

But, not too fast.

Iran’s file is much more complicated, multifaceted and multilayered than the Cuban case. While Cuba is a small island close to the state of Florida with a population of approximately 11 million, Iran, with a population of over 80 million, is located in the complex geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East, and entangled among mixture of alliances and enmities in the oil rich region.

Second of all, from Washington’s perspective, Cuba has hardly been a serious threat to American strategic, geopolitical, or economic interests. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic has been a major player in scuttling U.S. foreign policy objectives and opposing its allies (including Israel) in the Middle East.

Third, several crucial regional developments are viewed from the prism of a zero-sum game for both Iranian and American officials. Iranian leaders are less likely to accept any compromises on their top foreign policy priorities, such as: keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power, withdrawing its financial, advisory, intelligence, and military support to the Iraqi and Syrian government, and assisting formidable proxies such as Hezbollah.

Fourth, there was no international consensus on the U.S. embargo and economic sanctions against the Cuban government. As a result, President Obama can issue an executive order to lift the embargo. Many European countries were doing business with the Cuban government and the United Nations repeatedly condemned U.S. sanctions. On the other hand, the four rounds of economic sanctions on Tehran came with the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Unlike Cuba, many regional and global powers are dubious about Iran’s nuclear and regional hegemonic ambitions.

Fifth, several developments in Iran, such as revelations of clandestine nuclear sites, the possibility of testing exploding detonators for nuclear weapons in Parchin military site, and the military dimension of Tehran’s nuclear program, have led to regional and international strain.

Finally, and more fundamentally, unlike Castro, Khamenei has shown no interest in fully normalizing diplomatic ties with the United States. For example, the Obama administration received no positive response from Khamenei through its diplomacy. In addition, there is no official public debate among Iranian politicians, across various spectrums of Iran’s political system, of even allowing the opening of an American embassy in Tehran. The U.S. domestic opposition to normalize ties with Iran, particularly from the Republicans, is much higher in comparison to the Cuban case. Although the Obama administration has taken some back channel steps to negotiate with the Islamic Republic, Iran’s supreme leader has not responded with signs of willingness to normalize relationships and he has been clear in not trusting the “Great Satan. “

The signal that Iranian leaders received from the Cuban deal is not what the Western media depicts- that Iran is optimistic about normalizing ties with the U.S.. The message that Tehran received was that the Islamic Republic has to persist in its policies and that economic sanctions will ultimately fail. As foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Akfham articulated: “The defense by the Cuban government and people of their revolutionary ideals over the past 50 years shows that policies of isolation and sanctions imposed by the major powers against the wishes of independent nations are ineffective.”

 

Sanction Relief Empowering the Mullahs, Not Citizens

December 26, 2014

Sanction Relief Empowering the Mullahs, Not Citizens, Front Page Magazine, December 26, 2014

(Surprise! And to which P5+1 nations, and to which entities within them, might the benefits of sanctions relief authorizing increased trade between the them and Iran go? — DM)

iran_2677161b-450x350

Four major institutions are benefiting mostly from the economic sanctions relief: Iran’s military-industrial complex, the Office of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a few top business figures who are connected with the government, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), through either legal and illegal imports and exports.

******************

There has always been an argument claiming that economic sanctions normally do not yield any result due to the notion that economic sanctions do not target the ruling elite and governmental official, but the ordinary people. This argument is partially accurate.

Nevertheless, we need to remember that some targeted economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic (particularly the sanctions in oil and gas sectors and financial and bank institutions) did endanger the hold on power of the ruling cleric in Iran, particularly the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That was the primary reason behind pushing the Iranian politicians to come to the negotiation table in nuclear talks.

On the other hand, the other side of the argument is that if economic sanctions are lifted, the major beneficiaries would be the ordinary people and the civilians. This argument would be accurate if the political and economic system of the given state is democratic, allows open opportunities for all, encourages the private sector, allows transparency, and holds those corrupt officials who commit illegal economic dealings accountable.

The Iranian political and economic system is devoid of the aforementioned standards. In fact, in states which the political system is mainly authoritarian or theocratic, and the economic system is monopolized by few people at top and is state controlled, any increase of wealth or flow of money will inevitably strengthening the ruling elite rather than the ordinary people.

To substantiate this argument, let us take a look on the ground in the Islamic Republic after the sanctions relief.

At the beginning, a majority of Iranian people were hoping that economic sanctions relief would alleviate their suffering, improve their standards of living, and push many families above the poverty line. Almost a year has passed since the Iranian government has been receiving sanctions relief.

After the interim nuclear deal and extension of the negotiations between the six world powers (known as the P5+1: China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and the Islamic Republic, the Iranian government had received an estimated $7 billion.  Iran continues to receive approximately $700 million every month under the extension deal.

In addition, there has been some sanction suspension with respects to some of Iran’s major industries, including Iran’s auto sector, gold and precious metals, as well as Iran’s petrochemical exports. The Iranian currency, the rial, has appreciated due to the sanctions relief, Iran’s oil and non-oil exports have increased, its economy is showing signs of stabilization, Tehran’s stock exchange has soared and Iran’s exports and business dealings with several countries have ratcheted up.

The suspension of sanctions has definitely given both psychological and financial support to the Iranian government.  But the real question is how this money is being spent and which institutions benefit primarily from this sanctions relief. Are ordinary people benefiting from these sanctions relief and flow of money?

Nevertheless, some Iranian civilians have begun to believe that even economic sanctions relief or even the lifting of the whole economic sanctions regime from the Iranian government are not going to assist civilians, their financial day-to-day activities, or bring concrete changes on the ground.

Four major institutions are benefiting mostly from the economic sanctions relief: Iran’s military-industrial complex, the Office of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a few top business figures who are connected with the government, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), through either legal and illegal imports and exports.

For example, the IRGC controls and owns a considerable amount of shares in the aforementioned industries which have witnessed sanctions relief. In the petrochemical industry, The IRGC military-industrial complex owns Zagros Petrochemicals; 40% of Pars Petrochemical Company, part of Arak Petrochemicals; 25% of Kermanshah Petrochemicals; as well as 19% of the shares of Maroun Petrochemicals.

This phenomenon of the monopolization of the economy applies in other sectors of Iran’s economy as well.  When it comes to Iran’s economic system, the Supreme Leader and IRGC do have a considerable amount of control and shares in almost all industries including financial institutions and banks, the transportation industry, automobile manufacturing, mining, commerce, and oil and gas sectors.

As a result, these types of sanctions relief will mostly benefit the ruling elite, primarily the Supreme Leader and Iran’s military-industrial complex, IRGC. Iranian people will hardly observe any benefits from this economic sanctions relief or lifting of economic sanctions.

It appears that the easing of sanctions are strengthening the ruling elite without any sign of redistribution of wealth. This is predominantly due to the fact Iran’s economic system is a state and military controlled system, it lacks transparency, as well as the reality that it is crippled with widespread corruption by the ruling elite and few on top.

If the intention of economic sanctions relief is to assist the Iranian people and alleviate their suffering, there ought to be more efficient approaches to develop some types of targeted sanctions relief (for example, being directed at Iran’s educational system, health care, etc.) which aim at empowering Iranian civilians and primarily the middle class.

Iranian Desire to Lift Sanctions Dominates Agenda at Geneva Nuclear Talks

December 17, 2014

Iranian Desire to Lift Sanctions Dominates Agenda at Geneva Nuclear Talks, Algemeiner, Ben Cohen, December 16, 2014

Back where they startedBack where they started: Iranian and American negotiators in Geneva this week. Photo: Twitter

Rouhani’s determination to lift the sanctions has worried some analysts, who posit that the Obama Administration may back down on key verification demands in order to boost the regime’s “moderate” faction.

“[W]e are down to just discussions on how to remove sanctions in exchange for a short term enhanced inspection arrangement that cannot possibly be relied upon to discover undeclared facilities,” Ottolenghi said. “Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is trading long term security for a short term diplomatic victory.”

**************

As nuclear talks between international negotiators and Iranian representatives got underway in Geneva today following two days of direct US-Iranian bilateral negotiations, the Tehran regime again stressed the importance of lifting sanctions against it, leading some analysts to express concern that sanctions relief may be applied even in the absence of a deal that satisfies western powers.

Iranian chief negotiator and deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi described the atmosphere at the bilateral negotiations as having “proceeded in a good ambience.” Aragchi stressed that “there were elaborate discussions on all topics, especially sanctions” – the issue that the Iranian regime is most concerned about.

A New York Times report today portrayed the sanctions issue as the dividing line between Iranian conservatives who reject a deal and the putative moderates, led by President Hasan Rouhani, who see a nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions as the price to pay for Iran’s full participation in international affairs.

“Mr. Rouhani came to office this year promising not just to strike a nuclear deal that would lift economic sanctions but to end Iran’s isolation from the world economy and to promote individual freedoms,” The Timesobserved.

Rouhani’s determination to lift the sanctions has worried some analysts, who posit that the Obama Administration may back down on key verification demands in order to boost the regime’s “moderate” faction.

“Iranian officials have a vested interest in presenting the talks as proceeding according to their list of desiderata,” Michael Doran, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense in the George W. Bush Administration who now works for the Hudson Institute think-tank in Washington DC,  told The Algemeiner. “That said, the Obama administration has shown a disturbing tendency to back away from previous red lines, of which forcing Iran to divulge the possible military dimensions (PMD) of its nuclear program is one of the most important – precisely because it is a prerequisite for effective monitoring.”

Any deal that offered sanctions relief before Iran has satisfied the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) concerns about the military aspects of its nuclear program “is a very bad deal,” Doran said.

Emanuele Ottolenghi, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Algemeinerthat Iran had persuaded the P5+1 – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany –”that neither its missile program nor the possible military dimensions of it nuclear research should be part of a final deal.”

“Instead, we are down to just discussions on how to remove sanctions in exchange for a short term enhanced inspection arrangement that cannot possibly be relied upon to discover undeclared facilities,” Ottolenghi said. “Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is trading long term security for a short term diplomatic victory.”