RSS

In 2003, Iran sent a proposal to Washington to solve the issues around its nuclear program. In the Tehran and Paris agreements with the EU3, Iran committed to dealing with all outstanding nuclear issues, and both sides agreed to expand dialogue to important issues and common interests. However, the Bush Administration opposed the Iranian proposal and undermined the Iran-EU3 negotiations. Consequently, on 12 January 2006 the EU3 stated that “our discussions with Iran have reached an impasse”. This still continues.

To find a way out of the impasse, atlantic-community.org raised the question “What could a successful strategy for the transatlantic partners to overcome the deadlock on Iran's nuclear program look like?" It led to two memos by "negotiators" and "isolators". What isolators need to know is that, isolation and sanctions is a three decade old tested and failed strategy followed by the United States. Iran is much stronger now and there is no reason to believe that it will make any contribution to overcome the current deadlock.

With regard to the second memo, paying attention to the historical and international context of the problem, thinking about engagement with Iran as final objective of transatlantic partners, and suggesting concrete reciprocity are the right approach both to understand the problem and find a solution. They have also made good suggestions such as multilateral cooperation in the nuclear field, the provision of medical isotopes, lifting sanctions, normalization of relations between Iran and the US, etc.

However, the second memo regards Iranian enrichment as “illicit” and unilateral access to enrichment as a threat, which is not true. I agree with the necessity of reciprocal confidence building measures but we need to distinguish between real threats and imagined ones, by understanding strategic culture, behaviors and capabilities of the target country. In addition, the priorities of the issues and the timetable of the strategy need to be clarified more.

Reviewing agreements, negotiations and proposed packages between Tehran, EU3 (then 3+3) and even the US from 2003 to 2010, demonstrate that both sides have had broader targets from the beginning. They included outstanding nuclear issues, regional stability, terrorism, energy security and economic cooperation. Iranian readiness for long term cooperation on these important issues clearly shows that Iran wants to be regarded as a partner and not as a threat to EU-US nor regards them as a threat for itself. However, concentration on the nuclear issue has narrowed the dialogue and led to deadlock.

The Western media continuously quotes International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports which state that Iran does not cooperate enough with them. Nevertheless, the West must realize that the IAEA reports "continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

The current transatlantic double track approach of pressure and negotiation, by strengthening Iranian mistrust toward US-EU, decreasing economic relations between the two sides and inviting more players to the problem, has weakened transatlantic influence on Iran and extended the deadlock. In addition, it has prevented further cooperation between Iran and the transatlantic partners in solving other non-nuclear outstanding issues, like Afghanistan, terrorism, drug-trafficking, as well as energy and regional security. At the same time, Tehran has been able to reach its desired nuclear target, increase its regional influence, and strengthen its relations with emerging powers.

Iran and the transatlantic partners have many common interests in contributing to peace and stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Middle East. Instead of wasting huge energy, time and capital to contain an illusionary threat, by changing their behavior toward Tehran, the transatlantic partners can achieve Iranian support and cooperation in dealing with regional problems that would benefit everyone. In doing so, they would attain a positive image in the region.

Restarting Iran-Transatlantic relations from common interests instead of concentrating on divisive opinions is the right approach for confidence building. According to Paris agreement “irrespective of progress on the nuclear use, the EU3 and Iran confirm their determination to combat terrorism, including the activities of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups…”

However, passing resolutions, imposing sanctions, using military threat etc. just deprives the transatlantic partners of Iranian cooperation. The main winners of these trends have been and will be local extremists and global opportunists like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the powers that try to hedge against the US and EU in the Middle East.

Iran has already taken enough steps to increase confidence: 2003 proposal to the US, implementation of additional protocol for two years, solving outstanding issues with IAEA, and finally the Tehran declaration to swap enriched uranium in Turkey. Furthermore, Iran is taking steps to contribute to peace and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US and its partners did not appreciate any of these efforts and driven by emotional-ideological behavior, locked the door to the West while it is open to rising economies.

To end the stalemate, the peaceful Iranian nuclear program needs to be recognized and common interests must be detached from the nuclear issue and internal politics. Moreover, the nuclear issue should be left to the IAEA. The West needs to refrain from sending the wrong messages through sanctions and sabotage. If Iran and transatlantic alleys have been able to find common partners in Baghdad, Kabul and Ankara, they should be able to become common partners themselves.

Nabi Sonboli is a scholar at the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), which was founded in 1983 in Tehran as one of the first think tanks in Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979. He is currently representing the institute in Berlin working on scientific cooperation.

Read related articles from atlantic-community.org members:

• Atlantic Memo: Engaging Tehran with Concrete Reciprocity

• Atlantic Memo: Consistent Regime Change Policy in Iran

• Editorial Team: Will Israel Launch an Air-Strike Against Iran?
  

December 20, 2010

Felix F. Seidler, PhD Student (CAU Kiel), Blogger, Platinum Contributor (344)

• 5
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Nabi Sonboli,

Thank you for your comment to our memos. I really appreciate your contribution.

However, Niklas and my Memo is not about isolating “Iran”, rather our issue is the “regime”. Those are two different issues. Anyway, our aim is support for the opposition, which does, furthermore, not fit to “isolate Iran as a whole”.

Furthermore, I personally agree with you that sanctions will continue to be a useless instrument. As I pointed out elsewhere in the discussion sanction´s only effect will be further growth of Dubai´s port.

You wrote Iran does not want to be regarded as a threat. Therefore, please comment on the regime´s intentions behind the ballistic missile program. Medium range missiles are offensive weapons and, anymore, delivery means for warheads. Moreover, the revolutionary guard´s activities in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere do not underline that the regime is seeking for cooperation.


According to my article in the competition:

Quote from my article:
“Furthermore, previous negotiations were little more than unsuccessful talks about the circumstances and contents of negotiations.”

NY Times:
Still, the official said, the simple fact that Iran agreed to meet in the first place, and to a future meeting as well, was positive, coming after more than a year of domestic friction over Iran’s disputed presidential election and the imposition of a fourth round of United Nations economic sanctions that was followed by additional independent measures from the United States and other nations.
(…)
„But the Iranian side ended the meetings on a note of defiance. The head of its delegation, Saeed Jalili, said at a news conference that the only agenda for the Istanbul meeting was “to have talks for cooperation to find common ground” and insisted that international requests for Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium would not be discussed.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08iran.html?_r=1&ref...

Quod erat demonstrandum est.

December 20, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Seidler
Thank you very much for your comment.
1- Terms like “regime” and “opposition” that are used by the media about Iranian Politics do not reflect the realities of the situation there. We have a political system with different political groups that can be understood as a spectrum not as opposing polar. The political groups have their own social, economic and political basis in the society and even in the government. Many of those who you call “opposition” have had strong connection with the government and have been inside the system. I agree that there are disagreements and sometimes the political process do not go on smoothly. However, the system is not polarized and there are lots of overlapping in terms of policies and support. It is not difficult to see disagreement even inside the goverment and the among the political groups that you call them as opposition.
2- Regarding the different political views, Iranian society has some redlines: No instability, no insecurity, and no foreign intervention. The people oppose any one who disregard these redlines.
3- You have mentioned that “our aim is support for the opposition”. Let’s be frank and honest. Who benefits from sanction and isolation? To have a sustainable democracy, we need a sustainable economy to support a sustainable middle class and civil society. During the past decades, war, sanction, isolation and militarization of the Greater Middle East have just contributed to military and security societites not civil ones in whole the region.
4- With regard to “Iranian threat” we need to understand the Iranian threat perception influenced by long term living at the center of many instable regions from central Asia and Caucasus to south Asia and Middle East, and military sanctions against Iran during the past three decades. How Iran can defend itself in such a situation? Which capablities are defensive and dose the EU and US are ready to provide them for Iran?

December 20, 2010

Niklas Anzinger, Student of Philosophy & Economics, Platinum Contributor (728)

• 4
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Sonboli,

Hezbollah is not defensive, Hamas is not defensive, the missile program is not defensive, the nuclear armament is not for peaceful purposes, the oppression of dissent is overwhelming, the Iranian leaders in charge called for the annihilation of another country.

Iranian activities in proliferation and support of terrorist groups are expanding from Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Iraq and Afghanistan to North Africa. Diplomatic ties are leading to Latin America such as the potential nuclear base in Venezuela indicated.

You systematically deny that there has been election fraud, frictions in the regime and a complete division of the political landscape that rejects the regime in general.

Neither your rhetoric about the "complex realities", nor meaningless "redlines" on the paper and wishy-washy talking about "sustainable civil society" and "living in the center of instable regions" is a sound argument. It is just rhetoric to disguise what happened since the June 2009 elections and what aims the Iranian regime has.

Years of "critical dialogue" which made this massive armament possible are over, democracy and secularism are only possible through regime change. Again, intervention is not necessary if we support the Iranian people who can manage to get rid of the regime.

December 21, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (295)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Wikileaks cables reveal that oil is central to US policy toward Iran. The administration is desperate to “wean the world” off Iran’s oil supply. The nuclear question is not the real issue, but provides ample pretext for isolating Iran.

The US anti-Iran stance has been highly counterproductive. The CIA and the Pentagon have funneled millions of dollars to al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni extremist groups across the Middle East and Central Asia. The policy began in 2003 and has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon, fuelling Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict.

Not only did no Democratic members of the House ever contest the policy but President Obama reappointed the architect of the policy - Robert Gates - as his defence secretary. Obama’s decision earlier this year to step up covert military operations in North Africa and the Middle East marked an “intensification of America’s covert war against Iran.”

This anti-Iran directive, which extends covert US support for anti-Shi’ite Islamist militant networks linked to al-Qaeda, hardly fits neatly into the stated objectives of the "War on Terror." Unless we recognize that controlling access to energy, not fighting terror, is the primary motive...

source: “Oil or Terrorism Which Motivates U.S. Policy More?” by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed on Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_po...)

December 21, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Niklas
Thank you very much for your comment.
1- You have mentioned Hezbollah and Hamas. Please compare the democratic support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestinian territories with all those who are supported by others. I want to ask all free researchers that which counties have supported authoritarian governments from North Africa to South Asia during the past five decades. I’m sure you agree that selling 60 billion dollars to such a governments by the US is not for democratic promotion but dictatorship protection. What are the consequences of such a policy? And what do you expect from invasion and occupation of other countries? Do you expect that the people there welcome you by a bunch of flower?
2- You have mentioned Iranian support for terrorism and the US has put Iran at the top of the list of supporters of terrorists. It is not so difficult to understand where the terrorists come from, how they think, and by whom are supported. Just pay attention to the nationality and backgrounds of the terrorists that attacked the US on Sep 11th. In addition, It is estimated that around 12000 people have been killed by terrorists in Iran during the past three decades. Who have killed them and where are those terrorists?
3- Lets not create an image of Iran as another Soviet Union that is omnipresent from Central Asia to Latin America and try to destroy the west. That image is good for selling weapons. Furthermore, there are long list of mutual complains. If we want to concentrate on them like the past three decades, we will not be able to find a way out of the current vicious circle. We’d better to pay attention to the real problems, find right solutions, and encourage right wills to implement them.

December 21, 2010

Niklas Anzinger, Student of Philosophy & Economics, Platinum Contributor (728)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Sonboli,

here is a short human rights record, one component of alle the bypasses of the terrorist-supporting Islamists apocalypticians you try to cover: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/12/patter...

Those who don´t understand yet will never.

I´m out of the discussion.

December 21, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (295)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr Anzinger,

In your comment of December 20, you fail to address the core message of the author. Instead, you introduce a number of elements which the author has not raised, and list a number of claims without the slightest effort to substantiate them. A somewhat puzzling procedure.

In your comment of 21 December you raise human rights in Iran. I agree with you that this is an issue that leaves much to be desired, but surely Iran is not alone in this. Please refer to:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/germany

Before you leave the debate: on the way the US, and the West at large, has been dealing with Iran during the last decades, you will find some interesting observations in John Mearsheimers superb essay “Imperial by design” of December 16 (see http://nationalinterest.org/article/imperial-by-design-4576), from which please find two quotes below:

“The United States has also been unable to solve three other major foreign-policy problems. Washington has worked overtime—with no success—to shut down Iran’s uranium-enrichment capability for fear that it might lead to Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons. And the United States, unable to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place, now seems incapable of compelling Pyongyang to give them up. Finally, every post–Cold War administration has tried and failed to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; all indicators are that this problem will deteriorate further as the West Bank and Gaza are incorporated into a Greater Israel.

The unpleasant truth is that the United States is in a world of trouble today on the foreign-policy front, and this state of affairs is only likely to get worse in the next few years, as Afghanistan and Iraq unravel and the blame game escalates to poisonous levels. Thus, it is hardly surprising that a recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey found that “looking forward 50 years, only 33 percent of Americans think the United States will continue to be the world’s leading power.” Clearly, the heady days of the early 1990s have given way to a pronounced pessimism. “

and

“This grand strategy is “imperial” at its core; its proponents believe that the United States has the right as well as the responsibility to interfere in the politics of other countries. One would think that such arrogance might alienate other states, but most American policy makers of the early nineties and beyond were confident that would not happen, instead believing that other countries—save for so-called rogue states like Iran and North Korea—would see the United States as a benign hegemon serving their own interests.”

Some of these observations largely reflect those of Mr Sonboli, don’t they?

December 22, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Niklas
Once a Layman criticizes a Mystic severely and uses all bad languages against him. The Mystic answer: “Suppose that I’m the one that you identify; who are you?”

December 22, 2010

Tobias Heinrich Siegfried Sauer, Universität Trier, Gold Contributor (84)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Sonboli,

thank you for your very interesting article, arguing for trust-building measures. While I would support the general argument, I would disagree with some, if not most, of your proposals.

First: You write: "However, the Bush Administration opposed the Iranian proposal and undermined the Iran-EU3 negotiations. Consequently, on 12 January 2006 the EU3 stated that “our discussions with Iran have reached an impasse”. This still continues."
You know as well as we do that the EU did not so much blame the Bush-administration but the non-cooperative behaviour in Tehran for the cited impasse, as Tehran did not implement fully the agreement reached between the E3 and Iran.

Second: "What isolators need to know is that, isolation and sanctions is a three decade old tested and failed strategy followed by the United States. Iran is much stronger now and there is no reason to believe that it will make any contribution to overcome the current deadlock."
If sanctions work is unclear yet as they were of course not applied universally. News from Tehran seem to indicate that sanctions start to bite. What remains unclear, though, is if they contribute to the policy-goal which is hinder Iran to build nuclear weapons. I am less optimistic that sanctions are helpfull to reach that goal.

Thrid: "However, the second memo regards Iranian enrichment as “illicit” and unilateral access to enrichment as a threat, which is not true."
As the Security Council time and again has declared, enrichment currently is "illicit" for Tehran. The reasons are to be found in the secretive nature of Iran's Uranium program. An exit would be a more open programm, not the revelation of new and previuosly hidden enrichment plants, as in Qom, which only strengthen international mistrust. If enrichment is really a "threat" is hard to validate in an objective way. However, Iran is percieved in the region as a threat, making a nuclear-arms-race likelier. We have to face these realities, ignoring or talking them away is not helpfull.

Fourth: "However, concentration on the nuclear issue has narrowed the dialogue and led to deadlock."
Also Iran has to accept that the nuclear issue is in large parts of the world perceived as the most important issue. Talking about everything but the nuclear issue therefore is not a viable option.

Fifth: "The Western media continuously quotes International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports which state that Iran does not cooperate enough with them. Nevertheless, the West must realize that the IAEA reports "continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
This sentence is quite bold. Two elements are important. The first important word is "declared". The problem is: Iran has repeatedly not declared all materials but has in fact hidden them. The second is: the cited sentence is not complete. The full sentence is: "While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities". So you cite the subordinate clause, while the main clause states that Iran is not cooperating fully with the IAEA. This does not promote trust-building. All the following points in the resolution point to Iran's lack of cooperation. Mr. Sonboli, please let's argue honestly without distorting the facts too much!

Sixth: "Tehran has been able to reach its desired nuclear target, increase its regional influence, and strengthen its relations with emerging powers."
I am unsure, if Tehran has definitly reached any targets, if its regional influence has increased (I still don't understand how Tehran can ever increase it's influence by acquiring an almost 100-year-old technology) and I don't see with which emerging powers Tehran's relations have been strengthened.

Seventh: "Instead of wasting huge energy, time and capital to contain an illusionary threat, by changing their behavior toward Tehran, the transatlantic partners can achieve Iranian support and cooperation in dealing with regional problems that would benefit everyone. In doing so, they would attain a positive image in the region."
Here, finally, we assess the situation similarily. Your argument, however, is distorted again, as Tehran's part in trust-building is totally neglected. For trust-building, however, it is essential that both parties work hard to create trust. I miss any proposals how this should be done on Iran's part. You are very much an expert for Iranian affairs, more than all of us. While we proposed changes in Western behaviour, I very much miss your ideas concerning what Tehran could do now to improve relations.

Eighth: "2003 proposal to the US, implementation of additional protocol for two years, solving outstanding issues with IAEA, and finally the Tehran declaration to swap enriched uranium in Turkey. Furthermore, Iran is taking steps to contribute to peace and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US and its partners did not appreciate any of these efforts and driven by emotional-ideological behavior, locked the door to the West while it is open to rising economies."
If you regard these issues as sufficient for trust-building, I am sorry to disillusion you. Cooperation with IAEA is a necessary precondition, not a trust-building measure, the same goes for solving outstanding issues with the Agency. The swap-deal did not contribute to trust-building as it fell short of the minimum-demands by the U.S./EU. Cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan is welcomed, if it leads to real cooperation, but does not solve by itself the main issue: the nuclear programme.

Ninth: "If Iran and transatlantic alleys have been able to find common partners in Baghdad, Kabul and Ankara, they should be able to become common partners themselves."
At least the goals are similar, but as shown above, your proposal lacks the crucial element of showing ways how Iran could contribute to mutual trust-building.

December 22, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Tobias
Thank you very much for your comment.
1.“EU did not so much blame the Bush-administration”. In public yes, you are right, but in private please ask those you were involved in the negotiations. Iran voluntarily implemented the additional protocol for two years and finally asked for keeping enrichment at a pilot plan (16 centrifuges). EU3 did not agree.
2. The current strategy toward Iran is “submission or sanctions”. What I think is that the sanctions will not force Iran to surrender. Iran has not been looking for nuclear weapons to stop doing so.
3. “Iran is perceived in the region as a threat, making a nuclear-arms-race likelier.” Who dose perceive Iran as a threat; those who supported Saddam attack against Iran that lead to loss of life by more than 300000 thousands Iranians? With regard to the regional consequences of the Iranian nuclear program, please follow other regional countries nuclear activities in the past. It is not so difficult to understand that which countries need to be more concerned in the region: those who have been more threatened and less defended.
4.I agree that “it is essential that both parties work hard to create trust.” However, what both sides can do, is the main subject for negotiations. Iran and transatlantic partners have many common interests in contributing to peace and stability in AfPak, Central Asia, Caucasus, Persian Gulf, Iraq, Arabian Peninsula, energy security, environment etc. You can also refer to the packages that have been proposed by Iran, EU3 and 5+1.
5.It is not the UNSC that decides about the legality of enrichment, but NPT. Article IV of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stipulates “nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination…”. However All the resolutions have asked Iran to postpone its peaceful nuclear activities as an “inalienable right” and that is a clear violation of NPT.

6.If “cooperation with IAEA is a necessary precondition, not a trust-building measure, (and) the same goes for solving outstanding issues with the Agency”’ the nuclear issue must be dealt with by IAEA not UNCS. NPT includes both rights and responsibilities. We cannot say that what Iran dose, is its duty and what the other sides do, is a concession.
7.Tehran has already reached to the target of having independent access to peaceful nuclear technology and IAEA has confirmed the achievement. There will be no more change in this regard. To use Brian Tracy term, the US is not ready to “eat the frog”. I agree that this old technology is not the main source of Iranian regional influence. That needs a separate discussion.

December 22, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Why Iranian Nuclear programis not the main issue:

In November 2003 IAEA reports that "To date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme." One year latter and after more than one thousand person/hour of inspection, once again, in Paragraph 112 of November 2004 report, IAEA confirmed that "All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”
From 2005 to 2010 the IAEA has confirmed non-diversion of Iranian nuclear activities. Although the agency has always added the phrase “declared activities”, but while a country is IAEA member implement its obligation accordingly, adding such a phrase just weaken the Agencies position.
In April 2006 Iran announced that it “is prepared to resolve the remaining outstanding issues . According to the Modality agreement between Iran and IAEA in 2007, the outstanding issues included Plutonium Experiments, Issue of P1-P2, Source of Contamination, U Metal Document, Po210, and Ghachine Mine. In that agreement “the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.” . Iran implemented the work plan and in its 2008 report, IAEA concluded that “Iran has … responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan…” “Therefore, the Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding…” Furthermore, from 2005 to 2010 the IAEA has always confirmed non-diversion of Iranian nuclear activities. No sign of diversion for three decades is a good proof that there has been no intention to do so.

The Agency has repeatedly complained about Iranian transparency. But solving the outstanding issues confirm that the Iranian program have been transparent enough. By asking for more transparency, the agency means much more than Iranian commitments and even additional protocol. According to the Agencies report “such transparency measures should extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol and include access to individuals, documentation related to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations.” Such a request is illegal and inappropriate, especially when Iran is under severe threat and sanctions and we have much news about sabotage and terror of Iranian nuclear scientists.

While there are no outstanding issues according to the definition of the work plan between Iran and IAEA, no diversion has been found and the current activities are peaceful, there is no reason to be concerned about Iranian nuclear program and it is not the main issue, unless some countries want to keep it for other reasons. Still the question is that: What will be the consequnce of this strategy?

According to Rumi, the famous Iranian Mystic, “The word is like a mountain and our actions like our voice. What comes to us is the repercussion of our behaviors.”

December 24, 2010

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (191)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

After reading this article I had this impression that Iran is a nation just like any other trying to protect itself in the region and is in no way a threat to anyone. I cannot agree with this image because Iranian representatives including the President have said things that are very contrary to the image this article tries to portray. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced when meeting with Sudan's president that it is willing and ready to share its nuclear technology with Sudan. Iran has also provided military training to Sudan. Likewise, Iranian representatives have repeatedly called the West and the US imperialists and oppressors. That kind of language insinuates that someone is being oppressed by another- which in turn can have very serious consequences.

As for Mr. Lookman's comment about the U.S.A's main interest being in oil when it comes to dealing with Iran- i completely disagree. I can agree on the fact that i think oil and power in the region had a lot to do with the Iraq invasion but the amount of resources the US devotes to its counter terrorist programs is in no way a front for an oil interest. Lets not forget that the United States was attacked and suffered a serious blow.

December 24, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (295)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Ms Bubel: when you say “i completely disagree”, I wonder if you have read my source: “Oil or Terrorism Which Motivates U.S. Policy More?” by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed on Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_po...). The article contains a link to Mr Ahmed’s interesting essay: “The Iran threat - An Assessment of the Middle East Nuclear Stalemate”, where one of his conclusions is that “the US administration’s preference for a military solution is motivated by macro-economic and resource-supply issues, the nuclear issue providing a convenient casus belli”. I suppose that amounts to: "main interest ... oil".

As regards “the amount of resources the US devotes to its counter terrorist programs” and “Lets not forget that the United States was attacked and suffered a serious blow”, your words remind me of some observations by John Mearsheimer in “Imperial by Design” (http://nationalinterest.org/article/imperial-by-design-4576), for instance:

“With the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration all of a sudden was forced to think seriously about terrorism. Unfortunately, the president—and most Americans for that matter—misread what the country was dealing with in two important ways: greatly exaggerating the threat’s severity, and failing to understand why al-Qaeda was so enraged at the United States. These mistakes led the administration to adopt policies that made the problem worse, not better.”

and

“there was no alliance between the so-called rogue states and al-Qaeda. In fact, Iran and Syria cooperated with Washington after 9/11 to help quash Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Although the Bush administration and the neoconservatives repeatedly asserted that there was a genuine connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, they never produced evidence to back up their claim for the simple reason that it did not exist.”

December 24, 2010

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (191)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Lookman,
Yes I read the article and I disagree with it. Yes i am aware of all the secret funding and the support of the Mujahideen in the past. Fighting and winning against the Soviet union was the main issue in the past- something i disagree with but it explains US policies over the past 60 years. However to claim that the US is currently funding al-Qaeda groups- does this claim not sound ridiculous to you? The US is funding a group that it is at the same time fighting against in Afghanistan?

I understand how at first blush this article might sound correct but I have to argue against it. Yes, Dick Cheney's goals were probably to take over the whole region and gobble up oil reserves. And I do believe that this thinking had a major influence with the Iraq intervention. But the US doesn't have free access to that oil and has spent billions of dollars on the war there. That oil belongs to the people of Iraq as does the oil of Iran. Also, if the claim is that the US is only dealing with Iran because of the oil should we assume that the US is in Afghanistan for some natural resource also?

As far as exaggerating the terrorist threat after 9/11..... I can agree to the point that the US made many mistakes with its policies however, this attack and this threat were very real. This was an attack inside the country and it wasn't on Disney World- it was the World Trade Center and the Pentagon- very serious indeed. Any country in the world has the obligation to respond to attacks on its country; therefore, of course the US has to take this as a serious threat. I also believe that what 9/11 showed the United States was that they can no longer consider al-Qaeda or extremists groups as just some crazy groups with crazy ideologies without any kind of power. That's why this is a serious concern.

As far as understanding why al-Qaeda was so enraged with the United States. Just to be fair, I believe that their concerns, along with every other fanatical group such as the neo-Nazi's, the Shining Path, the Friends of North Korea and so on, should be heard once and that's it. Fanatical ideologies do not deserve much ear time because one cannot argue with them logically and just to be very blunt- they are crazy.

I believe that the concern with Iran is an issue of power and influence in the region- not oil. This is a very important issue that I believe has more support than this oil argument.
These are the top 10 countries that the US imports oil from. The oil demands are being met just fine without Iran.

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil

December 24, 2010

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (191)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

and by power and influence in the middle east I am referring to a balance of Iranian influence and power in the middle east- I believe the USA's interest is to keep Iran from gaining more power and influence in the region- not to secure oil.

December 25, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Basia
Thank you very much for your comment.
With regard to the Western and the US imperialistic image, we have not created that image. We had a very positive image of the US and the west excluding UK. Germany's image in Iran has still remained more or less positive. They have created that image of themselves in the Middle East. Please see my comments to Prof. Mazzucelli.
With regard to Iranian nuclear and military cooperation with other countries, that's what international law and norms permit. With regard to this specific case, I have no information.

December 25, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Basia
With regard to the oil issue let me add some points:
1-I do not agree with the point that the US provides energy security to the west. All oil exporting countries in the Persian Gulf are dependent on oil revenues and they cannot prevent the flow of oil to other countries.
2-The US has tried to increase its role in the Persian Gulf and control oil routes to increase its leverage against other global and regional powers, like China, India, etc.
3-To understand the role of oil in Afghanistan, you’d better to pay attention to the role of oil companies to bring Taliban to power to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, through Afghanistan in 1990s….

December 25, 2010

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (191)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Sonboli,
Thank you for your response. I have some issues with the things you proposed. For one, yes I agree that the European intervention in the Middle East and the creation of the borders has caused many problems and conflicts and US intervention in recent years and in the past has complicated things also. I do not agree with the interventions and invasion from either the US or Europe. But, where I have a problem is with a denial of the oppression of citizens by their own governments. Those same leaders scream "down with the imperialists" while they run oil cartels and become extremely wealthy while the population remains living at a low standard. I looked at your points under Professor Mazzucelli's post and one of the main points was the Iraq-Iran war. I'm not sure why Iraq isn't being called the imperialist and evil doer also? After all, I think its fair and best to not pick and choose who is evil and wrong. Lets identify all the wrong doing players. Haven't the Empires in the Middle East oppressed each other over the years also?
Additionally, you mentioned that international law permits the sharing of nuclear and military cooperation with other countries- not when there are sanctions placed on that country with specific mention to providing any kind of military and weaponry to the Sudanese government. Furthermore, the Sudanese government is failing to protect its citizens from murder and genocide and is probably even committing the atrocities in some way or another, yet Iran wants to share nuclear and military knowledge with such a regime? With all do respect, is it not okay to be an imperialist but okay to be a supporter of genocide, mass murder, and human rights violations? I think its time to stop the double standards. Iranian representatives have accused the US of double standards and yes i agree that the US has double standards on many things and I do not believe this to be the correct position- but I also think that those who play the imperialist and oppressor card have just as many double standards.

As for oil, while the Persian Gulf states depend on those oil revenues- the rest of the world depends on the oil. We cannot live without it. So, both sides suffer. Also, where do most of those oil revenues go? Its a lot of money and i don't see it going to the people.
about the second point with China and India- i have no comment.
As for that pipeline through Afghanistan- i am not familiar with it but based from what you wrote I can gather the following. The U.S. is interested in bringing oil to Pakistan and India for itself- that doesn't make sense? Oil companies do not equal U.S. government. They are not one.

Also, it is estimated that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost somewhere in the low trillions. So, if the US is spending trillions to gather up oil and secure its oil supply- after which it will have to purchase the oil anyway- i am left with two conclusions. Either the U.S. government is being controlled and run by self defeating idiots and imbeciles. Or there is more to the story and its not all about oil.

December 26, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Ms Bubel
1-Middle East quagmire: I have not told that the West is responsible for all problems in the Middle East. Three groups of players are responsible for the current quagmire in the Middle East. Seemingly, they are criticizing and opposing each other. But in fact, they have been strengthening each other: inefficient governments, global players (Mostly the West), and local extremists. Global players preach democracy and human rights but support authoritarian governments and dictatorships. Authoritarian governments have lost their legitimacy because of long term inefficiency. They envision anyone who opposes them as extremist and a threat for themselves and the West, to receive more financial and military support. Majority of the people in the region that criticies the governments and the Western countries behaviors are not extremist. They just look for a better life like anyone else. Inefficiency of governments and foreign intervention have paved the ways for extremist to justify their behavior, increase their influence and achieve more support against the other two. Egypt and AfPak cases are two clear examples in the greater Middle East. In this quagmire and vicious cycle, different players, instead of accepting the share of their responsibility and trying to solve economic, social and political problems, try to benefit from the situation. But, I think that’s a loose-loose game for all.
2- You have mentioned that oil cannot be the main reason for billions of war and intervention expenditures launched by the US and the West. That’s right. But there are other reasons: First, US and UK officials did not think that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq be so costly. They thought that the people would welcome them. Second, those billions of dollars to whom have been paid? And why they should support ending the war? War is also a business. Third, it is not so easy for the political and military officials to withdraw after a strategic defeat. That’s why they always look for justifications and pretexts . They need a face-saving exit strategy to let the people in the Middle East to live peacefully with each other and with the West. Forth, the wars and interventions that you oppose have led to insecurity, instability and underdevelopment in the region. Consequently, most of the oil revenues are spent on importing goods and weaponry from the West and other countries. That’s also another reason for launching these wars and interventions. Without these wars and instabilities you could not find so many no-quality imported products form emerging economies, too. The idea of self defeating idiots is something that many believe, but I do not know anything about that.

December 26, 2010

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (191)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The idea about the self defeating idiots was a sarcastic remark. It was meant to make a point that I do not think the U.S. is engaging with Iran for oil.

December 28, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (295)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Gordan Thomas writes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8224391...) about Mossad’s extensive operations throughout the Middle East. According to Tamir Pardo, its new head, Israel allocates itself a pivotal role in “the new Cold War” between Russia and the West. He aims at expanding Mossad’s watch over the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service, which is increasingly present in Syria and Turkey. He is expected to brief his British peers a.o. on Mossad’s plans to provide Britain and Nato with increased intelligence over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Mossad has a network of undercover agents in the country…

With Mossad conducting operations in a.o. 'rogue states" Iran, Yemen and Somalia, Israel sees itself as an indispensable partner with the United States in an enduring global conflict, partners who have become economically too dependent on their weapons industry to consider making peace. It would appear that your plea for constructive dialogue unfortunately falls on deaf ears.

December 28, 2010

Nabi Sonboli, IPIS, Tehran, Iran, Gold Contributor (127)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Lookman
You referred to an important point: those with deaf ears. Naturally, it is not possible to have constructive dialogue with those who do not hear. More difficult is to have dialogue with those who do not want to hear. However,
first, I do not think that they are majority, but a small minority. Therefore, we should not forget the majority of the people who look for reality. Second, those minority people who intentionally or unintentionally do not listen, they will lose. Because, by closing their ears, they are closing their minds and make more mistakes. Consequently they weaken themselves.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org