Tag: Iran
Gulf jitters
Kuwait University Professor Abdullah al Shayji published Sunday his latest Gulf News commentary criticizing the Iran nuclear deal. I’ve written him this note in response:
I certainly understand your concern about Iranian subversion and terrorism in Bahrain and Kuwait. Your police and prosecution have done well to identify perpetrators of the latest incident and bring them to court quickly for what I trust will be a fair trial.
But I find your position on the nuclear deal ill-founded. Let me innumerate the reasons why, in response to points you make in this piece:
1. You can hardly say it was done behind your backs. We’ve all known about these negotiations for more than two years, and the basic parameters of the deal were made public in April. I don’t know what diplomatic exchanges there were prior to that, but I’d be willing to bet they happened.
2. Your concern about Iran being only 6 to 12 months from a nuclear weapon 15 years from now ignores the fact that Iran was closer than that (3 months according to the Americans) before the April interim agreement. It makes no sense to be more concerned about something that might happen 15 years from now rather than something that had already happened, and is now being reversed.
3. I would join you in hoping the Administration will calm Gulf jitters, but I would also suggest that the Gulf states need to cooperate more in order to counter Iran militarily in the region and through vigorous law enforcement at home. The failure of the GCC to get serious about integrating its capabilities and collaborating seriously, especially in Syria, is a source of considerable disappointment in Washington.
4. You suggest that Gulf jitters could lead to a nuclear arms race. Rapid Iranian progress on nuclear technology over the last decade and more did not, so it is hard to understand how a roll-back of their program and a 15-year freeze on many of its efforts should. Iran was severely punished with sanctions for its nuclear ambitions. I doubt any Gulf state would want to run a comparable risk, especially now that Iran is losing much of what it had gained.
5. The lifting of sanctions is a necessary part of the agreement, but I agree with you that it will provide Tehran with ample resources to make more trouble in the region. That was going to happen anyway, as the multilateral sanctions were slowly decaying and would likely have evaporated if an agreement had not been reached.
President Obama has made it clear he is not relying on moderation of Iranian behavior on non-nuclear issues and is prepared to counter them when and where he can. Those in the Gulf concerned about Iranian behavior might worry more about how to do that more effectively and less about their past disappointments. Some specific proposals are in order.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks September 8-11
1. EES Distinguished Lecture Series: “Does the EU have a future?” with Professor Erik Jones and Sir Michael Leigh | Tuesday, September 8th | 6:00 – 7:30 | SAIS- Rome Building | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The European and Eurasian Studies Program Distinguished Lecture Series invites you to kick off the 2015-2016 series with the Director of the EES Program, Professor Erik Jones, and Sir Michael Leigh as they discuss “Does the EU have a future?”
2. WEBCAST ONLY: Hillary Clinton addresses the Iran nuclear deal | Wednesday, September 9th | 9:00 – 10:00 | Webcast sponsored by Brookings | REGISTER TO WATCH | Next week, Congress will begin debate on a resolution to disapprove of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which will lift economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. This is probably the most significant foreign policy debate that Congress has been involved in since the Iraq war in 2003. On September 9, Brookings will live stream remarks from former Secretary of State Clinton on her view of the significance of the Iran nuclear deal and its implications for the future of U.S. foreign policy in the region. Hillary Clinton was sworn in as the 67th secretary of state of the United States in January 2009, after nearly four decades in public service as an advocate, attorney, first lady, and senator. During her tenure in the Senate, she served on the Armed Services Committee and worked to launch the government’s Vital Voices Democracy Initiative. She was also a commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Brookings President Strobe Talbott will provide introductory remarks and Brookings Executive Vice President Martin Indyk will moderate the discussion.
3. Voices From Japan: National Security Speaker Series, with the Keynote Address – “Japan’s New National Security Policy” By – The Honorable Itsunori Onodera, the 12th Minister of Defense of Japan | Wednesday, September 9th | 10:00 – 11:30 | Stimson| REGISTER TO ATTEND | As the security environment surrounding Japan rapidly undergoes changes, Japan has sought to adapt alongside it. Since December 2012, the Abe government was pushed forward changes to Japan’s defense establishment, including new principles for arms exports, a reinterpretation of Article 9 for collective self-defense, updated US-Japan bilateral security guidelines, and now potentially new security legislation for the purpose of implementing these changes. The Honorable Itsunori Onodera, drawing on his long experiences in Japanese politics, most recently as the Minister of Defense between 2012-2014, will lay out his vision for Japan’s national security policy in this dramatic period. Moderator: Yuki Tatsumi, The Stimson Center.
4. East Timor Roundtable with Dr. John Blaxland | Wednesday, September 9th | 12:30 – 2:00 | CSIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The CSIS Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies is pleased to invite you for a discussion with John Blaxland, senior fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. Blaxland writes extensively on military history, intelligence and security, and Asia-Pacific affairs. He will discuss his recently-published book East Timor Intervention: A Retrospective on INTERFET, Southeast Asian security affairs, and Australia’s role in security and regional stability. Blaxland has served previously as director for Joint Intelligence Operations at the Australian military’s Headquarters Joint Operations Command, and before that, as defense attache to Thailand and Myanmar from 2008 to 2010. Blaxland earned his PhD in war studies from the Royal Military College of Canada.
5. The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Gulf War | Thursday, September 10th | 1:00 | Webcast sponsored by CFR | VIEWING LINK| Experts discuss the legacy of the Gulf War. Speakers include (and are listed with their titles during the war): Richard N. Haass, Senior Director, Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Security Council, Richard Kerr, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Thomas R. Pickering, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Paul D. Wolfowitz, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Presider: Deborah Amos, International Correspondent, National Public Radio.
6. Women as Victims of Terrorism | Thursday, September 10th | 3:00-6:00 | Heritage | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Showing of PBS Frontline Documentary Escaping ISIS: gripping first-hand accounts of women who escaped the brutal reign of ISIS. ISIS barbarity against women, particularly those from religious minorities, is well-documented. Media reports about a codified system of sex slavery that involves ISIS fighters regularly raping pre-teen girls and young women from the minority Yazidi community has shocked the West. ISIS relies on acts of extreme violence, particularly the brutalization of women, to consolidate control over populations and as a recruitment tool. What should the U.S. do to end the ISIS atrocities against women and girls? Come view an acclaimed documentary and hear a panel of experts discuss this disturbing yet critical issue. Followed by a Panel Discussion with Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Kurdistan Regional Government Representative to the United States, and Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute. Moderated by Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow, Asian Studies Center, The Heritage Foundation.
7. Nuclear Policy Talks: The Iran Nuclear Deal | Thursday, September 10th | 4:30 – 6:00 | Elliott School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Iran Nuclear Deal: The Technical Debate Clarified The US Congress is currently debating the pluses and minuses of the Iran Nuclear Deal, approval of which would mark a new chapter in the relations of the US and Iran after a long cold stand-off. ; Will the Iran Nuclear Deal prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or establish and engrain their nuclear prowess? To shed light on the technical aspects of the Iran Nuclear Deal, currently under consideration by the US Congress, our distinguished panelists will present their views and answer questions from the audience. ; Panelists include noted physicist and arms control researcher Professor Frank von Hippel of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, radiochemist and former head of the Office of Safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Olli Heinonen, a Senior Fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and former ambassador Dr. Hossein Mousavian, a Research Scholar at the Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security.
8. Reischauer Seminar – Japan, China, and the Post-Sanctions Persian Gulf: Implications for the United States and Global Affairs | Thursday, September 10th | 4:30 – 6:00 | SAIS- Rome Building| REGISTER TO ATTEND | Professor Kent Calder will examine the relationship between East Asia and the Persian Gulf and how that plays into the United States’ relations around the world. China and Japan have been Iran’s largest trading partners before sanctions– they will likely play major roles in its economic future. Japan and China are also the largest importers of oil in the world from the Gulf– both the Iranian and the Arab sides of the Gulf. Their future interaction with the Gulf will in economic terms certainly be larger than those of Europe and the US– what will that renewed reality mean for the broader world?
9. Should the United States be the World’s Policeman? | Thursday, September 10th | 5:30-7:00 | Sponsored by the McCain Institute and located at the U.S. Navy Memorial Heritage Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Challenges to global security and U.S. interests around the world are mounting – from ISIS and a disintegrating Middle East, to an aggressive and authoritarian Russia, to China’s expansionism in the Pacific. But is it the role of the United States to take on all of these global challenges? Should America be projecting power, supporting international order, and countering opponents like these, because if not, the challenges will only continue to grow? Or should the United States stay focused on rebuilding its economy, and conserving its strength to face only truly existential challenges, rather than risking over-stretch in foreign adventures? In other words, should the United States be the world’s policeman? And if not, who will? Join @McCainInstitute for a lively debate as leading experts decide if the United States should be the world’s policeman. #MIDebate
Confirmed debaters:
Pro
Tom Donnelly
Resident Fellow and Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, AEI
Julianne Smith
Senior Fellow and Director of the Strategy and Statecraft Program, Center for A New American Security
Con
Richard Burt
Chairman, National Interest Advisory Board
Elizabeth Cobbs
Melbern Glasscock Chair, Texas A&M University
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two birds with one stone
There are still a few weeks before the Congressional votes are completed September 17 on the Iran nuclear deal, but it looks as if President Obama will win enough votes to prevent his veto of disapproval from being overridden. He will have then hit a political grand slam: I am counting as the first three wins gay marriage, Obamacare and Trade Promotion Authority, which opens the possibility of completing negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and continuing negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
Let’s leave aside the reopening of full diplomatic relations with Cuba, a win in the Supreme Court on housing discrimination, executive action to limit greenhouse gases that cause climate change, and half a dozen other less visible items.
The latest GDP growth number, a revised 3.7% in the second quarter, is icing on the cake.
Whether you agree or disagree with him, this has been a remarkably successful few months for the lame duck. He is on a roll.
But his approval rating is down.
The biggest reasons are apparently his handling of the Islamic State (ISIS) and Iran. The Administration clearly underestimated ISIS, which has proven far more dangerous and resilient than anticipated. It poses a serious threat to US and European interests, for the moment mainly in the Middle East and North Africa. Post-deal Iran, with its pockets full of old sanctions money and new revenue from increasing oil exports, will also pose a serious regional threat to US and European interests. Even a supporter of the deal like me should recognize that.
Syria is where those two issues combine. ISIS has thrived on the ongoing civil war there. Iran has invested enormous resources in supporting Bashar al Assad. The United States has engaged from the air against ISIS but not against Assad’s forces.
This isn’t working. It can’t, because Assad is an important part of the reason that ISIS thrives in Syria. He is pummeling the country’s civilians. Sunnis are perhaps 75% of the population. The pummeling by an Alawite-based regime is radicalizing some small portion of that community, which is all ISIS needs to fill its ranks with young fighters. Iran, which has good reason to fear ISIS, responds with ever more support for the regime, including providing it with Lebanese Hizbollah forces Tehran controls.
This escalation is bad for Syria, bad for the region, and bad for the United States and Europe, where refugees are flooding in unprecedented numbers. President Obama needs to rethink his standoffish attitude toward Syria and his single-minded focus on countering only ISIS there. He has good reason to be concerned about what comes next in Syria if Assad falls suddenly, but there is little prospect the inevitable succession will move Syria in a positive direction from the American perspective if the US does not engage.
There are basically two ways to do so: militarily and politically. The best approach will combine the two. Washington is already talking with Turkey about creating a so-called “safe zone” along Syria’s northern border, extending from the Euphrates west for close to 70 miles. That could provide the Syrian opposition with an opportunity to govern and Syrians an opportunity to seek refuge. Widening US air strikes to respond to regime barrel-bombing of civilians or to respond to Hizbollah attacks on civilian population centers is another option.
The diplomatic effort has to focus on the transition from Bashar al Assad to a successor regime that excludes Islamic extremists like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nustra but includes a wide spectrum of Syrian political perspectives. This is critical: no one should want Syria to fall into the hands of a regime that presents the West, the Gulf, Russia and Iran with even greater problems than Bashar al Assad has done.
It makes sense for the pushback against both Iran and ISIS to come in Syria. Two birds with one stone.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks August 24-28
1. Promoting Nuclear Safety Cooperation in Northeast Asia | Tuesday, August 25th | 12:00-1:30 | East-West Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | China, Japan, and South Korea all have deep experience with nuclear energy and large commercial nuclear power sectors, and the use of nuclear power is expected to continue to expand, mostly driven by growth in China. There have been calls over the years to increase regional nuclear safety cooperation, and the need for such cooperation has been highlighted by the Fukushima accident in Japan, the fake parts’ certificates scandal in South Korea, and rapid reactor construction in China. The most recent proposal for strengthening regional nuclear safety cooperation came in South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI). NAPCI envisions addressing “soft” issues, including nuclear safety, in order to build deeper regional cooperation on “hard” security issues, similar to the integration process in Europe, and Park has specifically cited the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) as a model for Northeast Asia. Yet, is EURATOM an appropriate model for Northeast Asia? Can NAPCI’s call for regional nuclear safety cooperation actually be realized, and what would effective cooperation look like? Strong, enduring commitment to nuclear safety cooperation by all regional actors will be necessary for NAPCI or any other initiative to succeed. This seminar will examine the current state of nuclear safety cooperation in Northeast Asia and offer a view to the future. Speaker: Dr. James E. Platte, Non-Resident Sasakawa Peace Foundation Fellow, Pacific Forum, CSIS.
2. Peace, Conflict, and the Scale of the Climate Risk Landscape | Tuesday, August 25th | 1:15-2:45 | Webinar Sponsored by the Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Climate risks have the potential to affect every natural and social system, to harm populations, disrupt economic systems, and contribute directly or indirectly to conflicts within and across jurisdictional borders. The Global Climate Security webinar series convenes global thought leaders to seek pathways to improve responses to destabilizing climate risks. The opening webinar will examine the security implications of climate risk and will provide a context for the subsequent place-based and sector-based webinars. This session will address climate risk and security on all fronts from the risk assessment perspective (impacts on governance, economic vitality, national, regional and international security) to potential solutions (risk management, policy, and technical). Participants will hear from experts from the national intelligence and climate impact communities who will address the scale of the risks. The first webinar will set up the remaining webinars, which in turn will address how to respond in four sectors (national & subnational, industry, defense and global policy) based on risk assessment and responses commensurate with the risk. The intent is to examine steps to bridge the risk – policy analysis gap. Speakers include: Joshua Busby, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin Marc Levy, Deputy Director, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Earth Institute, Columbia University, Mathew J. Burrows, Director, Strategic Foresight Initiative, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council, and Nadya T. Bliss, Director, Global Security Initiative, Arizona State University.
3. Iran: What Next After the Nuclear Deal? | Tuesday, August 25th | 6:30-8:30 | Located at OpenGov Hub and sponsored by PS21 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | After last month’s Iran nuclear deal, what next for the Islamic Republic? Will the easing of sanctions bring it more into the diplomatic and international mainstream? Or will the new economic growth create a more assertive Iran that further antagonizes the rest of the region? What will the domestic consequences be of Tehran’s new openness to the outside world? And what, if anything, will happen to the nuclear program? Panelists include: Ariane Tabatabai, Visiting Assistant Professor, Security Studies Program, Georgetown University, Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy, Arms Control Association, Reza Akbari, Senior Program Officer, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, and Sam Cutler, Policy Advisor, Ferrari & Associates, P.C. Moderator: Negar Razavi, PhD candidate, University of Pennsylvania and Global Fellow, PS21.
4. International Youth Month Breakfast Briefing: “Young Democracy: Engagement as a Deterrent to Radicalization” | Wednesday, August 26th | 9:30 – 11:00 | Located at the Rayburn House Office Building and hosted by IFES | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join IFES for a breakfast briefing on how involving young people in constructive democratic processes can serve as a potential deterrent to radicalization. This panel will discuss engagement both before and after the age of enfranchisement, with a special emphasis on the political participation of young women and girls. Discussants will offer examples of programmatic work from multiple regions and countries, including Bangladesh, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Libya, Nepal, Syria and Yemen. This event will be co-hosted by the office of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18). Speakers include: Matthew Cohen, Program Officer, Africa, IFES, Jessica Huber, Senior Gender Specialist, IFES, Juliette Schmidt, Deputy Regional Director, Asia and the Pacific, IFES, and Ambar Zobairi, Deputy Regional Director, Middle East and North Africa. Moderated by Augusta Featherston, Youth Adviser, IFES.
5. The Economic Impact of Lifting Sanctions on Iran | Thursday, August 27th | 10:00-11:00 | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | A new World Bank report assesses that the removal of economic sanctions against Iran could significantly boost economic growth in Iran—including $15 billion in annual oil revenue—while potentially reducing global oil prices as much as 14 percent in the short run, depending on OPEC’s response, and opening up a significant market for exports. Drawing from the report’s systematic and comprehensive analysis, Shantayanan Devarajan will discuss the economic and geopolitical implications of Iran’s potential reentry into the global economy. Carnegie’s Uri Dadush will discuss the economic consequences and Karim Sadjadpour will moderate. Speakers include: Shantayanan Devarajan, chief economist, MENA region, World Bank and Uri Dadush, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment. Moderator, Karim Sadjadpour, senior associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment.
PC: Eddie Grove
6. The New Ice Curtain: Russia’s Strategic Reach to the Arctic | Thursday, August 27th | 10:00 – 11:30 | CSIS | REGISTRATION CLOSED- WATCH ONLINE | Please join us for the release and discussion of a new CSIS Europe Program report, The New Ice Curtain: Russia’s Strategic Reach to the Arctic, which examines Russia’s economic, energy, and security strategies and aspirations in the Arctic, and the evolution of the Kremlin’s Arctic policies over the past decade. On the eve of President Obama’s and Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Anchorage, Alaska where they will convene Arctic and non-Arctic leaders to discuss climate impact and resilience, and global leadership in the Arctic, it is a timely moment to better understand the
largest and most dynamic Arctic actor and to assess whether the Arctic will remain a cooperative region or succumb to geopolitical tensions. Report author Heather A. Conley and project consultant Dr. Marlène Laruelle will examine the significant changes in Russia’s Arctic policies and rhetoric – particularly since President Putin’s return to the Kremlin in 2012 – and offer their insights on Russia’s military posturing in the region, as well as how to develop new collaborative thinking to preserve and protect international Arctic cooperation. New York Times correspondent Steven Lee Myers, who has written about and traveled frequently to the Russian Arctic, will offer his reflections on the report and assess whether the
development of a 21st century “ice curtain” is realistic. The panelists will also preview the upcoming August 31st meeting in Alaska and assess the impact of the potential attendance of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on U.S.-Russian cooperation in the Arctic. Speakers include: Dr. Marlène Laruelle, Research Professor of International Affairs, George Washington University and Steven Lee Myers, Correspondent, The New York Times. Introduced and moderated by Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia and the Arctic, CSIS Europe Program.
7. A Normal Nuclear Pakistan | Thursday, August 27th | 12:30-2:00 | Stimson | REGISTER TO ATTEND | A commercial pathway for Pakistan to join the mainstream in the global nuclear order is highly unlikely. Pakistan’s leaders must therefore consider nuclear weapon-related initiatives that could facilitate mainstreaming, while also strengthening nonproliferation norms, bolstering global disarmament hopes, and setting the bar higher for new entrants into the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This presentation will discuss a new report by the Stimson Center and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “A Normal Nuclear Pakistan,” co-written by Toby Dalton (Co-Founder and Senior Associate, Stimson) and Michael Krepon (Co-Director of the Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). The report takes a hard look at Pakistan’s nuclear weapon-related programs and its ambitions to be viewed as a normal state possessing advanced nuclear technologies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tehran calling
Unlike many colleagues around Washington, I have decided to talk with and answer questions from Iranian media willing to publish them. I think it important for Americans to try to be understood in Iran. Certainly Tehran is making big efforts to be understood in the US. While I find some of what the Iranian media broadcast objectionable and even odious, most of the questions they ask me are straight up, like these from Hamid Bayati, published this morning in the Tehran Times:
Q: As you know Iran and Russia begin new initiative to bring peace to Syria, so how do you evaluate these efforts?
A: There really is nothing to evaluate yet. The Iranian four-point proposal, which has been public for some time, requires a good deal more detail before it can be evaluated. The key question is how the transition will be handled. No political solution will work that keeps Bashar al Assad in power, because the Syrian opposition will continue fighting.
Q: Some experts believe that after nuclear deal reach between Iran and world powers, Western countries especially the US begin to cooperate with Iran in regional issues such as Syria, and a new era begins in Middle East. Do you agree with this view?
A: Not really, even if I would like to see it happen. Iran with the nuclear agreement will have substantial resources. The question is how it will use those resources. Hardliners in Tehran will presumably argue for more support to Iran’s allies in the region: Bashar al Assad and Hizbollah, Iraqi Shia militias, Houthi forces in Yemen and Hamas. The US and Europe will not welcome moves of that sort. There will be enormous pressure on the US administration to push back, especially against Hizbollah.
Q: Turkey launches airstrikes against ISIL and PKK positions in Syria and Iraq, are these acts helpful to peace process in Middle East or not?
A: The Americans think more Turkish help against ISIL is vital. The US and Turkey have different opinions about the Kurds in Syria, though at this point PKK attacks inside Turkey are making that irrelevant.
Q: How do you evaluate the US-led Coalition against ISIS after one year of its creation? Does this Coalition reach its goals?
A: The Coalition has not reached its goals, but it has blocked ISIS advances and has rolled them back in some areas (Tikrit, Kobane, Tal Abayd). Without a better formula for who will govern in ISIL-controlled territory, I don’t see how the Coalition can “win.”
Q: As you know US congress is reviewing the Iran nuclear deal and it is possible US lawmakers will kill this deal. If this event happen what will we have after that?
A: It is possible but not likely that US lawmakers would kill the deal, but in order to do so they would need a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. That will be difficult to get. If they do kill the deal, Iran and the P4+1 will have some important decisions to make. Do they abandon the deal completely, or do they implement it without the US? If the deal is abandoned, what will Iran do?
Q: In an interview aired Sunday on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” Obama said the United States’ role in global politics could be affected by the deal, how do you explain this sentence?
A: Defeat of the deal would separate the US from its allies and undermine confidence in American leadership in many countries. It would be like the Senate’s rejection of the League of Nations almost 100 years ago, a move that isolated and weakened the US.
Q: If US congress kills the deal, is it possible United States and EU continue a different strategy toward Iran? I mean is it possible they have different relations with Iran and EU that don’t follow US policy?
A: It is possible, though the US might try to apply “secondary” sanctions by barring European companies from doing business with the US if they do business with Iran. That would create big problems with America’s closest allies.
Q: It seems European countries have been more eager than US to revive their relations with Iran, how do you explain this view?
A: Europe needs Iranian oil and gas much more than the US does. Our companies are far less interested in doing business with Iran than some European countries. Geography is destiny I’m afraid.
As I failed to respond adequately to his question about the PKK, Hamid sent more, which were not published with the rest of the interview:
A: What do you think about Turkey military attacks on PKK positions? Some experts said these attacks are because the AK party lost in elections. Some experts said Turkey attacks the PKK because Turks don’t want Kurds to be strong, what do you think about it?
Q: The PKK made the mistake of ending the ceasefire with the Turkish government, which reacted forcefully. Some think this was the result of a split among the Kurds between those who did well in recent elections and the military component, which feared irrelevance.
It might have been better for the Turks to escalate more slowly; some think Erdogan may be seeking to regain some of the popular support he has lost recently by vigorously responding to every Kurdish provocation. But the PKK is a terrorist organization that attacks the Turkish state and can’t expect safe haven in Iraq or Syria. Iranian support for the PKK is a big concern for Turkey.
The complication of course is that the most effective Syrian fighters against ISIL include Kurds affiliated with the PKK. The Americans prioritize the fight against ISIL, which is an international threat. The Turks prioritize the fight against the PKK, which is a domestic threat. Iran does likewise when it faces a domestic threat of the PKK variety. The US and Turkey will work out their differences in dealing with the Kurds. I’m less sure that Iran and the US, or Iran and Turkey, will do likewise, though it would be desirable.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Forget renegotiation, try these ideas
Rob Satloff, abandoning previous suggestions for renegotiation of the nuclear agreement with Iran, now puts forward proposals for the US to undertake without any need for Iranian agreement. He ties these to defeat of the agreement in Congress (whether by a veto-proof majority or not I can’t tell), but that is not logically necessary for their consideration. So let’s consider them, one by one:
Consequences: Rob wants punishments other than full sanctions “snapback” defined for non-capital violations, as he rightly anticipates it will be difficult to to use “the nuclear option,” if I may call it that, unless the violation is major. Specifically, he proposes
to reach understandings now with America’s European partners, the core elements of which should be made public, on the appropriate penalties to be imposed for a broad spectrum of Iranian violations.
I see no reason not to talk about this and even agree the penalties with the Europeans now, but is making the consequences public likely to increase compliance?
I wonder. Penalties defined now are likely to be less severe than what we can actually get once a violation occurs. It might be far better to wait for a incident of noncompliance and respond vigorously. I see no justification for Rob’s assumption that penalties defined later have “no value.” The first violation and reaction are the key to imposing credible consequences.
Deterrence: Rob wants penalties agreed and defined for transfer of funds from sanctions relief to Iran’s regional trouble-making. He suggests:
…these new multilateral sanctions should impose disproportionate penalties on Iran for every marginal dollar sent to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, etc.
Assuming that Rob is correct that our intelligence agencies can in fact determine unequivocally what amount represents increased assistance (which would surprise me), I again see no problem in discussing this with our friends. As he notes, levying sanctions of this sort is not ruled out because they are unrelated to the nuclear issue. We should be traying to block these transfers regardless of what happens on the nuclear deal.
Pushback: This is a related idea:
“Ramp up U.S. and allied efforts to counter Iran’s negative actions in the Middle East, including interdicting weapons supplies to Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis in Yemen; designating as terrorists more leaders of Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq that are committing atrocities; expanding the training and arming of not only the Iraqi security forces but also the Kurdish peshmerga in the north and vetted Sunni forces in western Iraq; and working with Turkey to create a real safe haven in northern Syria where refugees can obtain humanitarian aid and vetted, non-extremist opposition fighters can be trained and equipped to fight against both ISIS and the Iran-backed Assad regime.”
Each of these propositions deserves its own consideration, but in general it seems to me vital that we push back in some of these or other ways against Iranian misbehavior in the region, lest Tehran get the idea that the nuclear agreement blesses their ambition of achieving regional hegemony.
Declaratory policy: Rob wants a Congressionally endorsed statement that the US will use military force to prevent Iran from embarking, after the 15-year restrictions in the agreement, on enrichment that could “only” lead to a nuclear weapon. For reasons I fail to fathom, he thinks to be effective this has to be done now by the president who did the deal.
Even leaving aside that problematic “only” lead to a nuclear weapon (which betrays a lack of understanding of the many ways in which uranium enriched to high levels can in theory be used), Rob is self-contradictory. First Rob says President Obama’s threat that “all options are on the table” has lost credibility. Then he says it has to be this president to say more or less the same thing, this time with Congressional backing, in order to be credible.
More importantly, Rob fails to consider the international repurcussions of having the Administration do this right now. The hardliners in Iran love reiteration of the “all options” statement, as it demonstrates their thesis that American attitudes are unchanged and Washington seeks an opportunity to strike Iran.
If Congress wants to go on record, I don’t see who could stop it. Nor do I think anyone in Tehran doubts where Congressional sentiment lies. But the Administration has a stake in seeing maximum implementation of this agreement, which is threatened on the Iranian end by hardliners who didn’t want to see it done in the first place. Strengthening opponents of the deal in Tehran is not in the US interest.
Israeli deterrence: Rob wants to transfer the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and the means to deliver it to Israel.
Here more discussion is needed. Is this without end-use controls, or with them? What means are needed to deliver it, and how many of the bombs and delivery means are we talking about? How realistic is it to imagine that Israel will have the capabilities needed to evade Iranian air defenses and deliver these 30,000-pound monsters? Who is going to pay for this stuff?
So yes, there are certainly some things we should be doing to block Iranian misbehavior in the region but I’ve got more questions than answers about some of Rob’s other propositions.
RSS - Posts
