This post originally appeared on The Nation.
Only 12 minutes into his presidency, Barack Obama reached out to the Muslim world and Iran, offering America's hand of friendship if Iran would in turn unclench its fist. Yet three years later, we are closer to war than we were in the last years of the Bush administration, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta telling the Washington Post there is a "strong likelihood" of an Israeli strike this spring. How did we get here?
Conventional wisdom in Washington is that Obama's diplomacy with Iran failed. It did not. As I argue in my new book A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran, it was prematurely abandoned. Obama's intention was genuine, but his vision for diplomacy was soon undermined, for four reasons: pressure from Israel and its powerful allies in Congress, and to a lesser extent from Saudi Arabia and France, to adopt a confrontational policy; the June 2009 election mayhem in Iran and the subsequent repression and human rights abuses, which hardened the regime in Tehran and narrowed Obama's space for diplomacy; Obama's early adoption of a contradictory "dual track" policy, combining diplomacy with escalating pressure on Tehran; and Obama's unwillingness to create more domestic political space for diplomacy by challenging a status quo in Washington that is set on enmity.
The Netanyahu government and its Washington allies compromised Obama's vision in four ways. First, they insisted that diplomacy be given an unrealistically tight deadline of 12 weeks. Second, although Obama was potentially willing to accept enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil under strict inspections, Israel demanded complete dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program, an unachievable objective that rendered diplomacy dead on arrival. Third, the Israelis and their hardline U.S. allies pushed for sanctions before diplomacy was even tried. Obama pushed back at first, but after the Iranian election scandal, the pro-sanctions camp got the upper hand.
And fourth, the Israelis opposed Obama's view that demilitarizing the atmosphere would help convince Tehran that America was serious about diplomacy. "My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us," Obama told the Iranians in his March 2009 Persian New Year video. "This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect." Israel, on the other hand, believed Washington must repeatedly emphasize that the military option remained on the table so Tehran would not see the United States as weak. Thus, when Obama pursued diplomacy, the Israelis sought to undermine him by increasing their militaristic rhetoric.
Over the past three years, Obama has yielded on almost all these points.
Even before succumbing to Netanyahu's pressure, however, Obama had adopted the dual track policy, a holdover from the Bush administration pushed strongly by Israel and France, which set the stage for the ensuing stalemate. That policy assumed that diplomacy with Iran could succeed only if coupled with significant escalating pressure. Vali Nasr, an Obama official who recently left the administration, has said that the current stalemate is a consequence of adopting this "failed assumption."
Since Obama abandoned diplomacy in November 2009 and activated the pressure track, relations have steadily deteriorated. Both sides have escalated bellicose rhetoric, and both have rejected the other's offer of talks. In the late summer of 2010, Obama began sending military signals, combined with increasing sanctions, to give Tehran the feeling it was facing the threat of attack. The intent was not to start a war but to drive the situation to the brink of war to maximize U.S. negotiating strength and extract concessions from Iran.
This is an extremely risky policy. At best, the United States can control its own actions within this dynamic. But it cannot control Iran's reactions or how Tehran reads Washington's military signals. As a Pentagon official told me in 2010, the administration is very frustrated that its intercepts of Iranian communications in the Persian Gulf reveal that Tehran consistently misreads America's signals.
Adm. Mike Mullen, weeks before leaving his post as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed to this risk. "We haven't had a connection with Iran since 1979," he said. "Even in the darkest days of the cold war, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don't understand each other. If something happens, it's virtually assured that we won't get it right -- that there will be miscalculation, which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world."
Moreover, the White House either cannot or is not willing to spend the political capital necessary to control Israeli actions. A policy aimed at reaching the brink of war can easily be manipulated by a state that has publicly voiced its preference for military confrontation. In this explosive atmosphere, Israel can manufacture a small spark that could trigger a catastrophic conflict.
I do not believe that the Obama administration wants war with Iran. It is pressing Israel hard not to attack, knowing well that the political cost for Israel -- given the overwhelming, uncritical support for Israeli war fever on Capitol Hill -- is minimal in a U.S. election year. But a policy of brinkmanship may beget a war, especially when not coupled with a much firmer, more sustainable -- and unapologetic -- diplomatic track.
The Iranian nuclear dilemma is not easily resolved, but neither is it of unprecedented complexity. Humanity has resolved tougher problems. The obvious solution is to accept limited enrichment on Iranian soil under the strictest IAEA inspections, with a transparency and verification regime that renders militarization of the program virtually impossible.
The difficulty is not necessarily in defining a mutually acceptable solution as much as finding a path to that solution. As Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, recently said, "If there is strong political will and mutual confidence being established, this issue could be resolved in a few days." He added, "The technical disputes are not so big. The problem is mutual confidence and strong political will."
But strong political will is exactly what has been missing in Washington and Tehran in recent years. It's what prompted Obama to give in to Congress and Israel and adopt a misguided policy, and what caused the divided leadership in Tehran to fear compromise more than escalation. It is lack of political courage that has permitted this looming confrontation. Only courage and will can bring us out of it. The question is whether Obama can muster that will in an election year when any compromise is bound to be cast by Republicans as a betrayal of Israel.
This post appears in the February 27, 2012 edition of The Nation.
Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi
Leon Panetta: All Iran options on the table - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com
Fear of Israel War With Iran Grows Amid Heightened Nuke Concerns ...
Obama Keeps Pressure on Iran, Seeks to Cool War Fever | Global ...
All, of that tells me that Strait of Hurmoz and Iranian nuclear program may not be the real reason for the entire brawl. With two of the strongest neighbors of Israel in chaos, thanks to our foreign policy, escalation of a war in Middle East will give Israel the best opportunity to attach Lebanon and Sinai. I think that will be the reality after the dust over rubbles settles.
This blind sighted march to war only helps the MIC, Israeli right wing, BP/EXXON etc, the Mullahs in Iran who will use the Iranian people's nationalism to consolidate their power against the people who removed the democratically elected government of Dr. Mossadegh in 1953 and installed an evil dictator to sell Iranian oil to foreign companies for cheap.
Russian top diplomat Sergei Lavrov reiterated his country's strong opposition to using military force against Iran, and urged negotiated end to the differences between Iran and the West.
Lavrov said that his country will not accept use of military force against Iran.
Russia is concerned about developments on Iran's nuclear programs and believes that only way to solve it is through peaceful means, and taking any the military action must be completely removed from the agenda.
"Russia is interested in establishing peace and stability in Middle East region and is ready to negotiate with all UN Security Council members to reach consensus on establishment of security in Persian Gulf,". More: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010174656
Iran Lambasts Israel's Refusal to Join NPT
- Iran's Ambassador to United Nations Mohammad Khazaee blasted Israel for refusing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and urged international community to pressure regime into joining the NPT.
"Iran considers Israel as prime suspect in field of possessing nuclear weapons and not abiding by non-proliferation treaties (NPT). The international community should exert pressure on Zionist regime to join NPT," Khazaee added while emphasizing that Islamic Republic of Iran is not pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program and that Iran is merely pursuing civilian nuclear program.
remarks by Israeli officials concerning Iran's nuclear program, he said that Zionist regime is not in position to comment on Iran's nuclear program.
" . MORE: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010174650
"Oil accounts for a third of Russia's exports and more than half of state revenues. Russia is also the world's biggest producer of natural gas, and the largest combined energy exporter."
Reference: http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Becomes_Worlds_Top_Oil_Producer/1818696.html
This coincides with the Neocon drive for the impossible dream of world hegemony.
So, the US will go to wa against Iranr. As we have seen in Iraq and have still an unresolved conflict in Afghanistan, American plans tend to collapse.
This time, the collapse will be major as fuel prices skyrocket and the already over-burdened American economy crashes.
Toss into the mix some unexpected and undesired effects to put in doubt the very future exsistance of the USA..
But Iran is not the next Iraq. The difference is the need for occupation. We can accomplish our goals without the long-term presence of ground troops.
There may be a prolonged "no-fly zone" period in Iran, with an occasional news making event, but, if it comes to actual military use, the intense part of the battle will be measured in hours, not days.
But this is not necessary. If Iran has competent military leaders, and by all accounts they do, and if they have a working repoire with the country's leadership, a counterproductive confrontation can be avoided. Iran is much better served by adhering to the proverb:
"It is better to keep one's mouth closed and have the world think him a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
Iraq better off today ??? Absolutely few if any thinking persons would accept that absurd claim that flies in the face of every objective observation by knowledgeable people.
If you think the world would go along with another decade of "no fly zone" over Iran imposed by US, you're seriously out of step with majority of the American people, and world opinion + global reality in this decade. If you bet your farm on that, you're going to lose all your marbles.
Former Army Chief General Shinseki had correctly testified in congressional hearings that post-invasion occupation of Iraq would require "SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND TROOPS" to maintain peace. Iran has 3 times the population size and larger territories as Iraq. That would make it close to one million occupation troops required to establish and maintain post-invasion military occupation. In all of human history and military history, there has not been any nation that had yielded to a unilateral b0mbing campaign without military occupation. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to clearly demonstrate the credibility of your assertion. War is much too serious and tragic undertaking for chickenhawk armchair warriors to shoot off from the hips out the rearend.
"LONDON -- Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times of London reported Saturday."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/12/saudi-arabia-gives-israel-clear-skies-attack-iranian-nuke-sites/#ixzz1mGib0Jq5
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/12/saudi-arabia-gives-israel-clear-skies-attack-iranian-nuke-sites/
The Pentagon, DoD, intelligence agencies and mainstream press is the biggest organized criminal syndicate in the world, all controlled by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). They got us in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan…all failed missions to date costing 70,000 American lives, who knows how many serious casualities, and trillions of dollars in debt…all for power and their financial gain.
$16 trillion in debt with a $15 trillion GDP and $2 billion/day on wars. They will kill the host.
-A Patriot -USN/USMC First Marine Division, I-Corps, Vietnam, 1967-68
America is now on the cusp of WAR again. It is time for real Americans to say. ENOUGH. we now want OUR Govt back that works in our interest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ayARlIVWvY
US Vet 1960-67
939th Armored Cav
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
http://ivaw.org/afghanistan-veterans-against-war-speaking-tour
.
said ,"No way dismantle it all!"
Thanks Israel for bring the world closer to another war.
Netanyahu and his orthodox religious supporters consistently make it loud and crystal clear that their vision of "Eretz Israel" (greater Israel covering today's West Bank -- Judea and Samaria) is their absolute inflexible non-negotiable indisputable biblical territorial rights going back 4,000 years.
Israeli policy today is a 3-legged stool dependent on:--
1) Israeli arms superiority,
2) American arms superiority and American people's silent complicit support
(silence = consent),
3) world community's silent complicity.
If any one or more of those 3 legs of the 3-legged stool of support give way, current Israeli war plans + policy against Iran would pragmatically fall flat on its face in ultimate utter and total failure.
I also do not like the idea if poor people in the military having to defend Israel.
I still have not heard a justification for Israel to attack Iran. Missiles have been pointed at the United States. Russia had the capacity to reach the United States. Sarah Palin has talked about seeing Russia from Alaska. So the US is within range.
Iran also loaded with money - from oil. And push their nuclear program as part of promoting their control over entire ME. They consider Israel an enemy and Iranian president not once called for extermination of Israel. So you still think that Israel can "buy" Iranian compliance? ;-)