Obama Needs a Leap of Faith on Iran

[Rostam]

Obama Needs a Leap of Faith on Iran

M K Bhadrakumar



Even for a longtime compulsive Iran-watcher, this is feast to the mind—never in these three decades has the struggle within the US establishment been so fierce as it is today regarding America’s painful Iran question. To engage, or not to engage Iran—that is the question. In a fascinating story, New York Times takes the American heartbeat.

Of course, an unseen hand is propelling the street-smart lawmakers on The Hill to apply the brakes on President Barack Obama even as momentum is building up in the US opinion that there is no alternative to engaging Iran and the Hassan Rouhani presidency opens a window of opportunity to address the historic three-decade-old standoff.

It is not a question of putting shackles on Obama’s presidential prerogative to conduct foreign policy, it is a do-or-die situation for the Israeli lobby.

The Israeli nightmare is that if a US-Iranian engagement gains traction, there will be a tectonic shift in the geopolitics of the Middle East and Israel’s pivotal position in the US’ regional strategies may undergo erosion.

Israel is panicking that projects such as the reported US-backed rail line from Afghanistan connecting the Iranian ports on the Arabian Sea would be a game-changer.

The latest 175-page report to the US Congress, submitted by the US’ Special Inspector-General for Afghan Reconstruction, says: “Iran is the preferred destination for mineral exports [from Afghanistan] because the route is more efficient and Iran’s rail infrastruc-ture is in better condition than Pakistan’s.”

Incredible, isn’t it that the US military wants to take up and forthwith implement that very same project that the lethargic, boastful, vacuous, cowardly Indian bureaucrats and their political masters merely talked about over chai and samosa for some two decades and did nothing about? The mandarins in South Block may hang their heads in shame if they read pages 164-166 of the report.

To be sure, Obama has gone the extra league to raise the comfort level for Israel, the latest move being the appointment of Martin Indyk as the pointperson for the resumed Middle East talks. Indyk is not just an old ‘Israel hand’, he is veritably ‘Israel’s hand’.

Obama did it with the sole purpose to inspire confidence in Tel Aviv that he will always be a guardian angel of Israel’s best interests. But Israel won’t bite, nonetheless.

♦

Iran’s integration as a regional power, normalisation of Iran’s ties with the West, Iran’s opening up as the last frontier in energy—these are not things Israel wants.

Because, they will mean Israel will be compelled to settle down as a normal state of six million people. The disappearance of the Iran bogey would compel Israel to address the Palestinian problem.

Whereas, Iran’s nuclear issue has been a useful distraction for decades for Tel Aviv to sidetrack the so-called ‘international community’.

Hence the last-minute campaign on Iran’s nuclear programme. The latest US ‘think tank’ report says Iran will have “critical capability to process low-enriched uranium into material for a nuclear weapon without detection by international inspectors by mid-2014”. Eureka!

The unspoken message is, ‘This is no time to for the President of the United States to engage this perfidious country, Iran, in negotiations.’ For old Iran-watchers, there is a sense of deja vu.

The big question is whether Obama will muster the political courage to defy the Israeli lobby and take the leap of faith to engage Iran.

Obama Needs a Leap of Faith on Iran - Mainstream Weekly

 

[Rostam]

Iran and the US can work it out – but mutual respect is key

The dispute between Iran and the US isn't just about the nuclear issue. But each has to acknowledge the other's national interests




Akbar Ganji

theguardian.com, Friday 9 August 2013

Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani has said he wants direct negotiations with the United States. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP


It has been quite some time since western powers realised that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the country's most powerful man. Although he was opposed to direct negotiations with the United States for a long time, in a speech on 21 March Khamenei said that if Iran's [nuclear] rights are recognised, "I will not oppose negotiations with the United States." This was a positive step forward.

In the same speech Khamenei said that the US had no desire to resolve the most important dispute with Iran, namely, the nuclear standoff, although a solution would be "very easy." How would it come about? "By the west's recognition of Iran's right to uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes." The concerns of western powers can also be addressed "very easily" Khamenei added. How? "They [and Iran] can implement the legal regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency [governing nuclear programmes], which we never opposed right from the beginning."

But the US, according to him, had no desire for a resolution. Khamenei believes that the US goal is regime change, and although President Obama claims this is not the strategy, he has been pursuing it in practice. Khamenei's view is that the goal of the economic sanctions imposed on Iran is to create severe hardship for the Iranian people in order to provoke them to topple the Islamic republic.

Not only has the Obama administration denied Khamenei's charge of regime change, the administration has stated repeatedly that it recognises Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. If that is the case, the only issue to clarify is the meaning of "the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy". Does Obama include the right to enrich uranium, which Iran is entitled to do as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

What we do know is that Obama has imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran, which have badly damaged its economy. Harming or destroying the national economy of a country is, first and foremost, punishing the people of that country, not its regime. Hyper-inflation, depriving tens of thousands of people of employment, economic recession, severe shortage of critical medicines and dramatic increases in the price of food items are the price that the Iranian people are paying.

If the goal of sanctions is indeed the overthrow of the regime, the lessons from history are not favourable. The French historian Alexis de Tocqueville showed that the French revolution happened when the economy was growing and was led by those who were doing well economically. The Iranian revolution of 1979 occurred when Iran was experiencing a high rate of economic growth. If the United States's goal is a transition to democracy in Iran, sanctions are forcing the agents of that transition – the middle class – to join the ranks of the poor and lower class, and turning democracy and respect for human rights into marginal goals.

The fact is that the dispute between Iran and the United States cannot be reduced to the standoff over the nuclear issue. Other important problems in which Iran plays a significant role must be addressed as well: the security of Israel and the Persian Gulf, the instability in that region, especially in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. Addressing such complex problems and reaching agreement requires not only direct negotiations between Iran and the United States, but also a comprehensive framework that takes all such problems into consideration. Thus, each side must recognise the legitimate interests of the other.

It is also against the national interests of the US to demonise Iran. Iran is not a breeding ground for the Taliban, al-Qaida or the al-Nusra Front, the terrorist group in Syria. Such ideals as freedom, democracy and respect for human rights have deep roots in Iran. Feminists are highly active in Iranian society. All the prerequisites for a transition to democracy exist in Iran. The majority of Iranian people do not subscribe to anti-westernism or anti-Americanism. If free and competitive elections were held in Iran, the secular democratic forces would definitely win.

In the most recent presidential election, the Iranian people voted for the candidate who was most distant from the one considered to be Khamenei's favourite. This candidate, Hassan Rouhani, seeks a peaceful resolution of the dispute between Iran and western governments and wants direct negotiations with the United States.

In the inaugural speech Rouhani delivered on 3 August in Khamenei's presence, he re-emphasised his commitment to working with western governments. Ayatollah Khamenei in turn declared: "I approve the views expressed by the esteemed president in regard to adopting a reasonable approach to international and political affairs worldwide. Our approach ought to be rational and wise."

Thus, the path for negotiations between Iran and the US is cleared, provided the national interests of both sides are taken into account.

Iran and the US can work it out

 

[SOS Brigade]

Iran has undercover dealings with america nd israel iran was part of the american game in iraq nd afghanistan nd now recently in lybia iran america nd israel callabarated together nd plotted against lybia nd qaddafi nd now in syria iranian double agents mko r fighting in syria against syrian government iranian made peshmerga nd pkk r openly fighting against the syrian government the so called nusra front r iranian agents nd hve links with iran iran created peshmerga nd pkk 2 break iraq nd destablise turkey iran is the biggest enemy of iraq turkey nd syria iran wants 2 break away kurdish areas of iraq turkey nd syria. Iran is xploding bombs in iraq nd killing iraqis. Iran is destablising almost all islamic countries iraq turkey syria bahrain lybia yemen pakistan nd now egypt for past 35 years america has been threatning iran but hve not attacked it yet but instead attacked iraq afghanistan lybia nd now in syria working with callabaration of iran nd now iran destablising egypt with britishers now this shows tht iran is nothing but a proxy of america nd israel in the region 2 destablise islamic countries iran is a proxy of america nd israel in the region 2 destablise islamic countries.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

The times they are a changing I see

With the recent change of civilian leadership in Iran and with the recent positive western propaganda about that nation, I forsee sanctions being uplifted soon and I wouldn't be amazed if in 10 years time, Iran and the USA are close allies in the middle east

 

[Esfand]

If Rouhani was smart he would assassinate Khamanei now. If he does that nobody can stop him from doing what he wants.

With all the tension, that sounds like a recipe for disaster. Better that Khamenei realizes what needs to be done and allow Rouhani to do it

 

[Rostam]

Outspoken Iranian Analyst Questions Iran’s US Enmity

Posted on August 8, 2013 by Arash Karami


Tehran University professor and outspoken Iranian analyst Sadegh Zibakalam has written an op-ed on the front page of Reformist Bahar newspaper questioning the enmity between Iran and the United States, blaming part of the problem on what is “in the minds” of Iranians.



“Without any exaggeration,” Zibakalam began, “no issue has been a topic of discussion in the last 34 years since after the revolution as much the enmity between us and America and all of its various dimensions.” He continued, “The question from all of the foreign reporters at the press conference of the president was about the conflict between Iran and America. Sixteen years ago, when CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed [Mohammad] Khatami, the first and perhaps only important question she asked was, ‘What are you going to do with America?’ Sixteen years later, the question from all of the foreign reporters is ‘What are you going to do with America?’”

Zibakalam stressed that US-Iran relations are also key to solving Iran’s nuclear file, saying, “In reality, the nuclear issue is tied to the American issue.” He added that unless “steps are taken in the direction of solving the issue with America, it is difficult to imagine [those that] will be taken to end the dead end with the P5+1.”

Zibakalam said that Rouhani’s comments to reporters were the same as Khatami’s sixteen years ago in saying that “The US has to show good intentions; they need to speak to us in one voice.” Zibakalam mentioned that there are even other groups that “are radical” in Iran who want even more from the United States, such as “ending their imperialism” or support for Israel, among many other demands, before any type of relations or talks with the United States begin. (Nearly a third of Zibakalam’s column listed the demands of various groups from the “moderate” side to the “radical” side.)

“Assume Rouhani with all of these pressures, threats and protests … sits down to negotiate with the Americans. In consideration of the culture and the literature and daily propaganda of the last 34 years, even if Rouhani receives all the concessions from America, and the Americans sign a deed to all of the world to Iran, some in Iran will say, “Rouhani went and betrayed us to the Americans and he retreated at the orders of Rafsanjani.” (Rouhani and Zibakalam are both considered to be close to the head of the Expediency Council, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani.)

“Whatever action the Americans take and whatever step they take, from our view it was not a step at all,” Zibakalam wrote of the perception of hard-liners in Iran. “And assuming we accept that their action was correct, we will say that they took that step in order to deceive us.” He continued, “In other words, [with] the state of mind against America which exists today, there is no possibility of negotiations between us and the Americans.”

Zibakalam continued, “At beginning of negotiations with America, we first have to have a serious and realistic talk amongst ourselves. The basis and framework of this talk has to be this simple and fundamental question: Essentially, what is the reason for our enmity toward America?”

In regard to some of the arguments against negotiating with America, Zibakalam wrote, “If we believe that that our enmity toward America is that because we want to be independent, and we want an Islamic system in Iran but America does not want us to be independent, and they want us to be their servant, then in that case there is no room for negotiations or relations with America. We are not ready to harm our independence. We are not ready to step back one millimeter from our independence or Islam. Therefore, our enmity with America is forever.” Zibakalam also wrote that if the United States wants Iran to be “subordinate” to them at the international level, this, too, will make negotiations pointless.

Zibakalam concluded by perhaps for the first time in the column stating his own position, which is that if “we want to sit down with America and negotiate with them, for the first time, we have to present this question, which for 34 years we have assumed its answer to: Really, what is the reason for our enmity toward America? The smallest reason for the importance of this question [is] all that we claim about America and that we created ourselves, at least a large part of it is not true, and is the result of what is in our mind. This mentality is not enough of a reason to justify the necessity or the cause of our enmity with America.”

Outspoken Iranian Analyst Questions Iran