George Washington Political Science Professor Mark Lynch in Foreign Policy:

With military action in the background but not imminent, and sanctions taking a real political and economic toll inside of Iran, now seems to be the right time to begin a serious effort at real talks with Iran over [...]]]> via Lobe Log

George Washington Political Science Professor Mark Lynch in Foreign Policy:

With military action in the background but not imminent, and sanctions taking a real political and economic toll inside of Iran, now seems to be the right time to begin a serious effort at real talks with Iran over its nuclear program — and to be prepared to take yes for an answer.

Roya Boroumand, the executive director of the Iranian human rights-focused Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, for the Huffington Post:

But there is still hope. Today, unlike the immediate post-revolutionary years, the Iranian leaders are concerned about their image abroad. They also respond to their critics and deny the routine violation of their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since 1975, Iran is bound by the ICCPR, which set forth the rights and freedoms essential to an open, safe and pluralistic political system where citizens can be heard and determine their own destiny.

For too many years, the international community, including the United States, has dealt with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its use of violence in foreign policy independently from the abysmal human rights situation inside the country. It is time for a long-term strategy that would seriously challenge the leadership by shifting the focus to their human rights record, the non-representative nature of Iran’s political system and on the rights of citizens to organize and express themselves.

Former senior State Department intelligence analyst, Greg Thielmann, in Arms Control Now:

Any successful solution to the Iran nuclear crisis will have to include Iran’s agreement to again abide by the terms of the Additional Protocol, if not to grant even wider access to IAEA inspectors. As former IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen stated in an October 31 email exchange with the author, “[the Additional Protocol] will be indispensable in understanding [Iran’s] enrichment and heavy water programs…”

Various Iranian officials have suggested a willingness to accept the Additional Protocol if Iran’s right to enrichment is made clear. Endorsement of the Additional Protocol by Iraq, one of Iran’s few friendly neighbors, should help to increase pressure on Iran to do likewise.

Iran scholar and Lobe Log contributor, Farideh Farhi:

Unless Khamenei and company are given a way out of the mess they have taken Iran into (with some help from the US and company), chances are that we are heading into a war in the same way we headed to war in Iraq. A recent Foreign Affairs article by Ralf Ekeus, the former executive chairman of the UN special Commission on Iraq, and Malfrid-Braut hegghammer, is a good primer on how this could happen.

The reality is that the current sanctions regime does not constitute a stable situation. First, the instability (and instability is different from regime change as we are sadly learning in Syria) it might beget is a constant force for policy re-evaluation on all sides (other members of the P5+1 included). Second, maintaining sanctions require vigilance while egging on the sanctioned regime to become more risk-taking in trying to get around them. This is a formula for war and it will happen if a real effort at compromise is not made. Inflexibility will beget inflexibility.

Former chief analyst of the CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center, Paul Pillar, in the National Interest:

On that all-preoccupying matter involving Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranians have given ample indication of flexibility on restricting their enrichment of uranium and on much else. But they would be foolish to make unilateral concessions with no prospect of getting anything in return on matters of importance to them.

When someone seems to be adhering to a position that ought not to be a vital interest to them, we should not make the mistake of interpreting this as a mark of obduracy and unreasonableness. More likely it means they are willing to bargain.

Also for the Huffington Post, Reza Marashi and Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council:

Both Tehran and Washington have realized that their opening offers this past summer were non-starters. Iran wanted all sanctions lifted before it would begin limiting its enrichment program. American sought Iranian concessions upfront only to offer sanctions relief at the very end of the step-by-step process. Moreover, “going small” — that is, demanding less of Iran in order to justify the absence of sanctions relief — was politically unfeasibly.

This gave birth to the idea of ‘Going Big’ — circumventing the politically tricky sequencing and instead putting everything on the table. But somehow, ‘Going Big’ was mysteriously linked to an ultimatum. If the Iranians did not agree to our last (and first) big offer, there would be war.

This would be a serious mistake that would guarantee war. While going bigger may be necessary to reach an agreement, we can’t get a big offer right through a single attempt. If the Iranians presented a big offer to the P5+1 — “or else,” the world would rightly reject it and see it as an attempt to justify Iranian intransigence.

Similarly, Tehran — and the world — will view any US ultimatum as an attempt to create a path towards war. Diplomacy should help avoid war, not lay the groundwork for it.

The answer to this question is simple: there is no such thing as one Tehran. Opinions vary and arguments to back up the case for either Barak Obama or Mitt Romney are sometimes unexpected. The way it looks now, the hardliners prefer Romney. Just listen to the argument made by [...]]]> via Lobe Log

The answer to this question is simple: there is no such thing as one Tehran. Opinions vary and arguments to back up the case for either Barak Obama or Mitt Romney are sometimes unexpected. The way it looks now, the hardliners prefer Romney. Just listen to the argument made by the former MP and deputy secretary of the hard-line Society for the Followers of the Path of the Islamic Revolution, Parviz Sarvari:

Some people who are influential in the country have reached the conclusion that Obama must win in this election and this view unfortunately exists that we have to do something for Obama to win the election…Under current conditions even Mitt Romney is to our interest and it has always been shown that when Republicans have come to power, they have had war-mongering behavior and have diverged from Europe, China, and Russia and in these conditions the Islamic Republic has always been able to have more interactions with  Europe, china, Russia, and other countries. Republicans have shown that they are paper tigers and make more noise but do not act. Effectively their threats have never been a threat to us. As it happens, the most attacks and pressures against Iran have been during Democratic periods.

On the other side of the spectrum stands former vice president and reformist, Mohammad Ali Abtahi, who writes:

In the current American election, given the painful unilateral sanction policies that have been pursued against the nation of Iran by the administration of Mr. Obama and the harsher and more violent policies of Mr. Romney, which is closer to the military option, there are two views. The American hardliners who follow Israel welcome Mr. Romney’s election more and I think there are hardliners in Iran who also welcome this choice so that conflict and confrontation with the main enemy become more evident. In the same way part of the [Iranian] opposition which [is after] overthrow is also of the belief that Romney can better and faster bring the Islamic Republic to its knee. But in the midst of this commotion, my thinking is that Mr Obama will be elected with quite a bit of distance from Mr. Romney and all in all this is better for the world and our country.

Considering that Abatahi was imprisoned after the 2009 election and has essentially become a persona non grata within the power circles of current Iran, his opinions probably do not carry much weight. However, his view that President Obama will be re-elected is also shared by foreign policy heavy weights such as Ali Akbar Velayati, the former foreign minister and current senior advisor to Leader Ali Khamenei. Categorically denying recent reports of his meetings with US officials, Velayati relies on US polling data and suggests that Obama will probably be the victor.

Will it make a difference who wins for Iran? “America is America,” Velayati shrugs. In the past 34 years since the revolution, the Islamic Republic has “tested a variety of US presidents, Democrats and Republicans” and “we do not need of their kindness.” The bottom line for Velayati is that no matter who gets elected, Iran will not give in to the US demand to suspend “peaceful nuclear work” because “even if we waive our right temporarily, they will bring forth another excuse.”

Velayati does not reject negotiations but admits that as far as he knows, no decision has been made to talk to the US directly. But, the whole tenor of the interview suggests that Tehran is getting ready for another round of negotiations with the US within the frame of P5+1 at the end of November with the assumption that Obama will win.

At the same time, the interview makes clear that, with or without Obama, the level of mistrust is extremely high, at least among the current decision-making circles. Those inside Iran who are calling for concessions in the nuclear talks in exchange for the end of sanctions, Velayati says, do not understand the international environment. “I do not know a country in the world that has retreated against the unjust demands of Western powers and they have [in turn] fulfilled their promised concessions.”

- Farideh Farhi is an independent researcher and an affiliate graduate faculty member in political science and international relations at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. 

The 6 August issue of the Wall Street Journal contained a disturbing article on Iran by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. It was disturbing not because Oren presented reasoned evidence that Iran’s leaders have decided to use their uranium enrichment capacity to produce nuclear weapons (he [...]]]> via Lobe Log

The 6 August issue of the Wall Street Journal contained a disturbing article on Iran by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. It was disturbing not because Oren presented reasoned evidence that Iran’s leaders have decided to use their uranium enrichment capacity to produce nuclear weapons (he did no such thing) – but because the article amounted to an unreasoned appeal to the post-9/11 sensitivities of American readers to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran that would contravene Israel’s international obligations.

Let me try to explain.

The theme of the article is: Iran is the world’s leading terror sponsor without nuclear weapons.With them, it can commit incalculable atrocities.

Is Iran the world’s leading sponsor of terror? Without access to reams of intelligence this is hard to judge. Iran is undoubtedly a sponsor of terror, but bestowing on it the number one spot probably requires making assumptions about Hezbollah and about what constitutes “sponsorship” that are contentious.

Oren alleges that Iran has “supplied 70,000 rockets to terrorist organisations deployed on Israel’s border”. But Israel is one of only six United Nations members (out of 192), the US being another, that classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Hezbollah’s paramilitary wing is seen as a resistance movement in most Muslim countries. Hezbollah was born in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which prompted the UN Security Council to express grave concern at the violation of the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Lebanon.

Oren affirms that “Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists” killed five Israeli tourists in Bulgaria in July, echoing a claim made by Israel’s Prime Minister within half an hour of this outrage occurring. But to date neither the Bulgarian authorities nor, reportedly, the CIA, share Israeli certainty that Iran can reasonably be accused of this barbarous act.

The most dangerous terrorist network of the last decade is generally held to have been Al Qaeda. Iranian support for an Al Qaeda operation in Saudi Arabia has been alleged but not proved. No authoritative source has ever linked Iran to the 9/11 tragedy. Al Qaeda’s leaders are Sunni extremists, Iran’s are Shiite Muslims; the twain meet reluctantly.

So what sounds like a statement of fact – “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terror” – is in reality a subjective evaluation. Now what of the claim that with nuclear weapons Iran “can commit incalculable atrocities anywhere in the world”?

The first thing to notice is the auxiliary verb: “can”. There are many states (including Israel) that have the capacity to do the most terrible things to other states. Mankind has survived until now, however, because capacity is only half the story: the will to use that capacity for offensive purposes also needs to exist.

Oren tries to cope with that fact by reminding readers of the “genocidal rhetoric” to which Iran’s leaders are prone. What he fails to mention is that this rhetoric may not be a reliable guide to Iranian intentions and that for thirteen years (1979-1992) Israel’s leaders were happy to assume it wasn’t.

In truth, leading Iranians have been threatening Israel for more than 30 years, but have yet to act. Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto talks of the “final obliteration” of Israel; but Hezbollah has shown no sign of wanting to use its “70,000 rockets” not in self defence but to bring about that obliteration. At any point in the last 30 years Iran could have supplied Hezbollah with radioactive material for use in “dirty bombs” or with infectious pathogens for dispersal among the Israeli population. Yet, there is no indication that Iran has tried to do so.

Let us suppose, however, that Iran somehow contrives to produce a score of nuclear weapons without the UN Security Council acting to avert such a gross violation of Iran’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. Would that enable Iran to “commit incalculable atrocities anywhere in the world”?

Of course not. Iran does not possess an intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Iran’s leaders, who are “rational actors” in the view of US intelligence and defence experts, know that an Iranian first use of nuclear weapons would invite the annihilation of their goods and chattels in a nuclear counter-strike. Possession of nuclear weapons does not secure immunity from punishment for outrages committed by terrorist proxies. Nuclear forensic science provides a persuasive deterrent against making nuclear weapons available to terrorist proxies.

So the highly emotive claim that the possession of nuclear weapons would enable Iran to commit atrocities wherever it chooses turns out to be without a solid foundation in reason.

Oren’s article is also remarkable for a number of distortions of the truth, to put it politely. Since 1992, Iran’s leaders have not “systematically lied about their nuclear operations”. They have not “blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors from visiting Iran’s nuclear sites”. They have not “rejected all confidence-building measures”. Iran’s centrifuges are not “spinning even faster” today than in the past. And “with each passing day”, the lives of eight million Israelis are not “growing increasingly imperilled”.

Last, Oren suggests that the President of the United States can bestow on Israel a right of self-defence “against any threat” at a time of its choosing. This is not so. Israel’s right of self-defence flows from and is circumscribed by Article 51 of the UN Charter, since Israel is a party to that Charter.

Article 51 recognises a right of self-defence “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”. Since the Charter was agreed, UN members have come to accept that the clear imminence of an armed attack might also justify acts of self-defence. But it is unlikely that the UN membership, or the Security Council where responsibility for maintaining and restoring peace and security rests, would regard the acquisition of a uranium enrichment capacity by a neighbouring state, even one suspected of having conducted research into the design of nuclear weapons, as amounting to an imminent armed attack.

However, these observations are incidental to my main points: the claim that Iran is “the world’s leading terror sponsor” is subjective and possibly an exaggeration; and, it is highly questionable whether possession of nuclear weapons would lead Iran to commit “incalculable atrocities”. Iran has been responsible for acts of terror since shortly after the founding of the Islamic Republic, but that is not the reason why most members of the international community object to Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, or why they welcome the continuing absence of evidence proving nuclear weapons production.

I leave readers to form their own conclusions as to why Israel’s ambassador to the United States seeks to appeal to the emotions and not the reason of the American public, and why he finds it necessary to give an inaccurate account of certain facts.

Weekly Reads/Watch: