Iran Under Siege

The European Union is imposing more severe sanctions on Iran, while U.S. leaders debate whether they should officially support an Israeli military attack.  The cavalier nature of “debates” concerning Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons development assume that it is the right of the U.S. and its allies to do whatever they want to Iran, whenever they want, however they want.  This is a recipe not only for criminal aggression, but devastation and imperial terror on a massive scale.

European sanctions against Iran seek to target the country’s energy, trade, and banking industries by blocking dozens of individuals and companies from doing any business with the country.  The sanctions are described by the BBC as some of “the most far reaching sanctions adopted by the EU against any country.”  The export of equipment and technology needed for refining and producing natural gas are prohibited, while money transfers from European countries to Iran (of more than 10,000 Euros) will be subject to the approval of national officials.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a new bill that would grant “support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time.”  Those who are unsure about a looming attack will no doubt remind Americans that speculation over U.S. or Israeli attacks on Iran have been commonplace for years.  This is no doubt true, although it ignores the fact that a Congressional bill represents a new precedent – it’s a radical, yet formal step, toward making war with Iran a reality.  Also, war may be one step closer in light of comments from Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, who announced this month that “Israel won’t attack Iran before sanctions [are] allowed to work.”

As Haaretz reports, the former CIA chief, Michael Hayden, is also now warning that “military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.” In his own words, Hayden explained that during the Bush years, “a strike was way down on the list of options,” but now such an attack “seems inexorable….In my personal thinking, I have begun to consider that that [a military strike] may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.”

The “soft” approach to dealing with Iran – as represented by the EU sanctions – is likely to further worsen relations with the country, preventing any effective future negotiations.  Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution warns that “It’s almost impossible to find anyone here in Washington who believes sanctions will make any difference…the Iranian leadership has demonstrated that under pressure they are most averse to compromise.”    Of course, “compromise” through “negotiations” has never been the U.S. goal, either under Bush or Obama.

The Bush administration long maintained that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program would not move forward unless Iran agreed in advance to end its enrichment of uranium (currently being developed to power its first nuclear power plant, which is still in development).   Obama also initially made the suspension of enrichment a precondition for negotiations once assuming office.  These expectations on the part of Bush and Obama were always unrealistic and appear designed to derail negotiations.  As former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix argued, Iran was faced with a “neocolonial attitude” on the part of U.S. officials: “Iranians have resisted all the time saying, no, we are willing to talk about the suspension of enrichment, but we are not for suspension before talks.  I would be surprised if a poker player would toss away his trump card before he sits down at the table.  Who does that?”

The “halting uranium enrichment in advance of talks” precondition was dropped in April 2009, and by late in the year Obama was pushing a new round of “negotiations” in which U.S. officials demanded that Iran ship its uranium to Russia and France for enrichment prior to returning it for use in Iran’s civilian program.  Of course, these “negotiations” were disingenuous in that at no point did the U.S. promise that the shipping of Iran’s uranium would be accompanied by a reduction or end to sanctions.  Quite the contrary, the talk in late 2009 was always geared toward promoting stronger sanctions.  As the Washington Post reported in October, preliminary talks between Iranian and American officials were seen merely as “reduc[ing] for now the threat of additional sanctions, which has been made repeatedly by the United States and others over the past weeks.”

Further obstacles to negotiations should be obvious enough, although they’ve been ignored by U.S. officials and journalists.  The continued U.S. and Israeli threats to bomb Iran were never removed during the “negotiations,” meaning that Iran was essentially being forced into concessions at the point of a gun.  Additionally, the U.S. talk of intensifying sanctions shortly before the meeting, and subsequent support for additional sanctions leveled this year by the EU, are hardly signs that it is serious about pushing for reconciliation or a meeting of the minds.

U.S. assumptions that Iran should concede on major points of negotiation prior to an agreement, in order to remove the threat of regime change and escalating sanctions, are nonsensical at a time when Iran’s only bargaining chip is its continued enrichment of uranium.  Why would Iranian leaders give up their only leverage point without an explicit promise to end the sanctions?  Why end the enrichment of uranium if U.S. officials aren’t willing to concurrently end threats of a military strike?  These questions should be addressed by anyone who wants to have a serious discussion about U.S.-Iranian relations.  That these questions are ignored in U.S. discourse is a sign of how far our intellectual culture has deteriorated under the umbrella of U.S. nationalism and imperial expansion.

ANTHONY DiMAGGIO is the editor of media-ocracy (www.media-ocracy.com), a daily online magazine devoted to the study of media, public opinion, and current events.   He is the author of When Media Goes to War (2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008). He can be reached at: mediaocracy@gmail.com





More articles by:

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
Victor Grossman
Sighs of Relief in Germany
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Robert Fantina
What Does Beto Have Against the Palestinians?
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Sartre, Said, Chomsky and the Meaning of the Public Intellectual
Andrew Glikson
Crimes Against the Earth
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
Nomi Prins 
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
John W. Whitehead
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
David Swanson
The Abolition of War Requires New Thoughts, Words, and Actions
J.P. Linstroth
Primates Are Us
Bill Willers
The War Against Cash
Jonah Raskin
Doris Lessing: What’s There to Celebrate?
Ralph Nader
Are the New Congressional Progressives Real? Use These Yardsticks to Find Out
Binoy Kampmark
William Blum: Anti-Imperial Advocate
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
Green New Deal Advocates Should Address Militarism
John Feffer
Review: Season 2 of Trump Presidency
Rich Whitney
General Motors’ Factories Should Not Be Closed. They Should Be Turned Over to the Workers
Christopher Brauchli
Deported for Christmas
Kerri Kennedy
This Holiday Season, I’m Standing With Migrants
Mel Gurtov
Weaponizing Humanitarian Aid
Thomas Knapp
Lame Duck Shutdown Theater Time: Pride Goeth Before a Wall?
George Wuerthner
The Thrill Bike Threat to the Elkhorn Mountains
Nyla Ali Khan
A Woman’s Selfhood and Her Ability to Act in the Public Domain: Resilience of Nadia Murad
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
On the Killing of an Ash Tree
Graham Peebles
Britain’s Homeless Crisis
Louis Proyect
America: a Breeding Ground for Maladjustment
Steve Carlson
A Hell of a Time
Dan Corjescu
America and The Last Ship
Jeffrey St. Clair
Booked Up: the 25 Best Books of 2018
David Yearsley
Bikini by Rita, Voice by Anita