Headlines, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Weapons, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Weapons

New Push in U.S. for Tougher Sanctions, War Threats Against Iran

WASHINGTON, Jan 15 2013 (IPS) - Four U.S. non-proliferation specialists are urging the Obama administration to impose tougher economic sanctions against Iran and issue more explicit threats to destroy its nuclear programme by military means.

In a 155-page report, the specialists, who were joined by the head of a right-wing pro-Israel lobby group, the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD), said Washington should declare its intent to institute a “de facto international embargo on all investments in, and trade with” Iran, excepting food and medicine, if it does not freeze its nuclear-related work.

The calls come amidst speculation over a critical meeting between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia – plus Germany (P5+1), which have met over the last two months in an apparent effort to unify their positions before meeting with Iran. That meeting has not yet been scheduled, but most observers believe it will take place at the end of the month.

The report, “U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East,” also said Washington should “increase Iranian isolation, including through regime change in Syria” and “undertake…overt preparations for the use of warplanes and/or missiles to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities with high explosives”.

Only if Tehran provided “meaningful concessions”, among them suspending all uranium enrichment and heavy water-related projects, closing the underground enrichment facility at Fordow, and accepting a highly intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections regime – should sanctions relief be considered, said the report, which was co-authored by FDD’s president, Mark Dubowitz, and David Albright, a physicist who heads the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).

In that respect, the recommendations appeared to reflect more the position held by Israel than that of the Obama administration, which has suggested that it will not necessarily insist on a total suspension of uranium enrichment – a demand that Iran has consistently rejected and which many Iran specialists believe is a deal-killer – as a condition for possible sanctions relief.

“The report does not offer a realistic formula for negotiating a satisfactory agreement on limiting Iran’s nuclear programme,” said Greg Thielmann, a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association (ACA) and a former top State Department analyst on proliferation issues. “It would require Iran to capitulate on virtually all fronts.”

“Some of the measures it suggests would be likely to disrupt P5+1 unity….and the maximalist requirements it cites for an agreement could convince Tehran that the U.S. objective is regime change, rather than full compliance with its obligations to the IAEA,” he noted.

In at least one respect, however, the report departed from Israel’s views. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, warned in September that Tehran could reach what the report called the “critical capability” to quickly build a bomb without detection as early as this spring. The reported concluded that mid-2014 was more likely, although it noted an earlier date was also possible.

“The focal point wasn’t to say, ‘Saddle up, we’re going to war in six months,'” said Leonard Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies and a co-chair of one of the five task forces that contributed to the report. “This was a more careful assessment of how much time we had, and it allows the sort of (sanctions) pressure, which has been mounting, to have more impact.”

Iranian officials have suggested over the last several months that they are willing to make major concessions, including halting their enrichment of uranium up to 20 percent, transferring a substantial portion of their 20-percent enriched stockpile out of the country, and accepting enhanced IAEA inspections, provided they receive major sanctions relief in exchange. But they have also insisted that their right to enrichment of up to five percent is nonnegotiable.

The P5+1 appear divided over how much sanctions relief to offer and in what sequence. Recent reports indicate that Washington and Paris are pressing to require Iran to implement all of these measures, as well as closing Fordow and clearing up all questions raised by the IAEA regarding alleged military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme, before any major easing of sanctions can happen.

The new report, which came out of a series of “roundtables” that included presentations by senior administration officials, clearly favours an even tougher stance.

It explicitly endorsed a letter – reportedly drafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – to Obama signed by 73 U.S. senators last month that warned, “There should be absolutely no diminution of pressure on the Iranians until the totality of their nuclear problem has been addressed.” The report called for intensified sanctions and more explicit military threats by the administration.

It also called for stepping up covert action against Tehran’s nuclear and missile programmes and exerting greater pressure on China, Hong Kong, Turkey, and the Gulf kingdoms to halt all commerce with Iran.

While the report covered other non-proliferation issues in the Middle East and North Africa, it skipped lightly over Israel, the region’s only nuclear power, noting merely that the Jewish state will consider disarmament initiatives only after all its neighbours make peace with it.

The dearth of attention to Israel, which, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), was described by Thielmann as “conspicuous” given the intended scope of the report.

The report also said Washington should threaten the Islamist-led government in Cairo with tough sanctions if it takes steps to gain nuclear capability.

That the report’s recommendations coincided closely with Israel’s positions may have been due in part to the heavy involvement in the project by staff members from both FDD, which has been a leading proponent of “economic warfare” against Iran, and the Dershowitz Group, a media relations firm with FDD shares office space and reportedly cooperates closely.

Several Dershowitz account executives included in the report’s acknowledgments have previously been associated with Hasbara Fellowships, a group set up by the right-wing, Israel-based Aish HaTorah International, to counter alleged anti-Israel sentiment at U.S. universities. IPS inquiries into the project’s sources of funding went unanswered.

The endorsement by Albright, who is frequently cited by mainstream U.S. media as an expert on the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, of the report’s policy-oriented recommendations, such as making a military attack on Iran more credible, came as a surprise to some proliferation experts, including two who participated in the roundtables but asked to remain anonymous because of the off-the-record nature of the proceedings.

“His expertise is a technical one, but this is mostly a political paper,” noted one expert. “This covers areas that go far beyond his expertise.”

Republish | | Print |

  • zlop

    For not using U$ currency, Iran, like Libya, will be destroyed.
    “Turkey Swaps Gold for Iranian Gas”
    “Rumor: India to Buy Iranian Oil with Gold, China May Follow”

  • BobFromDistrict9

    It has nothing to do with not using US currency. It has everything to do with power politics.

  • BobFromDistrict9

    The Arab oil states have taken in some $1trillion last year in oil revenues. Sound’s like they are rich doesn’t it?

    Well, Saudi Arabia is not a rich country. The rulers are extremely wealthy, but the people are not. Saudi Arabia benefits from high oil prices. All the oil countries of the world benefit from high oil prices. Big oil benefits from high oil prices.

    The invasion of Iraq shot the price of oil up. The sanctions on Iran push the price of oil up.

    Benjamin Netanyahu and his government benefit from hostility with Iran. The current oppressive regime in Tehran benefits from hostility against Iran? How so? They get to paper over and divert from domestic problems by pointing to an enemy who has to be dealt with before they can concentrate on those problems.

    The only ones who actually do not benefit from hostility between Iran and the rest of the world are the people being hurt by sanctions and the high price of oil. In other words, most of the population of the world.

    How else would you manage to create an alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia and right wing extremists in the United States? Who could imagine it?

    Drumming up war talk is an old technique for a government that cannot provide for it’s people to hold, and gain more, power over it’s people. If you can stir up fear and hate against another country you can put aside your failings and focus on holding power.

    If you can enlist not only those who will gain wealth from this, but also the government of the target of your hate, you can run this game a very long time.

    If the US pulls back, and declares acceptance of Tehran’s offer, the sanctions must come off, the price of oil will fall, the Netanyahu regime will fall in short order, and the Tehran regime will experience an Arab Spring before you know it.

    No wonder they can’t achieve an agreement, too expensive to the power players.

  • zlop

    Abandoning U$ global currency, denying Banking Profits, is a motivation.
    Those who irritate the bankers get nullified.
    (Jesus, Czar Nicholas, Lincoln, Kennedy, Gaddafi …)

    Additionally, Geopolitically — In preparation with war with China,
    mopping up the Mohammedans.

  • zlop

    Sanctions are an act of War.
    As was Iraq and Libya destroyed, so will Syria.
    Then, similar to, too successful pre WW I Germany — China next.

titus kennedy books