The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Designed to Fail
Negotiations with Iran Become More Difficult
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It is becoming difficult to accept that the Obama Administration, though apparently serious in its desire to come to an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, is willing to do what it might take to come to a compromise solution. Repeated warnings that talks with Iran are proceeding but fraught with difficulties can be interpreted as so much smoke to conceal what is actually taking place, but there are also signs that Washington is adopting positions that would have to be considered incompatible with any negotiated solution to end the standoff.

Gareth Porter has described how the White House is now embracing an expansion of the agenda for the ongoing Geneva talks to include an Israeli demand that the Iranian ballistic missile program also be part of the discussion. Knowing that the Iranians will balk at any widening of the negotiations to include any and all of their military capabilities, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and such stalwarts as John Bolton have also picked up on the theme, citing the need to address possible delivery systems for a bomb that does not currently exist and may never come into being.

Israel’s friends in Congress also have taken note of the opportunity to scuttle the talks completely, signaling their intention to pressure Iran to relinquish any capability to develop a weapon while also abandoning any development or deployment of ballistic missiles that might conceivably be modified to accommodate a nuclear warhead. They are also arguing categorically against Iran’s deployment of any missile with a range greater than 500 kilometers, meaning that they intend to deprive Tehran of any capability to either act offensively against Israel or retaliate against an attack by Tel Aviv.

The issue of the ballistic missiles is far from inconsequential as Iran, supported by Russia, insists that it is not part of the discussion. Porter speculates that the Obama Administration might be hoping to strike a deal over the nuclear program, which would make the missiles “almost irrelevant.” The problem is with the “almost” as the supporters of the Israeli position in congress, which includes most of the Republican Party and some key Democrats, clearly are looking for wedge issues that will make the negotiations over the nuclear program fail or, alternatively, provide a pretext for a new round of saber rattling.

A recent New York Times op-ed by the president and chairman of the board of AIPAC illustrates how it all works. The focus is, to be sure, on Iran’s alleged “nuclear weapons program,” but a number of other issues are also raised in such a fashion as to suggest that dealing with Iran without that country submitting to a broader disarmament regime that would strip it of any offensive capability should somehow be considered unacceptable. The op-ed cleverly begins by supporting President Obama’s poorly expressed stated intention to “make it impossible” for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. “Making it impossible” can obviously be interpreted in a number of ways – does it mean merely taking away a key component such as nuclear enrichment or does it mean eliminating Iran’s peaceful nuclear program as well? The op-ed demands that Iran “dismantle” its nuclear program, which supports the suspicion that the phrase will be exploited for maximum value by those who favor a military strike on Iran.

As it is always useful to pretend that Iran threatens the United States directly, AIPAC also tosses in a couple of red herrings, including the claim that the long range ballistic missiles being tested by Iran will be able to “reach American military bases in the Middle East” while Iranian warships are now heading for the Atlantic Ocean “close to the maritime borders of the United States…” Both claims are irrelevant to the negotiations over how to create a comfort zone around Iran’s existing nuclear program.

Hidden in all of the bluster about what must be done to tame Iran is the Israeli hand. Mossad intelligence officers have been briefing American Senators and contradicting the analysis provided by the DNI, CIA and DIA regarding the nature and magnitude of the Iranian threat. The Senators involved, most particularly Mark Kirk, have chosen to believe what they are hearing from Israel rather than from America’s own $80 billion dollar per year intelligence community. Their decision to do so is based on their own political aspirations bolstered by Israel Lobby funding, not on any actual American vital interest.

Israeli governments have long been playing a hypocritical game with the support of Washington. Tel Aviv decries the Iranian nuclear program but is reported to have in excess of 200 nuclear devices in its own secret arsenal as well as both land and sea based missiles that can deliver them on target. It is the only nuclear power in the region though its program is both secret and derived from technology and enriched uranium stolen from the United States. It clearly does not want to see any rival nuclear power emerging as that would serve as a check on its own monopoly of power. The Israeli view of the threat from Iran might therefore be seen as Tehran serving as an inhibitor of Israeli arbitrary behavior rather than its harboring any aggressive intent.

Israel has been regularly calling for a military strike on Iran for the past twenty years, always citing as a casus belli the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program and frequently warning that the Mullahs are six months or a year away from having a bomb. The bomb has yet to arrive. To be sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regards Tehran as either a regional competitor or a threat, though there have been contradictory signals from his own intelligence operatives regarding what they really believe, a number of retired officers having dismissed Iran’s ability to actually harm Israel. But the Iranian threat to the United States or to its vital interests is somewhat more elusive, unless one regards protecting Israel as a national interest, which appears to be where many in the US Congress come down.

AIPAC is demanding “clarity” in dealing with Iran, by which it means that the threat to use military force must be the only visible alternative to capitulation to every demand being made by Washington and its European partners in the negotiations. Disarm or else, Iran must be told according to the AIPAC formula. That reduces the negotiations to a zero sum game in which Tehran must lose while Washington and Tel Aviv win.

But that approach is basically flawed in that a compromise settlement can produce a win for both sides. Indeed, one might argue that without a compromise there will be no solution. Iran gets to keep its peaceful nuclear program while foregoing the building blocks of a possible nuclear weapons program. Iranian oil again enters the marketplace freely, reducing the costs of energy for everyone. Both Israel and the US can stand down on the threat of a new nuclear power in the Middle East. Sanctions that have been mostly harming the Iranian people rather than the country’s leadership will be lifted. America can then move to re-establish normal relations with Iran.

And then there are the intangibles: a compromise agreement would mitigate the perception that the United States is only willing deal with other countries through military intervention. It would also lessen tension throughout the entire region and enable Washington to reduce its presence and level of engagement. It might also morph into a historic readjustment in which engaging Iran could lead to genuine progress in resolving issues relating to Syria and Palestine. But it all has to start with the Obama White House ignoring the special pleading of Congress, the media and AIPAC and doing what is right.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: AIPAC, Iran 
Hide 5 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. ” The focus is, to be sure, on Iran’s alleged ‘nuclear weapons program,’ but a number of other issues are also raised in such a fashion as to suggest that dealing with Iran without that country submitting to a broader disarmament regime that would strip it of any offensive capability should somehow be considered unacceptable.”

    Our own euphemistically renamed Department of Defense used to be more accurately called the War Department last century. Sometimes references are made to the Veterans of Foreign Wars as if there are any longer any other kind. It seems war, despite the onslaught of every kind of moral relativism, remains not so easily sanitized of negative connotations. Defense to repulse a foreign invading army is quite frankly both unimaginable and risible. But all kinds of other undeclared wars, by any other official name other than war, have become endemic. And other forms of warfare that don’t involve deploying battalions, too, often waged in secret for reasons of dubious legality – drone strikes, assassinations, proxy warfare, coups and regime changes.

    Given their past history with the West, the Iranian government says it suspects bad faith on the part of the United States. The current Iranian polity is the result of the 1979 revolution that overthrew the former dictatorship of the Shah, imposed by British and American interests on Iran at the instigation of western owned oil companies, when they conducted a coup against the democratically elected government in 1954. If we do not appreciate the current Iranian government, we are the authors of our own misfortune, since the long delayed but inevitable blowback to the 1954 coup eventually led to a government far less digestible than Mossadegh’s. It’s not unreasonable, based on recent events, to suspect the United States’ ultimate aim is not peaceful coexistence, but regime change, it then following that every negotiation policy is designed towards that end.

    Since our government conflates its own military offense capabilities with defense, interchanging one term for the other to make it sound more acceptable, it’s logical that the aim of “submitting to a broader disarmament regime that would strip [Iran] of any offensive capability” might require Iran to become incapable of any purely defensive capability as well. Would that mean the regime change that has been so openly lobbied for by still-influential neocons (such as State Department operative Victoria Nuland’s husband Robert Kagan) would then follow?

    If this is so, then the bottom line is nothing less than the current Iranian government negotiating its capitulation, with a new regime replacing it, to be chosen on the basis of loyalty to certain U.S. interests. Even many neocons, despite their lust for violence, would prefer a negotiated surrender to actual warfare, if they are not too well-connected to the military-industrial complex.

  2. Don Nash says: • Website

    The AIPAC soiree is underway inside the Beltway, Netanyahu is in town, and the Israel firsters are ejaculating all over themselves to scrap and bow at the Altar of Zionism. That would be the lectern set up for the “speakers” at the AIPAC Confab. An abysmal display of arrogant bluster and treason.
    IF the Obama had a spine, he’d tell Netanyahu and the AIPAC traitors to go pound sand. Oh well, that’s not about to happen. Ever.

  3. “…the Israel firsters are ejaculating all over themselves”

    Apparently there is not all that much joy going on, as there has been resistance to AIPAC’s preferred war aims for America. And there are plenty of Jewish people whose attitudes are far more nuanced than the the Likudnik ones that make AIPAC almost a caricature of what Jewish interests are. Jewish people like Max Blumenthal, for instance, have provided a needed antidote.

    There’s a joke that if you get two Jewish people in a room, you get at least three opinions. AIPAC must not have much of the Jewish sense of humor nor the Jewish sense of fair play, because they seem limited to a monomania, one that is out of step with even the run of Israeli public opinion.

    For several of the same reasons, including being essentially a foreign lobby to both countries that is not representative of either, AIPAC is even more dangerous to Israel than to America.

    AIPAC is not a pack of traitors. Even if Mark Twain observed we were wise not to actually practice it much, an essential for Americans must be freedom of speech. AIPAC should have its say, but it must be able to be challenged on logical grounds and there needs to be transparency.

  4. Has Signor Giraldi been asleep all these years? The same tactic was used with Iraq, not once but twice. Then with Libya. Now with Syria and Iran–though, for various reasons, with less success there, partly because neither the Syrians nor the Iranians are as naive as the former two.

    Both Hussein and Gaddafi had the same short-coming in the end–they considered the leadership of the US and its puppets rational actors and something less than outright psychopaths.

    Interestingly enough, after World War II Josef Stalin admitted that by far his most devastating, and almost fatal, error was to consider Hitler to be sane and acting according to some rational strategy. Stalin, to wit, knew the German attack on the Soviet Union was coming, but thought that Hitler would wait for the optimal moment, that is, after western Europe had been settled and domesticated.

    As it turned out, Hitler’s surprise attack was almost successful, because of the surprise, though in the long run it was so strategically unsound that it helped shorten the war by several years, if not a decade.

  5. Any truth to the rumor that AIPAC is changing its name to Jewish Mingle and going into the dating business?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.