This lonely press briefing issued today by the United Nations about ongoing political imprisonment in Iran reminds us that the more the international community focuses on Iran’s nuclear program, the less attention is given to Iranian human rights. These rights are consistently endangered and violated not only by the Iranian [...]]]> via Lobe Log

This lonely press briefing issued today by the United Nations about ongoing political imprisonment in Iran reminds us that the more the international community focuses on Iran’s nuclear program, the less attention is given to Iranian human rights. These rights are consistently endangered and violated not only by the Iranian government, but by sanctions and threats of war too.

Iran’s rial is once again in free fall while Iran and the United States remain in political gridlock. Bibi Netanyahu may have backed off his Iran campaign for now but is unlikely to stop agitating for conflict. Today during an event at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Mark Fitzpatrick said that Iran is unlikely to change it’s stance prior to the Iranian presidential election in June 2013 because no one wants to grant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a diplomatic success while he is in office. Fitzpatrick added that the West is likely to implement even more sanctions during to this time.

So while Iranians are being strangled by the Islamic Republic’s ever-present hand in their public and personal lives, so too ar they being forced to endure a strangulated economy that will only worsen. This feeling of impending suffocation — imposed from above and below — was at the core of Asghar Farhadi’s oscar-winning film “A Separation” which resonated so strongly with Iranians. In Iran the personal is political and vice versa while absurdity has become the norm.

In a recent interview with Nazila Fathi, the Iranian human rights defender Shirin Ebadi explained that war on Iran would “stir nationalistic feelings and rally the people behind the government to defend the country” as well as “save Iran’s rulers.” But she didn’t or couldn’t provide any indication as to what can be done to ease the burden being imposed on Iranians by their government and foreign governments.

“I don’t favor more sanctions against Iran, but I do not want to see the world ignore what the regime is doing to its people,” said Ebadi.

What then is in store for Iran’s people?

News and views relevant to US mideast foreign policy for Sept. 20

“Iranian policymakers should understand that failing to limit the enrichment program will eventually trigger war”: The Security Times carries a commentary by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an influential British think tank. Outlining the continuing [...]]]> via Lobe Log

News and views relevant to US mideast foreign policy for Sept. 20

“Iranian policymakers should understand that failing to limit the enrichment program will eventually trigger war”: The Security Times carries a commentary by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an influential British think tank. Outlining the continuing difficulties in negotiating an agreement on Iran’s enrichment activities, Fitzpatrick notes that the lack of an agreement means that pressure will grow to take military action in the coming years:

…. Iran already is nuclear capable – now possessing all the materials and technology, requiring only a political decision – and, while unpalatable, this status has not triggered military action.

The problem is that the red line separating nuclear-capable from nuclear-armed will become less clear as Iran’s enrichment program makes further advances. At present, Iran is still months away from being able to make a successful dash to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU). Because IAEA inspections take place on average twice a month, any such ‘breakout’ at declared facilities would be detected in time.

If, however, the Iranians sought to produce HEU at clandestine plants, they could not be confident the work would remain hidden. Twice already, secret enrichment plants have been exposed. Iran might judge that it could get away with such exposure, claiming, as it does today, that it does not need to follow IAEA rules about early notification of new nuclear facilities.

If this is Iran’s calculation, it could well backfire. Iran does not know how close it could come to crossing the line to weapons production before its adversaries determined it was too close. If Iran’s enrichment program continues unabated, at some point Western intelligence agencies will judge that because the uranium stockpile is too large, the technology too advanced and the hiding places too many, a dash for the bomb cannot be detected in time. The red line of weapons production will have become too blurred to serve as an effective tripwire.

“Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International Obligations”: The Congressional Research Service asks “Has Iran Violated the NPT?” in a new report and concludes that the matter is “unclear” though the IAEA believes Iran “has violated its safeguards agreement” and was, until at least 2003, pursuing military research as part of the program. It notes that investigations are still ongoing over claims that Iran violated the NPT’s Article II, “which state[s] that non-nuclear-weapon states-parties shall not ‘manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear  explosive devices’ or “’seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.’”

The 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate assessed in 2007 that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

In response to an IAEA Board of Governors ruling that Iran had not met its disclosure (and safeguards) obligations, the Iranian press reported that “Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said that the most recent resolution issued against Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency raises doubt about the benefit of being a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).”

“Who’s Sabotaging Iran’s Nuclear Program?”: Building off an earlier New York Times report on allegations of sabotage against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake questions if this is an act of escalation by the perpetrators:

Fereydoun Abbasi, Iran’s vice president and the chief of its nuclear-energy agency, disclosed that power lines between the holy city of Qom and the underground Fordow nuclear centrifuge facility were blown up with explosives on Aug. 17. He also said the power lines leading to Iran’s Natanz facilities were blown up as well. On the day after the power was cut off at Fordow, an inspector from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) asked to visit the facility.

The disclosure is significant. To start, it is the first piece of evidence to suggest opponents of the Iranian program are targeting the country’s electrical grid and doing so on the ground.

The US has publicly denied it is carrying out attacks on any facilities and military or civilian targets in Iran. An NBC investigative report from the summer reported that Israel, not the US, is actually orchestrating the bombings and assassinations. Rather than risk discovery of its own network in the Islamic Republic, the NBC said that the Mossad relies on members of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (PMO) to carry out these operations.

“Poll: Majority of Palestinians, Israelis say attack on Iran would result in major war”: Haaretz reports on a new poll in Israel expressing growing concern among Israeli citizens and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories that a war with Iran would “would ignite a major regional war,” though the poll also noted that a significant number of respondents do not believe a war is likely this year anyway:

According to the study’s finding, 77 percent of Israeli respondents and 82 percent of Palestinian respondents said that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in a major regional confrontation.

Regarding the possibility of an Israeli strike without U.S. backing, 65 percent of Israelis were against such a course of action, an increase from 52 percent in June.

Also, the study found that 70 percent of Israelis did not believe Israel would strike Iran in the coming months, with only 20 percent of respondents saying they believe the Iranians’ goal is to destroy Israel.

The Israeli press also reported that US diplomats have warned their Israeli counterparts that should Israel attack Iran this year, it would jeopardize Israel’s peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

Writing in Al-Monitor, Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program, explains why the International Atomic Energy Associations’s new report on Iran isn’t good, but doesn’t amount to disaster either:

In a pre-emptive move of their own, White House officials gave their own spin to the latest developments several days [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Writing in Al-Monitor, Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program, explains why the International Atomic Energy Associations’s new report on Iran isn’t good, but doesn’t amount to disaster either:

In a pre-emptive move of their own, White House officials gave their own spin to the latest developments several days before the IAEA released the report. While not underplaying their concern over Iran’s continued defiance, the Obama team noted that the new numbers are not a “game changer.” The new centrifuges are not (yet) being used for enrichment and the stockpile of 20% enriched uranium has not grown since May because half of it has been converted to an oxide form for use in fuel plates.

The danger posed by Iran’s nuclear program is heightening incrementally: The numbers grow arithmetically, not by orders of magnitude. In response to those advocating military action, one must ask how it is justifiable to launch a war, with all the predictable costs, over a 10% increase in centrifuge machines.

A proportionate response would be to incrementally increase the sanctions pressure on Iran. The EU, for example, is likely to tighten its sanctions against the Iran Central Bank, which to date have been partial. Additional companies associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines may be subject to an asset freeze. The US also will likely impose sanctions on more Iranian institutions, adding to the designations announced on July 31.

From beginning to end (including questions) this “Engaging Iran” discussion at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is worth watching. Chaired by Mark Fitzpatrick, the panel featured the Rt Hon Lord Lamont of Lerwick, Sir Richard Dalton and Mahan Abedin. You can read IISS’s summary of the event here, but [...]]]>

From beginning to end (including questions) this “Engaging Iran” discussion at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is worth watching. Chaired by Mark Fitzpatrick, the panel featured the Rt Hon Lord Lamont of Lerwick, Sir Richard Dalton and Mahan Abedin. You can read IISS’s summary of the event here, but a few quick notes of my own:

- Lamont, the former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and now chairman of the British-Iranian Chamber, argues that while U.S. sanctions on Iran make life harder for business people, they are not changing the government’s behavior or bringing down the regime (he uses Cuba as an example of how sanctions have been unsuccessful, noting that the government would have likely fallen a long time ago had sanctions been removed). Lamont also notes that sanctions have forced Iranian businessmen to deal with the revolutionary guard in order to bypass them. In this way sanctions are bringing the people closer to the regime, rather than distancing them from it.

- Lamont argues that the best way to deal with Iran is through a “combination of pressure with incentives”, adding that Iran’s security needs should also be considered. “Ttalking about Iran today without remembering the Iran-Iraq war is rather like talking about Britain in the late 1930s without remembering WWI,” he said. Lamont reminds us that while Iran’s recent history informs its antagonism towards the occupying forces around its borders, it still cooperated with the U.S. during the invasion of Afghanistan.

- British-Iranian journalist, Mahan Abedin, made some interesting comments about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which he believes are geared towards nuclear latency, or know-how, rather than weaponization. He notes that Iran’s use of proxies has greatly benefited it security-wise as a deterrent, adding that if not for them, Israel would have attacked it. Isolated diplomatically and geopolitically, Iran’s resulting lack of self-confidence, notes Abedin, is the main reason why it is pursuing nuclear latency and security through proxies. If it can achieve nuclear latency, its relationship to the region and the U.S. may change, says Abedin, since it would no longer be solely focused on safeguarding its security.

- Former British ambassador to Iran and an Associate Fellow at Chatham House, Sir Richard Dalton, notes that while both parties are on narrow and confined diplomatic “tramlines”, there is still time to negotiate a deal that will satisfy the requirements of the U.S. and Iran. This deal would begin with acceptance of Iran’s nuclear programme within operational limits and with the export of enriched uranium and later imports of materials to be allowed when Iran has a genuine need for them for its civil nuclear energy industry.

- All panelists agreed that while sanctions produce social consequences, they will not achieve the political aim of ending Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions.