Is Congress Trying to Convince Iran that US Policy Is Really Regime Change?

John Glaser, December 10, 2013

The House of Representatives is currently considering putting forth a vote on additional sanctions on the Iranian economy. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has declared unequivocally that additional sanctions would mean “the entire deal is dead.”

Well, that seems to be the point. This piece in Al Monitor authored by Daniel Kurtzer and Thomas Pickering, two former U.S. diplomats, along with former Iranian diplomat Seyed Hossein Mousavian, spells it out in plain English:

[I]f the West does not lift the specified sanctions or, worse, should US Congress or another country actually impose greater sanctions during this six-month period, it will be a clear sign that the West is not interested in a negotiated deal and that the United States has not distanced itself from a policy of regime change.

I argued something similar in a piece for Al Jazeera back in September. On the road to high-level diplomatic negotiations, Washington’s biggest obstacle was in convincing Iran we weren’t solely after regime change. Typically, rival states don’t engage in good faith negotiations if one is convinced the other is out to destroy their regime.

But Congress is doing everything in its power to make sure not to disabuse the Iranians of this view. They say it will strengthen the West’s negotiating hand, as if they are pretending not to hear the Iranians saying explicitly that talks will fall apart if more sanctions are imposed.




8 Responses to “Is Congress Trying to Convince Iran that US Policy Is Really Regime Change?”

  1. I think that there are strong competing interest groups in the US. Congress is owned by military contractors and the Israel lobby. This group wants war. The other group looks like it is in the executive branch. Seymour Hersh mentioned in his interview with Democracy Now an important piece of information. He said it was the military, not the American people who prevented Obama from attacking Syria. I think congress doesn't want to take responsibility for war. It could cost them their lucrative seat when it ends up being a huge debacle.

  2. It is quite simple.
    The preferred US policy is regime change. The bottom line for the past 40+ years has been to prevent any regional hegemon from emerging in the area as Kissinger tells us. Perhaps now that the US has its hands full trying to take down China-cum-Russia, it has to settle for a neutral Iran which will not take sides in the "pivot." Not optimal for the Empire but acceptable for the moment.

  3. Thinks for add blog and news about Convince Iran.United state and Iran is two power full country . I think that there are strong compensation between us and Iran. Amazon.com

  4. I also think Hersh's remark about the military, and not overwhelming popular opposition, forcing Obama to stand down on Syria was quite interesting. CJCS Gen. Dempsey's opposition to such an attack was well known, though he had to hold his tongue once Obama pushed for this strike. Maybe those realists in the military/CIA will also prevail if it comes to an attack on Iran. We can only hope.

  5. very nice

  6. The issues related to sanctions against Iran, is not easy to accept but it should be used when needed.

  7. First of all, I long ago declared eternal hostility towards anything that “expands the government’s tool box” or its bank account or its bathing-suit areas or whatever else it wants to expand. But the larger point is that it is clear this initiative is just a reiteration of the hypercritical approach to tyranny Washington has displayed for decades.

  8. First of all, I long ago declared eternal hostility towards anything that a??expands the governmenta??s tool boxa?? or its bank account or its bathing-suit areas or whatever else it wants to expand. But the larger point is that it is clear this initiative is just a reiteration of the hypercritical approach to tyranny Washington has displayed for decades.