SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nuclear deal
The World Needs US Diplomacy, Not US Primacy
In the words of a European official, the Americans "thought they were kicking cans down the road, but they turned out to be hand grenades.”
Nov 16, 2023
The catastrophe in Israel and Gaza demonstrates yet again the truth of a remark by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan when asked about the greatest challenge for a statesman: “Events, dear boy, events.” Governments make elaborate plans for the conduct of foreign and security policy, only to find themselves scrambling to respond to some unforeseen development.
However, events like the Hamas attack on Israel or the Russian invasion of Ukraine do not come out of nowhere. They are the product of human decisions; and if the decisions themselves cannot be predicted in detail, the circumstances that produce them can be studied. That after all is why we have legions of intelligence analysts, foreign service officials, and “experts.”
The first lesson of the present horror for Western policymakers is therefore always to remember that the adversary has a vote, and its actions will be shaped by America’s own behavior. The second is that certain parts of the world are much more likely to generate disastrous events than others. The third is that the more areas of the world in which the United States involves itself, the more exposure to such events it has. The last lesson is that adversaries in one part of the world will inevitably try to take advantage of American difficulties in another.
By seeking primacy in every part of the world, the United States is ensuring that it will face threats and crises in every part of the world
In other words, the pursuit of U.S. primacy in every corner of the world (as laid down in the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” of 1992 and followed in effect by every subsequent U.S. administration) is a surefire guarantee that the United States will sooner or later find itself facing multiple crises simultaneously.
Twice since taking office the Biden administration has sought to deal with complex and dangerous international problems by shelving them while it dealt with something else. In the words of a European official, “they thought they were kicking cans down the road, but they turned out to be hand grenades.”
By the Spring of 2021, U.S. officials were declaring in private that the Minsk Agreement to solve the conflict in eastern Ukraine (providing for guaranteed autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine) was dead. They had, however, no thoughts at all on what to replace it with, other than to go on arming Ukraine and emphasizing support for Ukraine and NATO membership at some unspecified point in the distant future.
The administration’s hope was that the issue of Russia and Ukraine could be shelved while America concentrated on confronting a far more powerful rival, China. When Moscow made clear that it would not play along with this, the administration had no plan, either for full commitment to Ukraine or a diplomatic compromise with Russia. Only the extraordinary courage and resilience of Ukrainian troops in the first weeks of the war saved Ukraine from conquest and America from shattering humiliation.
In the Middle East, a renewal of the nuclear deal with Iran was blocked and delayed by U.S. demands that it should have been obvious would never be accepted by Tehran, in the belief that Tehran was not in a position seriously to harm the United States or Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was basically ignored completely, even as Israeli settlement policy progressively destroyed the possibility of the “Two State Solution” to which the U.S. remains officially committed.
Instead, the Biden administration followed the Trump administration in seeking to do an end-run around both issues by promoting a de facto alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia that would contain Iran and leave the Palestinians completely isolated and without support.
But of course Hamas was able to see through this U.S. plan perfectly well. The result is a disastrous new conflict that will among other things wreck any hope of Saudi-Israeli normalization, and could destabilize U.S. client states across the Middle East.
Certain voices in Israel and the United States are now seeking to widen this disaster by using it to promote an Israeli-U.S. attack on Iran, just as they used 9/11 to promote a U.S. attack on Iraq. One might almost assume that these voices are working for Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping — for very few things are more ardently yearned for in Moscow than a war between the U.S. and Iran. It would distract U.S. resources from Ukraine, allow Moscow to hit back at the U.S. by providing weaponry to Iran, and utterly discredit U.S. claims to defend a “rules based order” in the eyes of most of the world.
By seeking primacy in every part of the world, the United States is ensuring that it will face threats and crises in every part of the world; and even if it can in principle muster the resources to address them all, it is very unlikely that the American people will have the will to go on indefinitely making the economic sacrifices required.
In the generation since 9/11, it has been proved again and again that the U.S. cannot solve these issues through military force. It is time to give primacy a rest, and let diplomacy have a try.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'War Is Clearly Back on the Agenda': US Says Israel Was Behind the Drone Attack on Iran
"This latest act of sabotage conducted via a military attack inside Iran is a dangerous escalation and should be cause for concern for everyone who opposes war," said one campaigner.
Jan 30, 2023
Unnamed U.S. officials on Sunday confirmed suspicions that Israel was behind the weekend drone attack on a purported military facility in the Iranian city of Isfahan, heightening concerns that the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is gearing up for a broader assault on Iran as international nuclear talks remain at a standstill.
The New York Timesreported that the drone attack—which Iran says it mostly thwarted—was "the work of the Mossad, Israel's premier intelligence agency, according to senior intelligence officials who were familiar with the dialogue between Israel and the United States about the incident."
"American officials quickly sent out word on Sunday morning that the United States was not responsible for the attack," the Times noted. "One official confirmed that it had been conducted by Israel but did not have details about the target."
The Times added that the "facility that was struck on Saturday was in the middle of the city and did not appear to be nuclear-related."
The Wall Street Journal also reported Sunday that Israel carried out the attack, which was launched hours before U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in the Middle East for planned trips to Israel, Egypt, and the occupied West Bank.
Last week, CIA Director William Burns made an unannounced trip to Israel to discuss "Iran and other regional issues," according to the Journal.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said in a statement that he is "deeply concerned by the gathering clouds of war in the Middle East."
"This latest act of sabotage conducted via a military attack inside Iran is a dangerous escalation and should be cause for concern for everyone who opposes war," said Abdi. "War will only further empower the most violent and repressive forces inside Iran at the expense of ordinary Iranians demanding freedom, and will embolden reactionary elements in Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S."
"It is vital that we call for all sides to exercise restraint and to prioritize non-military solutions to the tensions threatening the region."
Israel's latest attack inside Iran's borders came after negotiations aimed at bringing the U.S. back into the Iran nuclear accord—which former President Donald Trump violated in 2018—hit a wall. President Joe Biden told a rallygoer in November that the Iran deal "is dead, but we're not gonna announce it."
Israel's spy agency has made clear that a newly negotiated nuclear accord would not stop its attacks on Iran.
"Even if a nuclear deal is signed, it will not give Iran immunity from the Mossad operations," Mossad chief David Barnea said in September. "We won't take part in this charade and we don't close our eyes to the proven truth."
Earlier this month, Netanyahu—a longtime Iran hawk who has been making false predictions about Tehran's supposed nuclear bomb ambitions for years—vowed to "act powerfully and openly on the international level against the return to the nuclear agreement."
In the absence of a nuclear agreement, the Journal reported Sunday that the U.S. and Israel are looking for "new ways to contain" Iran, which condemned the Saturday attack as "cowardly."
Citing the Journal's story, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft tweeted Sunday that "unlike before, when U.S. officials stayed silent or only confirmed Israel's role in attacks on Iran days later, now U.S. officials immediately name Israel and appear to hint that it is part of a joint effort to 'contain' Iran."
"War is clearly back on the agenda," Parsi added.
Abdi of NIAC echoed that warning, arguing that "the Islamic Republic's brutal crackdown against the Iranian people, its assistance in Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and its rapidly expanding nuclear program freed from the restraints of the JCPOA have pushed tensions to a boiling point."
"This, coupled with the rise of a hardline administration in Israel that appears determined to push the envelope militarily, an increasingly assertive Saudi royal family, and a U.S. that has been unable to turn the page on the Trump administration's destabilizing Middle East policies, makes for an exceedingly volatile cocktail," Abdi said. "For those of us who favor democracy, human rights, and peace, it is vital that we call for all sides to exercise restraint and to prioritize non-military solutions to the tensions threatening the region."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stability, Diplomacy, Peace: Scholars Say Benefits of Iran Deal Go Beyond Nonproliferation
Prominent academics laud deal as 'strong and positive step towards stabilizing the Middle East'
Aug 27, 2015
Just one day after people across the United States took to the streets to demonstrate their support for the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, over 70 prominent international relations scholars took to their pens on Thursday, signing an open statement declaring the pact to be a "strong and positive step towards stabilizing the Middle East, beyond its undeniable non-proliferation benefits."
One of numerous declarations backing the deal in the lead-up to the U.S. congressional vote, Thursday's missive stands out for looking beyond the nuclear component of the deal by speaking to broader benefits such as the de-escalation of conflict and opening of pathways for diplomacy.
Furthermore, the statement is signed by some of the world's most renowned experts, including Middle East historian Rashid Khalidi and scholar and activist Noam Chomsky. Its signatories include experts in Iranian history and Middle Eastern social movements, as well as economics and religious academics.
"The Middle East is in turmoil. It is suffering from a broad range of problems that all, one way or another, contribute to the instability plaguing the region," states the letter, which the National Iranian American Council organized. "While the region's problems have many sources, one critical driver of instability has been the dysfunctional relationship between the West and Iran in general, and U.S.-Iran tensions in particular."
The scholars argue that the deal "can prod constructive diplomacy in ever wider circles across the region," including regarding the conflict in Syria. The letter states that the nuclear deal will not automatically or immediately bring stability to the region. But reactivating diplomatic channels between the United States and Iran is a necessary first step.
Conversely, the declaration warns, "Congressional rejection of the deal will further destabilize the region. Such a move would isolate the United States while freeing Iran from the nuclear constraints the deal would impose on it. Beyond the proliferation risk this would entail, US-Iran tensions would increase again, reigniting Washington and Tehran's gravitation towards a military confrontation."
The academics join a growing chorus of support for the deal, including a joint letter released Thursday from more than 70 U.S. organizations calling on Congress to pursue "diplomacy, not war."
The missives come as Congress nears the conclusion of its August recess. After that, a key vote will be held on whether to approve the deal reached between Iran, the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union in mid-July. As per recently passed legislation, the U.S. House and Senate were given 60 days to review the final accord.
Amid a well-heeled campaign to reject the diplomatic agreement--backed by legislative hawks, AIPAC, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu--people in Iran, the United States, and across the world have been escalating a campaign in support of the deal.
In an article published last week, Chomsky argued that the rogue nations that pose the "gravest threat" to world peace: the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, organizers in the Iranian diaspora have staged rallies around the world backing the agreement, and numerous Iranian dissidents, former political prisoners, and civil society organizers have thrown their weight behind the pact, which they argue paves the way to much-needed relief from devastating sanctions and government repression.
In the words of Fakhrossadat Mohtashamipour, activist and wife of Iranian political Prisoner Mostafa Tajzadeh: "The highest cost imposed by the sanctions is paid by the people, particularly the low-income and vulnerable groups."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular