FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

US Slowdown on Iran Talks has Dark Side

President Barack Obama decided last week against achieving a final agreement with Iran before the expiration of the 10 July deadline so as to limit the period of Congressional consideration of the agreement and so neutralise criticism that he and Secretary of State John Kerry were too eager to reach an accord.Obama’s decision marks a new low in his administration’s willingness to stand up to the Israeli lobby-controlled Congressional opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.  That doesn’t mean that the chance for an agreement has necessarily been lost, but it will certainly make it more difficult.

More importantly, it poses a serious question about whether Iran hardliners in the Obama administration, led by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have undermined Kerry’s position in determining the pace and direction of US negotiating policy in the talks.

The evidence strongly suggests that the White House unexpectedly imposed on the US negotiating team a new strategy in regards to the arms embargo issue.

Along with Middle East Eye, several other newspapers Monday and Tuesday reported that some of the issues that had been considered most contentious had been resolved in the preceding days.

Those issues include the “possible military dimensions,” access for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the timing and processes for lifting sanctions and verification of Iran’s implementation of its nuclear obligations.  In a briefing for Western journalists in Vienna on Monday, a “senior administration official” said: “We’re certainly making progress; there is no doubt about that.”

The briefing contained no hint that the US was about to make a major push to link the issue of language on the arms embargo issue in a new Security Council resolution to regional politics or slow down the negotiations dramatically so that they would not meet the deadline.

In fact, in response to a question about a video by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif suggesting that the nuclear agreement could lead to addressing “common challenges” in the region, the senior official denied that the negotiations were linked in any way to the Islamic State threat to the Middle East. That line implied that the US delegation had the political space needed to negotiate a formula and resolve the Security Council arms embargo issue.

Of all the remaining issues when the Vienna round began, the arms embargo was certainly the one that should have been the easiest to resolve.  It was obviously an extraneous political issue that had nothing to do with insuring against a nuclear weapons programme in Iran and, as Iranian officials argued in Vienna, it should never have been part of a Security Council resolution on the nuclear issue in the first place.

Furthermore, like the language in past Security Council resolutions on the arms embargo and also forbidding Iran from continuing to work on ballistic missiles, it was based on the fundamentally false premise that the Security Council resolution actually had an actual effect on either Iranian policy.

In fact, Iran has been almost completely self-sufficient in regard to conventional arms for many year, and the Security Resolution had never prevented Iran from providing arms to Hezbollah or Hamas, much less to its Shia allies in Iraq.

The real point of a US policy of reinstating the arms embargo in a new resolution was, in fact, to demonstrate US support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies who wanted such language and to curry favour with hawkish Senate Democrats who had been exposed to propaganda on the issue from the Israeli lobby.  Those political motives were certainly behind a series of moves on Monday and Tuesday to adopt a tougher US negotiating stance in the talks and to deliberately slow them down so that the 10 July deadline would be missed

At 1pm (5pm GMT) in Washington on Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested in a press briefing that the administration could increase its bargaining leverage by continuing the talks indefinitely until it was satisfied with Iran’s concessions.  He cited the fact that the Joint Plan of Action under which Iran had agreed to temporary restraints on enrichment  could be kept in place, implying that the US didn’t really need an agreement any time in the near future.

Earnest claimed the administration had “some bipartisan agreement that this is an available approach that could benefit the United States and our negotiating position in a way that continues to keep the pressure on Iran to reach a final agreement”.

That was a rather heavy-handed way of conveying the administration’s intention to play hard to get in Vienna. The consequences of that strategy were apparent at a Monday night meeting in Vienna of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Iran. The purpose was to discuss the text of the new Security Council resolution – especially on the arms embargo issue.  At that meeting, Russia and China declared flatly that they would not support an effort to reinstitute the arms embargo, according to a European diplomatic source familiar with the meeting.

Nevertheless, the US, Britain and France accused Iran of making trouble in the region through conventional arms transfers, according to an account of the meeting published by the official Iranian news agency IRNA based on a background briefing by Zarif that was not supposed to have been for publication.  Zarif reportedly shot back that he could have taken every one of the countries making the accusation to international court for supplying weapons of mass destruction capabilities to Iraq with which to attack Iran.

EU foreign policy chief Frederica Mogherini told Iran that if it was not prepared to accept the renewal of the embargo, they all might as well “go home,” to which Zarif responded by warning her “never to threaten an Iranian”.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately added, “Nor a Russian.”

The outcome of the meeting clearly indicated that the Obama administration policy of pushing a hard line on the arms embargo issue had no chance whatever of being accepted even by the P5+1 (the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany) itself.

When negotiations resumed on Wednesday, it soon became clear to Iranian officials that the Obama administration was deliberately slowing progress in the talks so as to miss the 10 June Congressional deadline, which had previously seemed important to it.

They revealed in briefings for this writer and other journalists that the US was suddenly spending far more time “coordinating” with their P5+1 partners than negotiating with Iran on the remaining issues. Suddenly, all the other members of the six-power group, which had been almost entirely silent during the Vienna round up to that time, were said to have their own “red lines” complicating the negotiations.

That cumbersome process coincided with a new revised package of proposals on the unresolved issues that had been approved by the White House. It was more uncompromising than the previous one that the US delegation had provided, according to Iranian officials who spoke with this writer last week.

They recalled that the same combination of more extreme US proposals and a slow-down in negotiations had occurred in the talks at the same hotel in Vienna in November 2014.

The implications of the deliberate Obama administration decision to postpone any agreement to blunt domestic criticism from the right and, apparently, to try to wrest more diplomatic leverage in doing so, are far-reaching and very serious.

Obama will presumably complete the negotiations soon.  But the slowdown maneuver implies that the administration will present the final agreement as a clear triumph over Iran achieved by its tough negotiating stance – even though that line will be the opposite of the truth.

This article originally appeared in Middle East Eye.

 

More articles by:

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

November 20, 2018
John Davis
Geographies of Violence in Southern California
Anthony Pahnke
Abolishing ICE Means Defunding it
Maximilian Werner
Why (Mostly) Men Trophy Hunt: a Biocultural Explanation
Masturah Alatas
Undercutting Female Circumcision
Jack Rasmus
Global Oil Price Deflation 2018 and Beyond
Geoff Dutton
Why High Technology’s Double-Edged Sword is So Hard to Swallow
Binoy Kampmark
Charges Under Seal: US Prosecutors Get Busy With Julian Assange
Rev. William Alberts
America Fiddles While California Burns
Forrest Hylton, Aaron Tauss and Juan Felipe Duque Agudelo
Remaking the Common Good: the Crisis of Public Higher Education in Colombia
Patrick Cockburn
What Can We Learn From a Headmaster Who Refused to Allow His Students to Celebrate Armistice Day?
Clark T. Scott
Our Most Stalwart Company
Tom H. Hastings
Look to the Right for Corruption
Edward Hunt
With Nearly 400,000 Dead in South Sudan, Will the US Finally Change Its Policy?
Thomas Knapp
Hypocrisy Alert: Republicans Agreed with Ocasio-Cortez Until About One Minute Ago
November 19, 2018
David Rosen
Amazon Deal: New York Taxpayers Fund World Biggest Sex-Toy Retailer
Sheldon Richman
Art of the Smear: the Israel Lobby Busted
Chad Hanson
Why Trump is Wrong About the California Wildfires
Dean Baker
Will Progressives Ever Think About How We Structure Markets, Instead of Accepting them as Given?
Robert Fisk
We Remember the Great War, While Palestinians Live It
Dave Lindorff
Pelosi’s Deceptive Plan: Blocking any Tax Rise Could Rule Out Medicare-for-All and Bolstering Social Security
Rick Baum
What Can We Expect From the Democrat “Alternative” Given Their Record in California?
Thomas Scott Tucker
Trump, World War I and the Lessons of Poetry
John W. Whitehead
Red Flag Gun Laws
Newton Finn
On Earth, as in Heaven: the Utopianism of Edward Bellamy
Robert Fantina
Shithole Countries: Made in the USA
René Voss
Have Your Say about Ranching in Our Point Reyes National Seashore
Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail