There was neither a breakdown nor breakthrough in the Moscow talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1). The P5+1 and Iran negotiated but could not make any headway. No one should be surprised by this result -- after all, the two sides only had the ability to make demands. They -- particularly the U.S. -- lacked the political will to put real concessions on the table. But without a breakthrough, are we heading towards war?
Under normal circumstances, an uneventful diplomatic encounter would hardly get noticed. As long as the talks are kept alive, the situation would remain stable. After all, diplomacy takes patience and persistence. The diplomatic dance often takes one step back, two steps forward. For instance, negotiations to normalize relations between the U.S. and Vietnam took four long years -- between 1990-1994. It took seven years of talks to convince Gaddafi's Libya to dismantle its nuclear program. In both cases, there were numerous setbacks, even breakdowns, along the way before a final agreement was reached.
That is not the situation between the West and Iran for a very simple reason -- the U.S. and the EU are going to significantly escalate the pressure on Iran in the coming weeks. The EU's oil embargo and U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil sales will formally come into effect at the end of the month. And as unprecedented as these measures are, the U.S. will move shortly thereafter to impose even more sanctions to strangle Iran's oil exports.
The pattern of the past 10 years clearly shows that when one side escalates, the other side counter-escalates. Neither side has had a particularly elaborate or sophisticated strategy. It's been nothing more than a kindergarten-level tit-for-tat game.
Consequently, Iran will likely counter-escalate. What makes this latest round of escalatory steps more dangerous is that Iran's escalation options are fewer and fewer and more and more dangerous.
Iran's likely (counter)escalation will center on three possible steps. First, they may increase the level of enrichment to 60 percent or possibly even 95 percent. Sixty percent-enriched uranium can be used for producing fuel pads for their American-made medical reactor. The 95 percent-enriched uranium can be used to power nuclear submarines. But it can also be used to build bombs. And Iran doesn't have any nuclear fuel submarines (though it recently stated that it plans to build them). Both of these steps would be viewed by the U.S. as a major escalation and possibly as crossing Obama's red line for war.
Second, Tehran may complete the underground facility in Fordo -- the only facility it has that likely cannot be destroyed by an Israeli airstrike. Iran can speed up its installation of centrifuge cascades at Fordo. This would clearly cross Israel's stated red line by making Iran's nuclear program largely beyond the reach of Israeli bombing capabilities. While Iran has violated several Israeli red lines in the past without an Israeli military reaction, Israel has nevertheless responded without exception by increasing pressure on the U.S. to take military action.
Finally, Iran may stir up tensions in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz in order to push up oil prices, making the Western escalation as costly as possible. This would be particularly problematic for Obama since higher oil prices translate into higher gas prices, which in turn hurts the U.S. economy. If you are an incumbent president looking to get reelected, you cannot afford a struggling economy and high unemployment rates.
Warnings about Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz will likely begin anew. Initially, lower ranking government officials, including junior lawmakers, will issue statements on this matter. Within weeks, more senior political, military and religious officials will echo these warnings. Simultaneously, other officials will deny Iran's intent to close the straits, in order to infuse even greater confusion and uncertainty into the situation.
Without actually attacking a single ship, the Iranian navy and the IRGC navy will adopt a more threatening posture, including by harassing ships passing through the straits. The aim will be to create perpetual, low-grade instability in the waters. This would, among other things, increase the insurance cost for the passing ships and push up oil prices.
It is difficult to see how the next round of talks can survive this game of escalation. And it is difficult to see how the two sides will have greater flexibility to make talks succeed after this next round of heightened pressure.
From the U.S. side, this combination of talks and pressure is premised on the idea that Iran does not yield under pressure -- it only yields under enormous pressure. U.S. decision-makers are inspired by the events of 1988, when Ayatollah Khomeini finally agreed to end the war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iran had suffered tremendous military losses, largely because Saddam's use of chemical weapons. (Incidentally, the components for those chemical weapons were provided to Saddam by the West.) Iran's economy was is shatters. Oil prices stood at less than $10 per barrel. Iran simply could not resist any longer.
Despite Khomeini's slogan of "war, war till victory," he had no choice but to throw in the towel. "Taking this decision was more deadly than taking poison," he said.
Washington wants the regime in Tehran to once again drink from that cup of poison, and to do that, a constant escalation of pressure is needed, the Obama administration calculates.
But there is a world of difference between Khamenei's Iran of 2012 and Khomeini's Iran of 1988. Beyond the obvious it is impossible to bring Iran anywhere near the type of pressure and suffering it endured during the eight year-long Iraq-Iran war, Khomeini also had a clear choice in 1988 with clear consequences. He knew that if he drank the poison, the war would end. There was near 100 percent certainty of that.
Khamenei does not perceive such a choice today because there is no clarity of what would happen if he were to give in to Western demands. Rather than clarity, there is ambiguity.
Sanctions could be lifted. Down the road. Perhaps.
Iran could have domestic nuclear enrichment capabilities. In the distant future. Maybe.
Beyond a clear choice, Khomeini also had an absolute decision-maker as his counterpart. Saddam made all the decisions and no one dared to challenge him. He didn't have to deal with a pesky Congress.
Khamenei does not perceive in Obama a forceful decision-maker whose decisions will stand and whose promises will be fulfilled. Khamenei already had a preconceived notion of Obama in early 2009 as weak and incapable of standing up to pressure from Republicans and Israel. After numerous cases in which Obama has altered his policies in response to these pressures, that impression of the U.S. president has likely not changed.
In the absence of clear exit ramps -- both for the U.S. and Iran -- the attempt to recreate the 1988 scenario is fundamentally flawed. Rather than creating stark choices, there is nothing more than naked escalation. And rather than causing Iran to capitulate, we are more likely to beget confrontation.
Meanwhile, even short of war, crippling sanctions and pressure will continue to decimate Iran's middle class -- the backbone of Iran's indigenous pro-democracy movement. Truly a lose-lose for all.
Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi
Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett: Deep-Sixing the China Option
Raymond J. Learsy: Has The Energy Department Gone Completely Off The Rails?
Ari Ratner: Mitt Romney Doesn't Understand the Arab Spring or Its Implications for America
-- President WiIIiam McKinIey (R)
“Let us ever remember that our interest ...rests in the victories of peace, not those of war.”
-- President WiIIiam McKinIey (R)
"If Tyranny and 0ppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of FlGHTlNG a F0RElGN en emy."
-- President James Madison
“We were NOT born to police the world. Nobody was”
-- Common Sense
“We Americans have no commission from G0D to poIice the worId.”
-- President Benjamin Harrison (R)
"We have no desire to be the world's policeman.
But America does want to be the world's peacemaker."
-- President CARTER, State of the Union Address, Jan. 25, 1979
“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military fighting force.”
-- President Thomas Jefferson
KlLLlNG FOR PEACE DOES NOT MAKE YOU A HERO!
“FlGHTlNG for peace is like skewing for VlRGlNlTY.”
-- George CarIin
“I have never advocated war except as a means of peace.”
-- Ulysses S. Grant
“See, people with power understand exactly one thing: vioIence.”
-- Noam Chomsky
Now if we ask Obama the question.. `What will be your Quote which is : 1) music to the ears of the peace loving people of both Iran and US, as well as 2) something you will be able to live up to`, what would be his likely reply?
And if we ask the same question to Mitt Romney.. what would be his reply?
And if we ask the same question to the Ieaders of Iran ..what would be their reply?
Of course its hypothetical …no one is going to ask them these kinds of questions… nor do they have adequate answers… there is nothing in their hands… the show is completely stage managed to ensure that the `Demand` is commensurate with `Supply`.
Reminds me of an old Dire Straits title `Industrial Disease`
But the same ratio doesn`t hold good anymore, and America can ill afford to continue with these aggressions without hurting its econonmy in a big way. Besides the American public of the sensitive type can no longer live with the stigma that they belong to a nation whose leaders are engaged in selfish and arrogant aggressions – while pretending to be policemen – not to mention war crimes (for example drone attacks).
But of course ..its a trillion dollar industry giving employment to hundreds of thousands of people… what should one do? … All I can say is, we need some extraordinary intelligent minds to work out the extent to which this industry should be cut…towards catering only towards genuine `policemen activities` that too in combination with other countries, why should America alone bear this responsibility….. and the remaining diversified towards …say Space Research or something.
In the end… What do I know ?
Nukes are the difference between Gaddafi being murdered in the streets, and Kim Jong Il dying comfortably in old age, surrounded by bottles of expensive scotch and all the movie starlets he can kidnap.
Yes its true….. It’s a mistaken path…. Its also true…..both US and Iran (Leaders of the two nations) are traversing that path. And it’s also true …and it doesn’t require solution of complex differential equations to show that the common people of the two countries do not want their leaders to traverse this path of confrontation.
For whom, then does this – traversing the path - work out well?.... This does need to be analyzed no matter how complex the differential equations are. The trouble is … neither of the two leaders wants to do it – the analyzing part – for the simple reason … its not in their hands.
Why is it that American interferences in the affairs of the world are continuing without a break?…. As if they are a product of mechanical necessity.
I ask the question again… For whom does this work out well ? Indeed .. Are there people in the world who stand to lose if there are no conflicts,… no wars…. No interferences etc?
Recently I learnt something about a certain ``Theory of constraints``… a kind of business tool whose primary component is the concept that `A chain is just about as strong as its weakest link`.
(To be continued)
Can it be said that there is a certain link in the chain of a certain industry in the US of A and in some other countries of the Western World which sometimes tends to get weak and that the said weakness is caused by a certain reduction in conflicts.. in wars… in interferences etc, whereby it becomes a product of mechanical necessity to rectify that link by … you know what ?.
Is this not a problem? …And for a POTUS who wants to be a Numero Uno in the eyes of the World (the common people ) should he not address this problem ?... or can he say that there is nothing in his hands and there is nothing he can do about it… and thus remain Numero Uno only in the eyes of such Industry leaders or those groups of people in other countries who participate in the flourishing of these industries and benefit from it.
As I said in one of my earlier comments….`It all depends on which hemisphere of his brain the POTUS is going to use`
-- Mark Twain
Why should Obama care about Israel when African Americans put out the vote that got him elected? What value does Israel have to African Americans? The poorest Americans were the ones damaged by both the Cold War and recent hot wars.
Some might say denial of access is enough....Now how would one go about doing that? ... Dangerous times.
We can always count on Pres. Obama to use the part of his brain that looks out for Numero Uno, independent of what's good for the American people or world peace
I have elaborated my views .. somewhat... in a new comment in two parts... Hope he reads it... will do no harm to the wiring.
Majority of Americans are living in denial or indifference on whether war on Iran is probable, justifiable, limited, or survivable.
After inconclusive outcome of latest negotiations of P5+1 with Iran, in Istanbul(April2012), Baghdad(May2012), and Moscow(June2012), perception of failure is much higher than 2months ago. It's hard for public to gauge toplevel reactions in TelAviv, Washington + Tehran. Israeli recent reactions had been dismissive.
"Iran nuclear talks fall short" WashingtonPost, June19,2012:--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-nuclear-talks-fall-short/2012/06/19/gJQAYO4moV_story.html
With economic sanctions ratcheting up, probability of negotiations failure increases significantly.
Is war justifiable? Not according to former IDF chief, former Mossad chief, and retired US chief of staff.
Can war on Iran be limited?
What does "No Options off Table" mean in context of military planning?:--
Rules + guidelines of USMilitary governing use of nuclearweapons have been "liberalized" after ColdWar era. Decision to use tactical nukes against Iran no longer depends on CiCPresidentObama. It's strictly military decision. New doctrine states CommandControlCoordination (CCC) regarding use of nukes should be "flexible", allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if + when to use nuclearweapons:
It largely describes war planning as management decisionmaking process, where military + strategic objectives are tobe achieved through mix of instruments, with little concern for loss of life.
if preemptive attack on Iran is launched, tactical nukes will be integral part.
"No Option off the Table"-- MichelChossudovsky:--
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28355 .
The President is the Commander In Chief of the all US Military forces.
If he gives a Direct Order to not use a weapons system, it will not be used. Period.
world finds itself in today vis a vis Israel.
The last three are long, scholarly, and frankly, a bit dry. However,
the first, for obvious reasons, is quite entertaining.
"Concerning the Jews" by Mark Twain
The Hidden History of Zionism by Ralph Schoenman
Behind the Balfour Declaration
Benjamin Freedman
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm