Iran's Uranium: Washington "Can't Afford to Look Ridiculous", Makes Ridiculous Move (Emery)

EA's Chris Emery analyses:

The US response reminds me of the scene in The Godfather where the Don’s advisor asks the studio boss to drop his objection to using Jonny Fontaine in his next film. The studio boss admits that, although Jonny would be perfect for the role, he is committed to ruining Fontaine's career. Fontaine had made him look ridiculous, and the studio boss explains, "A man in my position can’t afford to look ridiculous."

NEW Iran’s Uranium: Why Can’t the US Take Yes for an Answer? (Parsi)
Iran’s Uranium: US Shows a Middle Finger to Tehran…and Turkey and Brazil and… (Gary Sick)

The Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement was a good deal, but the US perceived that it would make them look ridiculous. Not just because it undercuts American diplomacy with China and Russia but because the deal resonates of a change in the international system ---- a change that is also a challenge. The US saw the IBT  deal not just as one unlikely to work; they saw it as a threat.


Technically, the deal does not address some concerns stated by the US: it does not include cessation of enrichment and leaves about 600-700 kilogrammes of low-enriched uranium inside Iran. Symbolically, however, this was Tehran saying that it wants a way out. At some point down the line, Iran could have found some handy technical reason for temporarily ending enrichment and decided that it was "cost-effective" to send most of its LEU abroad or to buy in medical isotopes.

But now, through its response, the US has reinforced the cyclical politics of confrontation and capitulation that have driven the crisis in US-Iranian relations for 30 years. Washington needs to recognise that breaking this dynamic is the only starting point for the eventual satisfaction of all its technical and geo-political security concerns.

The sanctions route through the United Nations is actually the worst-case scenario because, although there was not enough in the IBT agreement to get the Chinese and Russians off the hook, there is enough for them to substantially water down sanctions. The outcome will achieve nothing except to anger China, Russia, and all the non-permanent members of the Security Council while bolstering President Ahmadinejad at home and to some extent abroad.

Iran's Uranium: US Shows a Middle Finger to Tehran...and Turkey and Brazil and... (Gary Sick)

Gary Sick assesses Washington's response to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement:

Well, that didn’t take long.

Yesterday I wondered if we were smart enough to declare victory and take yes as an answer from Tehran. Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced that a new package of sanctions against Iran had been approved by the major powers and would be sent to the UN Security Council later in the day.

Iran’s Uranium: Why Can’t the US Take Yes for an Answer? (Parsi)
Iran’s Uranium: Washington “Can’t Afford to Look Ridiculous”, Makes Ridiculous Move (Emery)

In case anyone overlooked the significance of this action, which followed by one day the announcement by Brazil and Turkey of the successful conclusion of their negotiations with Iran, she added: “I think this announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide.”


Take that, Tehran! But it turns out that this lifted middle finger was not limited to Iran. Only hours before Clinton’s announcement, the foreign minister of Turkey held his own press conference. Obviously unaware of what was about to happen, he described in some detail not only the tortuous negotiation process with Iran, but his perception that he was acting directly on behalf of the United States.

According to Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, he had been in “constant contact” with Clinton herself and with national security adviser James Jones, while his prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had face-to-face encouragement from President Obama in December and April.

The objective of Turkey and Brazil was to persuade Iran to accept the terms of an agreement the United States had itself promoted only six months ago as a confidence-building measure and the precursor to more substantive talks. There were twelve visits back and forth between the Turk and his Iranian counterpart, some 40 phone conversations, and eighteen grueling hours of personal negotiations leading up to the presentation of the signed agreement on Monday.

“What they wanted us to do was give the confidence to Iran to do the swap We have done our duty,” said Davutoglu, calling the deal an important step for regional and global peace. “We were told that if Iran gives 1,200 kg without conditions, then the required atmosphere of trust would be created [to avoid sanctions]. So if we do all these things, and they still talk about sanctions … [it] will damage the psychological trust that has been created.”

The Turks and Brazilians, who felt they had “delivered” Iran on the terms demanded by the United States, were surprised and disappointed at the negative reactions from Washington. Little did they know that their success in Tehran, which had been given a 0-30 percent chance just days earlier, came just as the Americans were putting the final touches on a package of sanctions to be presented to the UN Security Council. The Tehran agreement was as welcome as a pothole in the fast lane, and the Americans were not reluctant to let their displeasure be known.

The five major powers had made up their minds (without consulting other members of the Security Council that currently includes both Turkey and Brazil), and these two mid-level powers were told in so many words to get out of the way.

The gratuitous insult aside, which approach do you believe would most likely result in real progress in slowing or halting Iran’s nuclear program? We have been imposing ever-greater sanctions on Iran for more than fifteen years. When we started they had zero centrifuges; today they have in excess of 9,000. To those who believe that one more package of sanctions will do what no other sanctions have done so far, I can only say I admire your unquenchable optimism.

More likely the Turkish ambassador to the UN had it about right when he said quite plainly about sanctions, “They don’t work.”

Would a negotiating track do better, perhaps mediated by two middle-level powers who have built up some credibility with Iran, like Algeria when it finally engineered the end to the US-Iran hostage crisis in 1980-81?  We’ll never know. Tonight the hardliners in Iran (and their American counterparts) are celebrating.

The Iranian hardliners had already begun asking questions about the deal, fearful that Iran had given away too much. Now they don’t have to worry since everyone knows that Iran will never be willing or able to negotiate under the threat of sanctions.

For the Revolutionary Guards it is a huge bonus. As foreign companies are driven away, the Guards progressively take over more and more of the economy. And as restrictions on trade grow, so do their opportunities to manage the immensely profitable smuggling routes. Like their American counterparts, but for different reasons, they thrive on an environment of threat and isolation.

The presidents of Turkey and Brazil have been humiliated. But the Great Powers are confident that their lesser cousins know their place and will show deference when the chips are down. They’ll do what they have to do. They always do.

Don’t they… ?

Iran Document: Iranian Labour Unions "This is Not 1979"

Posted by News & Letters:

Recently, we were directed to an article in the March-April 2010 News & Letters, "Iranian workers enter the fray," by Raha, in which an isolated quote from one of our members was used to prove that a regressive repeat of the 1979 Islamic revolution was in store for Iran. The author claimed that NILU (the Network of Iranian Labor Unions) was set against advancing workers' independent interests because this would supposedly weaken the Green Movement's internal unity. Starting from this rather dubious premise, the author further claimed that there were clear parallels to be made between the present moment and 1979 when millions of people blindly fell into the trap that Muslim fundamentalists had set for them.

We are happy to inform the author and N&L readers that while there are many difficulties and perils attending the nascent democratic movement, a repeat of the Islamic Revolution is definitely not one of them.



First, unlike the earlier generation with its all-too-familiar revolutionary-romantic/Manichean notions, the new generation is both more sophisticated and more canny as to who its friends and enemies are and the magnitude of the problems. For example, you cannot find one single individual--out of several million Greeners--that is taken in by Mir-Hossein Mousavi's personality, magnetism, political infallibility or mystical powers. When he announced his candidacy last Spring, few had any idea who he really was. For many, a vote for Mousavi was a vote against the system and a vote of no confidence against the regime itself. Today, Mousavi enjoys widespread popularity because he has stood up to the dictatorship and hasn't caved in to the pressures and threats. His popularity would just as easily evaporate if he sells out to the system.

Secondly, the present movement is distinctly democratic in content and in its aims. While practically all the 1979 participants in one way or other called for some form of democracy, none wanted it for the other groups in the struggle. That is decidedly not the case today. Decades of living under dictatorial rule by clerics has taught everyone important lessons in civic responsibility and tolerance. Even structurally, the Green Movement is made up of a vast number of small cells of like-minded people with lots of horizontal ties and few vertical ones.

Thirdly, unlike the violence-prone 1979 revolutionaries, present-day Greeners show a remarkable antipathy towards indiscriminate and mindless violence. In fact, this could be said to be the closest to civil non-violent struggle in memory. We welcome this development as a new form of struggle for social and political empowerment for the third world and beyond (see: Frontline, "A Winning Strategy" at pbs.org). The South African model--where regime henchmen were given blanket clemency--is all the more critical for us because for millions of our devout fellow citizens, support for the regime is unfortunately equated with maintaining faith in God and the prophet.

Finally, this brings us to the contention that our group is for subordinating workers' rights to some nebulous larger aims. What NILU member Homayoun Pourzad was saying in that interview was not that workers should put on hold the promotion of their class interests or that women and young people should not advance their interests. Any cursory glance at our English-language website, Iran Labor Report, would show that we are doing exactly opposite of what the N&L author wrote we are doing or saying. (The same could be said of Zahra Rahnavard, also treated unfairly by the author.) In fact, we are helping with organizing the unorganized at great risk to our security and safety.

What Pourzad said in the interview was that differences among the various Green Movement contingents should not be allowed to aid the enemy to the detriment of the movement. Our movement is still rather weak while the enemy is ruthless, powerful and extremely cunning. What makes them even more dangerous is the special combination of religion and right-wing politics which they excel at exploiting with devastating results. For instance, there are currently over 40,000 volunteers signed up for suicide missions in Iran. In 2005-2006, the mighty U.S. Army was almost brought to its knees in Iraq by less than 1,000 suicide mission volunteers.

The analogy is not unlike the Weimar Republic before Hitler's rise to power. Had the liberals, socialists and communists united against Hitler, instead of attacking one another, the Nazis would probably not have been able to capture power in 1933 or even later. We are at a historic juncture which we could ill afford to miss. Any move that makes us weaker must be avoided. Class, gender and ethnic differences must be respected and articulated comradely and amicably. This was and remains the gist of our position.

The Network of Iranian Labor Unions
April 17, 2010

Politics in America: The Tea Parties & The Religious Right (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes his first analysis for EA:

As the Tea Party phenomenon continues to gather pace, commentators still struggle to explain the appeal of this latest grassroots conservative movement.

The Tea Party is not a national political “party” with a stated platform of policies and principles. It is a protest campaign composed of thousands of local and state-wide groups, each concerned with how the actions of the Federal Government affect them in their community, and each expressing their resentment of the liberal Washington ‘elite’ through local action. There are efforts to coordinate these groups in a national crusade by organizations such as the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots, who use events like National Tax Day to show the mass support the Tea Party message receives, but they are secondary to the main objective of securing change in Washington through influence upon state elections.

What the different groups share, however, is a belief in certain traditional conservative values that need to be defended against the aggrandisement of Washington, which dates back to (and here you take your pick): President Obama’s healthcare and spending plans, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, the 16th Amendment of 1913 that established the federal income tax, or the 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) that sanctioned the expansion of federal government into areas formerly reserved exclusively to individual states by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.


Central to these Tea Party convictions are the need for a return to an original interpretation of the Constitution, and the desire to see taxes cut. These are backed, for many TPers, by their faith in the argument that America is a nation founded by God on eternal Divine principles, and whose resulting “exceptionalism” is threatened by a secular elite hellbent on destroying the spiritual foundations of the United States of America.
So the Tea Party movement is the latest manifestation of conservative discontent with progressive liberal programmes, one that differs little in priorities and aims from similar protest movements that have gone before. But that does not explain why, generation after generation, millions of Americans feel so passionately about these recurring issues to spend their time, money, and endeavour in attempting to reform a political structure that has proved so obdurate to change.

Here is one way into the phenomenon. The religious right do not like taxes. This is not an expression of economic resentment, as many assume, but a deeply felt moral objection, derived from the word of God, to the principle of taxation. The argument goes like this:
Mankind was created with the individual free-will to choose to follow, or not, the moral laws of God. People cannot be forced to act morally by any authority. Jesus did not compel the rich young ruler to give up his wealth. He gave him the choice, as He did all of us, to act charitably.

When the government usurps that function, e.g. taxation to pay for health care, then it breaks the First, and Great, Commandment that “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”. Government, instead of God, becomes the keeper of mankind’s conscience, and destroys the covenant between the individual and His Maker that salvation is achieved by voluntarily accepting the lessons contained in Scripture.

This desire to be allowed to pursue a personal relationship with God untrammelled by government interference underlies also the Tea Party’s calls for a limited Constitution and free markets. Their reverence for the intent of the Founding Fathers lies in the belief that they instituted a form of government that was based upon the word of God.
Not all of the TPers, of course, are believers in the religious roots of individual and political liberty. But the respect for God-given individual freedom imbues the movement, and gives it a moral impetus that those who dismiss it as merely a manifestation of disgruntled and myopic taxpayers would do well to understand. The question is whether the TP can harness that that religious impulse and turn it into a sustainable challenge to the hegemony of the Washington elite.

As a historian of conservative movements that have failed in the past, after exhibiting a similar burst of initial enthusiasm, I admit to a certain pessimism. But, as Frank Chodorov, the most influential individualist thinker of the 1940s and 1950s once remarked, at the seeming impossibility of conservatives taking back America from the New Deal liberal leviathan, “It’s fun to fight.”

LATEST Iran Urgent: The Deal on Uranium Enrichment (and US Response)

UPDATE 18 MAY, 1445 GMT: Ahh, so here's the apparent response of the Obama Administration, or at least Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: reduce the Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement to "a number of unanswered questions" and push forward with the high-profile sanctions drive in the United Nations. Clinton's statement, just made to a Senate committee:

“We have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of both Russia and China. We plan to circulate that draft resolution to the entire Security Council today. And let me say, Mr. Chairman, I think this announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide.”

Iran Document: Text of Iran-Brazil-Turkey Agreement on Uranium Enrichment

UPDATE 1745 GMT: The US Government has now made its formal response to the Tehran agreement. It's little more than a "hold the line" statement, issued by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. It gives no clue as to whether Washington was supportive of the Brazilian-Turkish mediation; instead it sets the next challenge: let's see the proposal go to the International Atomic Energy Agency and, possibly, let's see Iran suspend its unilateral push for 20-percent uranium:

We acknowledge the efforts that have been made by Turkey and Brazil. The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the IAEA before it can be considered by the international community. Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns. While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20% enrichment, which is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions and which the Iranian government originally justified by pointing to the need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. Furthermore, the Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October.

The United States will continue to work with our international partners, and through the United Nations Security Council, to make it clear to the Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds –-- and not simply words –-- its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions. Iran must take the steps necessary to assure the international community that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, including by complying with U.N. Security Council resolutions and cooperating fully with the IAEA. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program, as part of the P5+1 dual track approach, and will be consulting closely with our partners on these developments going forward.

The European Union and Britain have put out similar statements.

UPDATE 1245 GMT: A group of Iranian political activists have declared that today’s uranium agreement, from a “political and economic” stance, is in the interest of the Iranian nation.

Mohammad Bastehnegar, Ezzatollah Sahabi, Taghii Rahmani, Hosein Rafii, Reza Raistoosi, Hossein ShahHosseini, Azam Taleghani, Reza Alijani, and Nezameddin Ghahari asserted that the agreement could end economic sanctions against Iran and lead to “transparency” in Iran’s relationship with the world.

The statement calls for collaboration of both conservative and reformist political activists in supporting this government initiative.

UPDATE 1110 GMT: Trita Parsi gets to the heart of why this arrangement was struck when last October's very similar deal, which reached top-table discussions in Geneva between Iran, the US, and other powers, collapsed. He notes talks between Brazil's Lula and the Supreme Leader: "This is no longer Ahmadinejad's nuclear deal, this is Khamenei's nuclear deal."

UPDATE 1015 GMT: Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has offered more details of the proposed uranium swap at a press conference. From Press TV:

Iran will ask the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to station its personnel in Turkey to monitor the safe-keeping of the dispatched LEU [Tehran's 1200 kilogrammes low-enriched uranium]....The top diplomat underlined Iran will inform the IAEA of its decision "through official channels" within no more than seven days from the Monday meeting.
"Upon the positive response of the Vienna Group --- which includes Russia, France, the United States and the IAEA --- further details of the exchange will be elaborated through a written agreement and proper arrangement between Iran and the Vienna group that specifically committed themselves to deliver 120 cages of fuel needed for the Tehran research reactor (TRR)," noted Mottaki.

If the Vienna Group accepts Iran's terms and conditions, Mottaki said, both parties will "commit themselves to the implementation" of the deal, which requires Iran to deposit its LEU in Turkey within one month, and in return, the Vienna group will deliver 120 kg of fuel required for the Tehran reactor in no later than one year.

UPDATE 0755 GMT: How big is this story for Iranian state media? Islamic Republic News Agency, noting that "Ahmadinejad raised his hands in victory", devotes 6 of its top 9 stories to the agreement. (Fars, on the other hand, has not stepped into line: its top story is on British Foreign Secretary William Hague speaking about the assassination of a Hamas official in Dubai.)

UPDATE 0645 GMT: The Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement is for a swap of uranium outside Iran, and just as signficant, it involves the 1200 kilogrammes of Tehran's stock that the US and "Western" countries were seeking last autumn.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Monday that the Tehran government has agreed to a draft proposal whereby Iran will send some 1200 kg of its 3.5 percent enriched uranium over to Turkey in exchange for a total of 120 kg 20 percent....

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will officially receive a letter with regards to the swap deal "within a week".

According to a Press TV correspondent, the swap will take place nearly a month after receiving official approval from the Vienna Group, which consists of representatives from Iran, France, Russia and the US and the IAEA.

Now watch carefully for the reaction from Washington. If it is favourable, even cautiously favourable, we've got a major breakthrough.

---
The dominant story in both Iranian and non-Iranian media today is likely to be the announcement between Iran, Brazil, and Turkey of an agreed procedure for a deal on enrichment of Iran's uranium.

No details will be available until later today, so significant questions remain. It is not clear whether Tehran has given any way to the essential demand of the US and other members of the "5+1" (UK, France, Germany, Russia, China) for a swap of uranium outside Iran. Politically, Washington's position --- has it privately supported the Brazilian and Turkish discussions? --- is murky.

The seriousness of the talks, however, is indicated not only by their 17-hour duration on Sunday but also by the level of involvement. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's postponement on Friday of his trip to Iran did not, in the end, mean that Turkey had withdrawn altogether. Rather, this seems to have been a case of wait-and-see: Turkish "ministers" were involved throughout Sunday: once it was clear that an agreement was possible, Erdogan reversed his position and flew to Tehran, joining Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The core issue is how Iran's 3.5-percent uranium will be exchanged for 20-percent uranium, needed for the Tehran Research Reactor producing medical isotopes.