Monday, June 23, 2014

Are America and Iran Now Allies?

Media Scam? Iran and America Joins Hands in Waging "The Global War on Terrorism"?
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 21, 2014
Url of this article:
Following the incursion of jihadist rebels of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) into Iraq and the capture of its second largest city Mosul, American and Iranian officials meeting behind closed in Vienna allegedly reached, according to media reports, a historical agreement: Tehran will collaborate with Washington in fighting the ISIS rebels in the context of "America’s War on Terrorism". A new foreign policy narrative on US-Iran relations. What happened on June 16 in Vienna? According to Tehran, nothing happened, there were no negotiations.
Moreover, in an unusual twist, according to Western media reports, Washington took the decision to "collaborate" with Tehran, despite the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran is categorized by the US State Department List as a "State Sponsor of terrorism" which "HYPERLINK ""harbors senior al Qaeda leaders"
Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism worldwide remained undiminished through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Tehran’s ally Hizballah, which remained a significant threat to the stability of Lebanon and the broader region. The U.S. government continued efforts to counter Iranian and proxy support for terrorist operations via sanctions and other legal tools.(US State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism 2013) Ironically, the foreign policy shift from "countering" Iran’s (alleged) support of Al Qaeda to actually "collaborating" with Tehran "in going after Al Qaeda", didn’t raise an eye-bat in the media or the US Congress.
Notwithstanding these apparent contradictions (see below for further analysis) Secretary of State John Kerry, was emphatic: the US government will "communicate" with Tehran with regard to "pushing back the Islamist terrorists".
While Tehran will participate (according to US statements) in counter-terrorism operations in coordination with Washington, officially the two governments will "not work together".
While the Vienna agreement excludes an "active" relationship between Washington and Tehran, it nonetheless establishes a positive framework of collaboration, again according to reports, implying the exchange of information and intelligence:
"What I said [John Kerry] is we are interested in communicating with Iran to make clear that the Iranians know what we’re thinking and we know what they’re thinking and there’s a sharing of information so people aren’t making mistakes," (US State Department website: Interview With John Kerry, June 16, 2014 emphasis added) In response to the question: "Can you see cooperating with Iran militarily?" Kerry responded: "… I wouldn’t rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability,… I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together, the integrity of the country, and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart. (US State Department website: Interview With John Kerry, June 16, 2014) Analysts quoted by the Los Angeles Times say that: "the U.S. and Iran are likely to agree to only limited military cooperation at best, if President Obama chooses to order direct military action, such as airstrikes, in Iraq." (emphasis added)America’s overture to Iran at the Vienna meetings took place on Monday June 16, 2014 when Deputy Secretary of State William Burns joined the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. It was understood at this meeting that "talks about the threat posed by an Al Qaeda-inspired Sunni extremist group" would be discussed on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiations: The topic was not military coordination "or strategy determinations about Iraq’s future over the heads of the Iraq people," the [US] official said in a statement. Instead, "we will discuss how the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, [or ISIS] threatens many countries in the region, including Iran, and the need to support inclusivity in Iran and refrain from pressing a sectarian agenda." U.S. and Iranian officials have been hinting for several days that they may discuss at least limited cooperation on how to deal with the extremist group, which has seized the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit in the last week. (Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2014)Tehran Denies the Existence of an Agreement with WashingtonWhile the Western media has focused its attention on US-Iran "collaboration", official sources in Tehran deny the existence of an entente between the two governments. On June 16, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian stated emphatically that "The Islamic Republic of Iran has had no negotiations with the Americans over mutual cooperation in Iraq." In turn, Iran’s Supreme Leader’s top adviser said: "Iran will not cooperate with the US over the crisis in Iraq as Tehran and Washington pursue different objectives in helping the Iraqi nation." … If Washington truly intends to help Iraq counter the ongoing Takfiri [ISIS] violence, it should first condemn terrorism and those parties that support and fund the terrorists.
On Wednesday, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces General Hassan Firouzabadi rejected western media speculations about Tehran’s likely cooperation with the US over Iraq, and also stressed that Iran has not deployed troops in Iraq. "There is no need to the presence of Iranian forces in Iraq," General Firouzabadi told reporters, and added, "Cooperation between Iran and the US will never take place and is meaningless." (Fars News, June 20, 2014, emphasis added)
What happened in Vienna on June? Nothing?
Opening the Door to Military Escalation. Towards a New Iran-Iraq War?What these diplomatic overtures to Tehran suggest is that Washington is attempting to incite Iran to actively intervene militarily in Iraq, in a sectarian "civil war" which has been triggered by the US.
Whatever information or exchange of intelligence occurs between the US and Iran will in any event be subject to manipulation and deception. Washington’s hidden agenda is to incite Iran’s military involvement as well as control it, with a view to ultimately weakening the Islamic Republic of Iran as a regional power.
Yet it would appear that Tehran is not swallowing the bait. And on the Iranian side, there is no confirmation of a collaborative agreement.
US War of Aggression: Protecting al QaedaThe Pentagon scenario is not military escalation directed against Al Qaeda. It is escalation directed against the Iraqi population and the Iraq resistance movement.
Known and documented, ISIS is a creation of US intelligence. It is supported by the CIA, financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in liaison with Washington. Needless to say, US support to Al Qaeda formations in Syria and Iraq is known to the Iranian government.
Washington’s has no intention of targeting the ISIS terrorists. Quite the opposite: Its objective is to ensure the protection of the ISIS rebel army, which is supported covertly by Washington. In this context, Tehran has responded by pointing its fingers at Qatar and Saudi Arabia which are funding the ISIS terror brigades.
At present, ISIS terrorist operatives in Syria are fighting the forces of the government of Bashar al-Assad in liaison with their US intelligence sponsors. In turn, Iranian special forces including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force are in Syria in the context of a Tehran’s military cooperation agreement with the Damascus government.
Iran: From "Active State Sponsor of Terrorism" to "Limited Military Cooperation" with Washington?In the space of 24 hours, according to US official statements and media reports, the fundamental tenets of post 9/11 US foreign policy were (temporarily?) scrapped.
Lest we forget: since September 11, 2001, The Islamic Republic of Iran has been labelled by Washington as an "Active State Sponsor of Terrorism", allegedly supportive of Al Qaeda. That status has not been officially revoked. On the other hand, Tehran accuses the US of supporting and financing the Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria and Iraq and denies the existence of a "collaborative agreement".
In the words of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq." (quoted by CFR, emphasis added)Moreover, in 2011, a US federal district court in New York City ruled that Iran had actually supported Al Qaeda in the conduct of the 9/11 attacks:
‘U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled yesterday that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.
Attorneys representing families of 9/11 victims today are filing their second lawsuit against Iran asserting evidence that Iran played a key role in planning and facilitating the 9/11 attacks. The new case, Bingham, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., is being filed in federal court by the same attorneys who have been litigating Havlish, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., now pending in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Iran 911 Case
About Turn? Now Iran is to join hands with America against Al Qaeda, according to Western media reports.
Following ad hoc bilateral talks in Vienna, Iran is called upon to become a partner of the "international community" in "going after al Qaeda."
Somebody is either lying or are we all stupid?
Iran is Allegedly "Preparing to Wage a Terrorist Attack" against Canada’s National Capital Region
On the 16th of June, the Western media went into overdrive. A gush of syndicated reports on the Vienna agreement inundated the news chain: Iran will henceforth be "helping America" in waging the "war on terrorism".
Beneath the barrage of Iraq reports, a timely news story pertaining to Iran as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" was barely noticed.
According to Canadian press reports, published on the very same day as the US-Iran agreement in Vienna (June 16,2014) quoting "reliable" intelligence documents, Iran was preparing to wage a terrorist attack against Canada’s National Capital Region.
According to Toronto’s National Post under the title: Iran’s ‘anti-Canada rhetoric’ has officials on guard for possible Ottawa area terror attacks
[In response to] Iran’s rising "anti-Canada rhetoric," intelligence officials have been monitoring the Islamic republic as a potential terrorist threat to the Ottawa area, newly declassified documents show. While the diplomatic falling out between Ottawa and Tehran is well-known, the intelligence reports are the first indication the Canadian government is tracking the possibility it could lead to terrorism in the capital.
The reports, written by the Integrated Terrorist Assessment Centre, do not specify the exact nature of the threat Tehran may pose to the Ottawa region but in the past Iran has used its proxy force, Hezbollah, to attempt attacks internationally.
The documents also note the Iran connection to last year’s alleged plot to derail a Toronto-bound passenger train. The RCMP says the conspiracy was directed by Al Qaeda figures operating out of Iran. "The presence of numerous high-profile federal institutions, foreign embassies, military facilities, tourist attractions, and special events make the NCR a rich environment for possible plots by a variety of differently-motivated terrorists," the report says.
The intelligence reports include Iran on a list of "other potential threats to the National Capital Region," immediately after politically motivated violence against foreign dignitaries.(National Post, June 16, 2014 emphasis added)
Another Canadian news report confirms that: "Canadian intelligence agencies are tracking the possibility of a terrorist attack from Iran as tensions between Tehran and Ottawa increase."

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has continued to urge caution where Iran is concerned.
"We haven’t seen much change in the Canadian position and so, that sort of tension between Tehran and Ottawa seems to be continuing," he said [John Baird].
That tension is what is raising the concern for intelligence agencies. (CFRA, June 17, 2014)
Meanwhile, an Ottawa Police spokesman stated that The Ottawa Police Department would seek the collaboration of: "the RCMP, OPP, military police, Surete du Quebec and Gatineau Police as well as their ongoing partnership with Ottawa Paramedics and Ottawa Fire (Ibid) Assuming for a moment that America’s objective is to fight Al Qaeda, why on earth would Washington seek the cooperation of a country which is "allegedly" planning to bomb its closest ally: Canada, not to mention Iran’s alleged support (based on piles of national security documents) of Al Qaeda in various terrorist undertakings.
Surely the "Iran threat" to Canada’s National Capital Region (revealed by Canadian Intelligence documents and reported on June 16, 2014), should have been "an eye-opener" to US State Department officials in Vienna who had invited the Islamic Republic of Iran to assist America in waging a "Global War on Terrorism".
Welcome to the "New Normal", Iran is no longer a "State Sponsor of Terrorism", Tehran no longer supports Al Qaeda, Iran is now helping America to fight Al Qaeda.
How long will this "New Normal" Last?
The hidden agenda is to suck Iran into an extended regional conflict.
As soon as Iran becomes actively involved in Iraq’s civil war, with military operations directed against the Sunni population, the "international community" will most probably point its finger at Iran rather than at the US. Already, sections of the Sunni resistance movement consider Iran –which supports the Al Maliki government– rather than the US as the main aggressor nation.
The US is "A State Sponsor of Terrorism"Beneath the fake intelligence, the media lies, contradictions and outright fabrications, the truth of the matter is as follows:
Iran has denied the existence of a collaborative agreement with the US. It has condemned the US’ covert support of the ISIS terrorists.
There is no evidence that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks, nor is there is evidence that the Sunni Al Qaeda entity was supported by the "Shiite government" of the Islamic Republic of Iraq. Yet in the course of the last 13 years, the political consensus supported by the media and the intelligence community is that Iran is a "State Sponsor of Terrorism". (See US State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism 2013)
While Iran does not support Al Qaeda, there is ample evidence that Al Qaeda including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, has been supported by US-NATO as well as Israel.
The US is "A State Sponsor of Terrorism". Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as "intelligence assets" since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.
In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces. ISIS has Western Special Forces within rebel ranks.
The ISIS rebels are trained and funded by the Western military alliance. The US has no intention to target its own ISIS foot soldiers, who are waging a covert war on behalf of the US in both Syria and Iraq. The US wants to preserve and protect these terrorist paramilitary forces.
Whatever military actions are waged by the US, they will target the Iraqi resistance movement as well as the civilian population.
ISIS is a US intelligence asset, an instrument of non-conventional warfare. The ultimate objective of this ongoing US-NATO engineered conflict opposing the al-Maliki government forces to the ISIS insurgency is to destroy and destabilize Iraq as a Nation State and suck Iran into a violent regional sectarian conflict,
This conflict could potentially engulf (directly or indirectly) a large number of countries, including Iraq, Iran and Syria, as well as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Pakistan, leading to a reconfiguration of the Middle East-Central Asian region (see map below).
New Map of the Middle East Project: unofficial NATO and US War Academy map. The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).Copyright © 2014 Global Research
Future of US-Iran Relations
Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Last Updated: : Sunday 06 April 2014


The election of Hassan Rouhani has been the start of a new path for Iran’s foreign policy, including its relationship with Washington. This paper discusses three schools of thought prevalent in Iran’s regime towards the US, ranging from those who believe America is addicted to hegemony, to those who believe there is inherent antagonism between Iran’s Islamic system and the West to those who represent a more moderate stance, including current President Hassan Rouhani. The paper concludes that if relations between Iran and the US improve, there will likely be pressure from the US on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its other allies in the region to minimize tension with Iran, particularly in order to solve conflicts in the region from Lebanon to Afghanistan without losing Saudi or Iran as allies.

When Hassan Rouhani took office in June last year, Iran faced numerous challenges. Chief among them were Iran’s convulsive relations with the West, in particular the US, the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program and an economy which was spiralling downward. Rouhani, along with many economists in Iran, believed that mismanagement by Ahmadinejad’s team was partly responsible for the state of Iran’s economy, but that sanctions had also made a profound impact. It was based on these challenges that Rouhani simply but effectively outlined his election platform for the masses clamouring for change in Iran's future after eight tumultuous years of Ahmadinejad’s presidency. "It is good for the centrifuges to spin (enriching uranium), but the wheels of Iranian factories should also spin," he remarked during his campaign. (1)
In the aftermath of his landslide victory, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, endorsed the concept of "heroic flexibility" in relations with the United States. This was in contrast to prior years of mostly uninterrupted opposition to direct talks with Americans, especially since 2003. Moderate Hassan Rouhani's determination to alter the trajectory of Iran’s foreign policy from confrontation to cooperation coupled with Ayatollah Khamenei’s cautious support of engagement with the US paved the road to an unprecedented meeting between the two states’ foreign ministers
Iran’s three schools of thought towards the U
There are three schools of thought in the nezam (Iran’s political system) with respect to relations with the United States. The first school of thought, to which Ayatollah Khamenei subscribes, is that America cannot escape its addiction to hegemony. As a result, the Islamic Republic of Iran rejects American domination and believes that the US’ strategic objective is to topple the nezam and establish a new system that, like the Shah’s regime, accepts a patron-client relationship.
Because of their deep-seated mistrust toward the US, advocates of this school of thought view any American sponsored reconciliatory efforts with utmost suspicion. However, this school of thought does not categorically reject rapprochement between the two countries.
In March 2013, Ayatollah Khamenei stated that he is "not opposed" to direct talks with the United States but he remarked that he is also "not optimistic."
(2) On January 9, 2014, he remarked, "We had announced previously that if we feel it is expedient, we would negotiate with Satan [the US] to deter its evil." (3)
Even with respect to restoring Iran-US relations, Ayatollah Khamenei has publicly remarked, "We have never said that the relations will remain severed forever. Undoubtedly, the day relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation, I will be the first one to approve of that." (4) He has articulated several similar statements. This necessarily demonstrates he has not closed doors on dialogue and even restoring relations with the US.
Ayatollah Khamenei's pessimism about the outcome of talks and cooperation with the US is not unfounded. Rather, it is from his own historic experiences between the two countries.
Before and after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Iran conducted direct talks with the United States. Although the talks centred around the situation in Afghanistan, Iran sought to open dialogue and cooperation with the United States. The focus of the talks after September 11 was directed toward cooperation between the two governments aimed at unseating the Taliban. Through the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the armed opposition group to the Taliban which was equipped and financed by Iran, Iran effectively cooperated with American-led forces in bringing down the Taliban.
In later efforts to establish Afghanistan's new government, Iran’s contribution was crucial. Ambassador James Dobbins, leader of the US delegation, explains the role of Javad Zarif, Iran’s then-Deputy Foreign Minister and Iran’s current Foreign Minister, as follows: "Zarif had achieved the final breakthrough, without which the Karzai government might never have been formed."
(5) But only a few weeks later, President Bush branded Iran as one of the components of the "axis of evil.
Then, in 2003, Iran unofficially signalled a "grand bargain" to the US government in another rapprochement effort aimed at resolving all of the disputed issues between the two states. That bargain was also declined by the American administration.
Later in 2003, the monumental dispute between the two countries over Iran’s nuclear program emerged as a centre of contention. The author of this report acted as the Deputy of the then Secretary of Iran's National Security Council, Hassan Rouhani, as well as the spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiating team. Between 2003 and 2005 in negotiations with the EU3 (Britain, France, Germany), the major obstacle to reaching an agreement was US insistence on the notion of "zero uranium enrichment inside Iran." The situation was defined well by Britain’s Foreign Secretary at the time, Jack Straw. Speaking at a panel in the BBC in July 2013, he remarked, "We were getting somewhere, with respect, and then it’s a complicated story, the Americans actually pulled the rug from under [President Mohammad] Khatami’s feet and the Americans got what
they didn’t want." (6)
These experiences led Ayatollah Khamenei to believe that Americans are not prepared to compromise over less than "regime change" while he has, over and over again, acquiesced to opening doors for reconciliation to no avail.
The second school of thought, advocated by radicals, asserts that there is inherent antagonism between Iran’s Islamic system and the West. They argue that the way to success is sheer resistance until America recognizes Iran and respects its identity as is. In their view, negotiation with the United States means accepting defeat and must be considered the ultimate red line.
Hossein Shariatmadari who advocates this camp argues the US insists on bringing Iran to the negotiating table in order to destroy its stature as the "flag bearer of struggle against global domination."
(7) He asserts that Iran’s resistance to the US has made it the role model for all freedom fighters in the Islamic world, viewing that
"America’s intention is to break this model apart by talking to Iran…They want to give this impression to the movements in the Islamic world that the Islamic Republic of Iran, your strategic and ideological ally…[after long years of resistance] had no final choice other than to sit with and talk to America."
The third school of thought represents the moderate camp. Notable figures ascribing to this trend are Iran’s former President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and the current Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani. They agree with the notion that the US seeks regime change if it is able to do so. However, they contend that enormous common interests exist, both economically and politically, and that these interests mutually suffer as a result of hostile relations between the two countries. For example, they maintain that jihadists and extremists are a common and dangerous adversary of Iran, the US, and its allies in the region. Therefore, they should cooperate to root them out or at least contain them. To underscore this school of thought, they believe that through serious negotiations and engagement, it is indeed possible to utilize the common interests and reshape the US’ position toward Iran's nezam.
In an interview during his election campaign, Rouhani said, "Eight or ten years ago we could talk about reducing tensions with the US…Now, we are in the stage of hostilities…we must first diminish the hostilities back to tension and then try to defuse them."
Over the last 25 years, or since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, the first and third schools of thought have oscillated between cooperation and rejection while the second camp has relentlessly sought to prevent enduring talks and any notion of improving relations between Iran and the US
Rouhani’s position in Iranian politic
Among politicians, few possess Rouhani’s credentials and background. In the 1980s during Iran's war with Iraq, he held close relations with the commanders of Iran's military and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) when he served as Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He served for eight years as Head of the Foreign Policy committee of the Iranian Parliament, 16 years as the Secretary of the National Security Council and was Iran’s leading nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. This places him in extremely exclusive company with political figures possessing a deep understanding of Iran’s foreign policy as well as scrupulous details of Iran’s nuclear crisis.
Additionally, having served without interruption for 23 years as Ayatollah Khamenei’s representative in the National Security Council until his election last June, Rouhani was in contact with every corridor of power in Iran.
These qualities place Rouhani in a rare position in Iran, empowering him to negotiate with the power elite, including the Supreme Leader, while he also negotiates with world powers over Iran’s nuclear standoff. The temporary and voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment between 2003 and 2005 resulted from Rouhani’s negotiating skills, even though Ayatollah Khamenei was fundamentally reluctant about suspension.
It is therefore prudent to claim that Rouhani today, as a moderate who is determined to end the nuclear issue and move toward détente with the US, holds a particular position in Iran’s politics. Cementing his place in Iran’s politics is the backing of Iran's Supreme Leader and considerable support of the Iranian population. The US’ calculations should account for Rouhani's stature and sincere efforts if their real intention is to untie Iran’s impossible nuclear Gordian knot through diplomatic processes.
Challenges facing US-Iran relations
Due to profound mistrust between the two states, although perhaps more palpable on the Iranian side, the fate and future trajectory of relations between the US and Iran will undoubtedly be determined by the outcome of the Geneva accord, known as the "Joint Plan of Action." As far as both parties are concerned, there will be no other bilateral engagement activated unless a comprehensive deal is reached on the nuclear issue. The reason is simple. Rouhani and his team, including his Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, cannot convince the Supreme Leader and other followers of the first camp that even if the United States' ultimate intention is to topple the regime, these intentions could be reshaped through honest and serious talks, negotiations and confidence-building measures. A meeting between the US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif parallel to the Munich Security Conference in February 2014 confirms this viewpoint. The situation in Washington is very similar because Obama cannot convince Congress and pressure lobbies for a Grand Bargain with Iran.
According to reports, in response to Kerry raising the issue of Syria and urging Iran "to show a willingness to play a constructive role in bringing an end to the conflict,"
(10) Zarif said that "he did not have the authority to discuss Syria and the focus of the meeting was on nuclear negotiations." This was a clear response to US policy preventing Iran from participating in the Geneva II conference on Syria. (11) However, Iran has been prepared to participate unconditionally in multi-lateral talks to find solutions for ending the tragedy in Syria.
In November 2013, Iran’s Supreme Leader offered supportive and forceful remarks to Iran's negotiating team. "No one should consider our negotiating team as compromisers…These are the children of revolution…No one should belittle an officer doing their job…We strongly support our diplomacy team," he said.
(12) Despite this resounding support, there are still sporadic hardliner critics of the manner in which Zarif and Rouhani have handled the nuclear issue thus far. However, the mood in general is silenced, adopting a wait-and-see approach. The main challenge to the Geneva interim accord and ultimately, a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear crisis, comes from abroad, primarily the United States.
The pro-Israel lobby and some members of Congress insist that putting pressure on Iran is the only way to force change in its behaviour. Senator Menendez is a primary sponsor of the sanction bill called the "Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act," which in practical terms is a complete oil embargo on Iran. Menendez argues that, "Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table."
(13) But this argument is flawed, espousing that sanctions were the only reason why Iranians were persuaded to sign the Geneva interim agreement. The reality is that despite all the pressure that sanctions would impose on Iran’s economy, if the US would not have departed from its decade-old policy of "no enrichment on Iranian soil" and would not have accepted compromise on uranium enrichment (even though limited in amount and level) as part of the final agreement, the Geneva interim agreement would not have materialized.
President Obama recognized that insistence on zero enrichment was unrealistic and unachievable. To those who criticize his administration’s acceptance of enrichment in Iran, he says, "I can envision a world in which Congress passed every one of my bills that I put forward. I mean, there are a lot of things that I can envision that would be wonderful."
That said, there are indications that the US administration also continues to misread the situation and seeks to impose demands that might jeopardize, and result in the failure of the Geneva accord. At a Senate hearing on February 4, 2014, Wendy Sherman, Chief US Negotiator to the talks with Iran remarked, "We know that Iran does not need to have an underground, fortified enrichment facility like Fordow...[or] a heavy-water reactor at Arak to have a peaceful nuclear program." (15)
These implied demands are deal breakers. Shutting down these facilities would halt a monumental financial and human capital investment that was several years in the making, at the will of a foreign power. This is in total contrast to one of the pillars of the revolution and the Iranian nezam’s resistance to foreign domination. In fact, Iran’s resistance to forgo uranium enrichment emanates from the same worldview. In addition, submitting to such demands would incur high political costs to the decision makers who have constantly linked the nuclear program to the notion of national pride and would make them vulnerable to charges of selling out the country’s dignity.
Javad Zarif wasted no time responding to Wendy Sherman’s statements, declaring that shutting down nuclear facilities was impossible. He said, "Iran's nuclear technology is non-negotiable and comments about Iran's nuclear facilities are worthless… Ms. Sherman should stick to the reality and stop speaking of impossible things even if it is only for domestic consumption ... since reaching a solution can be hindered by such words."
(16) The reality is that specifics of Iran’s nuclear activities are negotiable when it pertains to production levels and extent as well as implementation of surveillance and monitoring measures to ensure that Iran does not divert its nuclear program toward weaponization. However, for reasons mentioned earlier, closing down its facilities is not negotiable. (17)
Meanwhile, the US rationale behind demanding shutdown of those facilities is weak. The first reason is because no country has ever developed an atomic bomb as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – in other words, under its supervision. Even the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003 before testing its first nuclear bomb three years later. Iran's government chooses to remain as a signatory to the NPT. If they sought to develop nuclear weapons, they could legally withdraw from the NPT after giving a three month notice to the IAEA and then reconfigure the program for the production of nuclear weapons without legal ramifications
Second, if Iran intends to acquire atomic weapons covertly, it is illogical they would consider doing so in known facilities under threat of shutdown. Iran would not invite draconian sanctions by insisting on continuing overt nuclear activities. If Iran did not truly desire peaceful nuclear activity, it could close the recognized facilities, appearing to give in to foreign demands, and work clandestinely.
A make-or-break deal
The nuclear deal is pivotal in determining the future of US-Iran relations. The fact is that reaching an agreement between Iran and the P5+1 states is predominantly influenced by agreement between Iran and the US. This is because from September 2003, the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis, to September 2013, the US blocked any realistic deal. Therefore, if the two fail to overcome their differences, there will be no deal. And if they succeed, others will most likely come.
Success in striking a deal on the nuclear issue will close a bitter chapter in the troubled relations between Iran and America and will open doors to progress in other areas of dispute. Perhaps more importantly, the two countries could then cooperate on stabilizing the crisis-torn Middle East, from Lebanon in the West to Afghanistan in the East. Together with its allies in the region, the US, in cooperation with Iran, can shape a regional security system to fight the most imminent threat to the interests and security of all parties involved: the rise of extremism and jihadist groups. Under the current circumstances, Iran and the US cannot afford to be enemies because the primary beneficiary of this situation is the escalation of terrorist groups spilling over from one country to the next.
The question remains, what if the Geneva interim agreement fails? In such an eventuality, the US will most likely impose tougher sanctions on Iran. As a result, communication and dialogue between Iran and America will likely cease and the pattern of previous years, meaning the exchange of threatening rhetoric from both sides, will again result in the culmination of hostilities.
This situation would inevitably cause the current moderate policies of Iran to be pushed to the side-lines and radical politics would return in Tehran. Irreconcilable and conflicting policies on both sides of the fence cannot indefinitely continue. History demonstrates that when governments fail to overcome their differences through dialogue, the only other alternative is to seek a military solution.
If the US’ goal is to make sure Iran’s nuclear activities are, and remain peaceful, this is achievable by ensuring the maximum level of transparency and monitoring measures in the framework of the NPT. Given the unstable situation in the Middle East, logic dictates that the adoption of a realistic approach toward the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program will preclude an unfortunate collapse of the Geneva interim agreement which many view as the last opportunity for a diplomatic settlement.
Effects of Iran-US rapprochement on Iran’s neighbouring Arab countries
There are currently two schools of thought in neighbouring Arab countries with respect to their relations with Iran. The one led by Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries view these relations in the framework of a zero-sum game. This school of thought is concerned that better relations between Iran and the US would undermine their weight in the region in favour of Iran. Therefore, they see themselves in perpetual competition with Iran.
Moderates in Arab countries led by Oman advocate the second school of thought which views better relations between Iran and the US as best serving the interests of all countries in the region. Peace between Iran and the US, according to this school of thought, may open a path for the formation of regional cooperation, stability and peace between Iran and its neighbours, most importantly with Saudi Arabia. This will secure a stable flow of oil which is in the interests of the US and its friends and allies, as well as Iran. Additionally and perhaps more importantly, it creates a unified power to root out a common adversary of terrorism and extremism.
Iran’s moderate mind-set, supported by the Supreme Leader, is in line with Oman’s view. The current Iranian nezam’s doctrine is to reshape Iran’s foreign relations with all countries, particularly Iran’s regional neighbours, in a win-win framework. The moderates in Iran maintain that relations based on a zero-sum game are shaky, unstable and even perilous.
If Iran’s relationship with the US improves, it is rational to expect the US will urge actors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies to abandon their confrontational policies toward Iran. This is important because not only does the explosive situation in the Middle East necessitate cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia as two regional powers, but also because the US cannot pursue a coherent foreign policy if Saudi, its strategic ally, is in constant conflict with Iran while the US seeks to cooperate with Iran to address the region’s crises from Lebanon to Afghanistan.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that if Iran-US relations are to improve, although previously unimaginable, the US might effectively mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its other Arab allies to open a new chapter after years of strained relations. If the US and Iran can make strategic shifts in their relations, there is no reason Iran and Saudi Arabia cannot follow suit. Such a shift would facilitate establishing a regional cooperation system in the Persian Gulf and beyond.
Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a research scholar at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He previously served as Iran’s ambassador to Germany, head of the foreign relations committee of Iran's National Security Council and as spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators. His latest book, "Iran and the United States: An Insider’s view on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace" will be released in May 2014
(1) International Crisis Group, "Great Expectations: Iran’s New President and the Nuclear Talks, Middle East Briefing N°36, Washington/Brussels," 13 August 2013,
(2) Associated Press. "Iran's Leader Says He is Not Opposed to Direct Talks with US, But Not Optimistic," 21 March 2013,
(3) Saeed Kamali Dehghan, "Nuclear Talks Showed US hostility Towards Iran, Says Supreme Leader," 9 January 2014,
(4) BBC, "Profile: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei," 17 June 2009,
(5) Marcus Taylor and Paul George, "Iran Nominee Seen as Olive Branch to United States," 29 July 2013,
(6) Alalam, "Straw: US Stalls Accord on Iran Nuclear Program," Alalam, 5 July 2013,
(7) Alef, "US Wants Negotiations for the Sake of Negotiations," 23 May 2007,
(8) Ibid,
(9) Mehr News, "Iran-US Relations Must Downgrade From Conflict to Tension To Return Respect to Iranian Passport," 24 December 2013,
(10) Shahir S. Thalith, "Nuclear Issue to Determine Rouhani’s Fate and Iran’s Future," February 2014,
(11) Samira Said, Nick Paton Walsh and Matt Smith, "Iran Out of Peace Conference on Syria, so Geneva Talks Still On," 20 January 2014,
(12) Iran Students’ News Agency, "Ayatollah Khamenei: No One Can Has the Right to Criticize Negotiators, Negotiations Will Not Hurt Us," 4 March 2014,هيچکس-نبايد-مذاکره-کنندگان-ما-را-سازشکار.
(13Senator Robert Menendez, "Twenty-Seven Senators Introduce the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act," 19 December 2013,
(15) Press TV, "Iran MPs blast remarks by US Geneva representative," Press TV, 6 February 2014,
(16) Jerusalem Post, "Rejecting US Remarks on Nuke Program, Iran FM Says Fordow, Arak are Non-Negotiable," 5 February 2014,
(17) Press TV,
Source: Al Jazeera Center for Studies