Author: Eli Clifton

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for October 5th, 2010:

Bloomberg: Raj Rajendran reports that recent Japanese sanctions against Iran may reduce oil exports from Iran by 25-percent, a reduction of 500,000 barrels per day. The sanctions, which were announced on September 3, lead to the suspension of new oil and gas investments in Iran and froze the assets of 88 organizations and 24 individuals who do business with Iran. Projections estimate Iranian crude oil production will drop from the pre-sanctions target of 5.3 million barrels to 3.34 million by 2015.

The Weekly Standard Blog: While The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz applauds the State Department’s announcement last week about sanctions enforcement, he calls attention to the “many European and Asian companies [that] continue to make deals with Iran,” including Chinese and Swiss companies. Last week FDD revealed the Swiss firm Cresesola TLS had sold Iran €1 billion of tunneling and heavy earth-moving equipment. Dubowitz, who calls for punitive measures against European, Chinese and Russian companies on a nearly weekly basis, warns that “If the Obama administration opts for only symbolic and selective measures, it could collapse our Iran policy, making it likely to require more drastic measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Financial Times: Najmeh Bozorgmehr writes Iran has dropped the espionage charges against Hossein Rassam, an Iranian national employed as the chief political analyst at the British embassy in Tehran. Although cleared of those charges, Rassam was hit with a charge of “propaganda against the regime.” That carries a 12 month sentence that will be suspended for five years, meaning Rassam can’t have any contact with foreign embassies or political groups. Nonetheless, the reduction of the charge indicates the weakness of those conspiracy theories that the British were behind the unrest following Iran’s disputed June 2009 presidential election.

The Wall Street Journal: While some hawks have squaked about an unnatural and nefarious Iranian influence in Iraq, WSJ’s Sam Dagher reports from Baghdad that Iranian clout over the Shiite community is an “unexpected casualty” of the post-election wrangling. While the anti-occupation cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, by lending his support, appears to have put Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in a good position for a second term, Dagher notes that the Islamic Supreme Council of Iran (ISCI) is no longer backing Maliki. ISCI is the Shiite party considered closest to Iran. The report also notes that the key Kurdish player in coalition negoatiations is not Jalal Talabani, the current president with strong ties to Iran, but Masoud Barzani, who “has had a difficult relationship with Iran” and holds the most Kurdish seats.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 29th, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Benoit Faucon and Spencer Swartz report on Iran’s announcement on Tuesday that it would begin exporting domestically refined gasoline. Iran has depended heavily on imported gasoline in the past. Yesterday’s announcement sends a message of defiance about international sanctions as well as an indicating that Iran has significantly boosted its domestic refinery capacity. “Iran has achieved self-sufficiency in production of gasoline,” said Ali Ashgar Arshi, the international affairs director at the National Iranian Oil Co. It also appears timed to echo statements from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the new sanctions have only made Iran stronger.

The Weekly Standard Blog: Bill Kristol posts an excerpt from the prepared text of Joe Lieberman’s speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations. Lieberman will say, “It would also be a failure of U.S. leadership if this situation reaches the point where the Israelis decide to attempt a unilateral strike. If military action must come, the United States is in the strongest position to confront Iran and manage the regional consequences. This is not a responsibility we should outsource.” “It is time to retire our ambiguous mantra about all options remaining on the table. Our message to our friends and enemies in the region needs to become clearer: namely, that we will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability — by peaceful means if we possibly can, but with military force if we absolutely must,” concludes Lieberman.

Commentary: Daniel Gordis, senior vice president of Jerusalem’s Shalem Center, writes in the October issue of Commentary on “The Other Existential Threat.” It’s not only the possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that poses a threat, he writes, but on a more existential level the potential of Iran possessing of such a bomb will hang over Israel’s head. In turn, this will revert Jews back “to the status of European victims-in-waiting,” “dependent on the choices their enemies make.” In outlining what is at stake for Israel, Gordis concludes with why he does not believe Israeli leaders will allow Iran to go nuclear and what his country needs from the United States: “If Barack Obama could come to understand in precisely what way this is a matter that goes to the heart of Israel’s very existence […] his administration might recognize the profound nature of the present moment and history’s call to this president to do what must be done.”

Spiegel Online: In a contentious interview, Iran’s nuclear agency chief Ali Akbar Salehi says that Iran “will not give up [its] guaranteed right to enrich uranium to a low level for civilian purposes” and accuses the new director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, of being biased against Iran. Salehi says he is not threatening to end cooperation with the IAEA, but is issuing a “friendly, but serious, warning that one should not allow oneself to be politically instrumentalized.” He considers the MEK’s allegations about a covert nuclear facility an “unjustified allegation,” and maintains Iran is still open to a deal to acquire fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 27th, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: L. Gordon Crovitz opines that Ahmadinejad’s statements and interviews over the past week, which twist or deny accepted truths—such as no one is in prison for participating in protests—makes him “an information pariah” needing to be taken seriously. “A leader who mocks all questions is thumbing his nose at core beliefs of our era, including that information wants to flow freely and that no one is above this law of increasing openness. What to do with an information pariah?” asks Crovitz. Borrowing a familiar neoconservative talking point, he concludes Winston Churchill knew the real nature of evil when he “…blamed his countrymen for adopting policies based on the hope that Hitler was not for real.”

Reuters: The Russian decision to ban the delivery of the S-300 air defense system to Tehran last week were done in compliance with UN sanctions. Moscow remains opposed to unilateral sanctions against Iran, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday. “If we work jointly, and if our Western partners are saying all the time that it is necessary to maintain a consolidated position on Iran, we need to decide whether we will have a consolidated position on all issues… but if something cannot be achieved, individual states will do it beyond agreements reached with the Security Council,” Interfax cites Lavrov as saying.

The Weekly Standard Blog: Jamie Fly, the Executive Director of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, asks “Is Obama up to the task?” of stopping Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Fly, who appears to have completely disregarded the possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough writes, “…the fact that President Obama went to New York even thinking that there might be some progress on the diplomatic front with Iran raises serious questions about his strategy for preventing a nuclear Iran.” Fly considers Obama’s efforts insufficient, aimed only at getting Iran back to the bargaining table rather than halting its alleged nuclear weapons program. Referencing Bob Woodward’s description of Obama in “Obama’s Wars” as “an indecisive president uncomfortable with his role as commander in chief,” Fly ends by questioning whether Obama can take on Iran.

The Weekly Standard: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues the west fails to grasp that “…the Iranian president lives in a parallel universe.” Gerecht, who made the case for an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in July, warns: “When we see Ahmadinejad solicit the arrival and “victory” of the Mahdi, who will usher in the end of time and paradise, our instinct is to pass over such words as a personal eccentricity or a pro forma invocation that must be a matter of politesse for pious Iranians…The General Assembly for him is the most important bully pulpit—a dais built by infidels who must give him, a devout Iranian peasant, the chance to speak for Allah, the Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali and his descendents, and the glorious Iranian nation, the great bulwark against unbelief and Western oppression.” Gerecht argues, that is impossible for Ahmadinejad or Supreme Leader Ali Khameni to make peace with the U.S. since it would go against their belief that they are, “insan-e kamil, ‘the perfect person,’ an age-old Islamic philosophical ideal.” In a rather ominous and cryptic final sentence, Gerecht concludes, “Perhaps before Obama leaves office, we will get to see whether ‘perfect men’ handle nuclear weapons better than capitalists and Communists.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 21st, 2010:

Reuters: In a special report, Louis Charbonneau writes Turkey, among other U.S. allies, allows Iranian banks with links to Iran’s alleged nuclear program to do business within their borders. “The fact that Turkey is allowing itself to be used as a conduit for Iranian activity via Turkish banks and the Turkish lira is making it possible for Iranian funds in Turkish guise to make their way into Europe,” said an intelligence report provided to Reuters by “a diplomat.” Charbonneau acknowledges that “much of the trade is legitimate” but “if Turkey becomes a virtual safe haven for Iranian banking activities, it will be easier for Tehran to dodge sanctions, according to diplomats.” (Neoconservatives, such as Michael Rubin, have been quick to question Turkey’s commitment to sanctions. Dr. Serkan Zorba wrote on LobeLog yesterday about the misinformation surrounding claims that Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan received $25 million from Iran.)

McClatchy: James Rosen reports on comments made by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Monday, when Graham said the U.S. must be prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “If you use military force against Iran, you’ve opened up Pandora’s box,” Graham told the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “If you allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, you’ve emptied Pandora’s box. I’d rather open up Pandora’s box than empty it.” He continued, “From my point of view, if we engage in military operations as a last resort, the United States should have in mind the goal of changing the regime.” “Not by invading (Iran), but by launching a military strike by air and sea,” advised Graham.

National Review: For the October 4 print edition of the right-wing magazine, former George W. Bush National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism, Juan Zarate, writes that sanctions against Iran are “biting, but it isn’t enough.” Zarate calls for further isolation to slow Iran’s nuclear program, support for internal dissent, and “build[ing] other forms of leverage.” The latter refers to the “military option.” Zarate supports his bullet-point recommendations by citing, in part, the neocon-written report Jim Lobe refers to as a “roadmap to war with Iran”: “Maintain a credible military option, as the Bipartisan Policy Center has recently recommended. This will keep the possibility of force in the mind of the Iranian regime and reassure our allies […] — and perhaps ask the Israelis not to attack Iranian nuclear sites.”

Weekly Standard: On the magazine’s blog, the Standard’s co-founder and editor Bill Kristol reproduces in full remarks made around Washington by Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the United States. Kristol picks out “key passages” which focus on what Oren calls “radical, genocidal Iran.” When speaking at synagogues, Oren asks congregants to put themselves in the shoes of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu in order to “stand with [Israel] as we resist Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,” and to “respect the decisions we take.” Kristol appears to interpret this as softening up a sympathetic U.S. audience for an Israeli attack on Iran: “It would seem that if President Obama does not act to stop Iran, Prime Minister Netanyahu will.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 18-20th, 2010:

NBC’s Meet the Press: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC’s David Gregory, “I don’t think the, the stars are lining up for an attack on Iran either by Israel alone, or Israel in concert with the United States, or the United States alone. I don’t think that’s going to happen.” Powell said the U.S. should focus on finding a way for Iran to have a nuclear program dedicated to power production. Powell flatly rejected the arguments that a nuclear weapons possessing Iran would pose a threat to the U.S. or that the Iranian government is suicidal. “[W]hat can they do with a nuclear weapon compared to what we could do in return? I don’t think it is–you know, they are interested in remaining in power. The easiest way for them to lose power is to seriously threaten or use such a weapon,” he concluded.

Reuters: International sanctions against Iran are having an impact and “creating leverage for diplomacy,” according to Stuart Levey, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. The Treasury Department’s curbs on financial institutions doing business with blacklisted Iranian entities have created a “bleak” investment landscape for Iran. Levey adds, “We believe Iran’s leadership was caught off guard by the speed, intensity and scope of the new measures, misjudging the strength of the international community’s will.”

The Washington Post: On Sunday, The Council on Foreign Relations’ Ray Takeyh arguedthe Obama administration’s emphasis on sanctions overlooks the domestic politics and ideologies which prevent Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei from making “subtle estimates of national interests.” “The Islamic Republic, however, is too wedded to its ideological verities and too subsumed by its rivalries to engage in such judicious determinations,” says Takeyh. He concludes the only way forward for the U.S. is to support “an Iranian political class that is inclined to displace dogma with pragmatism. And that still remains the indomitable Green movement.” Jeffrey Goldberg picked up on Takeyh’s piece today and claims the scenario described by Takeyh will result in a crisis, referencing his own Atlantic cover story, “The Point of No Return.”

ABC’s This Week: On ABC’s Sunday talk show, Christiane Amanpour sat down separately with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Jerusalem and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York, in town this week for the UN General Assembly. Clinton described sanctions as a “tool…not an end in themselves.” Sanctions were “biting,” she said, and called for Iran to return to the P5+1 talks over its nuclear program and allow full IAEA inspection. Ahmadinejad told Amanpour that all of Iran’s nuclear rector activity was monitored by camera, the IAEA was becoming politicized and the sanctions were “meaningless.” He did acknowledge he was taking “sanctions seriously” — a response to former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s request that Iran’s leadership not treat sanctions as a “joke.” However, Ahmedinejad also took exception to Clinton’s assessment of the effectiveness of sanctions: “Taking [sanctions] seriously is different from believing that they are effective.”

The Guardian: In the left-leaning British daily’s Comment Is Free section, the University of Maryland’s Manuel Hassassian and Edward Edy Kaufman make a case for linkage — that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal “could actually neutralise the Iranian nuclear peril.” They note if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “can offer a credible alternative [to Iranian support for Arab resistance groups on Israel’s borders], it offers excellent prospects for trumping the rejectionists’ appeal.” They point out Iran is one of the 57 Muslim countries that have endorsed a plan by the Arab League to support a peace deal, in which the 22 members of the Arab League said they would normalize relations with Israel. “This kind of linkage” — and Israeli-Palestinian peace deal first — “may be the only way to achieve results in which all the parties – Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and Iranians – can ‘win,’” write Hassassian and Kaufman, who are respectively Palestinian and Israeli.

As the U.S., British and French UN envoys call for expediting the process to set up a UN panel to monitor Iran’s compliance with sanctions, neoconservatives in Washington are increasingly focusing their attention on the countries which continue to trade with the Islamic Republic.

Numerous op-eds and opinion pieces have pointed to Russia, China, and to a lesser degree, Turkey as nations ultimately responsible should sanctions fail. Although not all pundits have taken this argument to its logical conclusion, some have suggested sanctions have already failed and it’s time to move forward with military options.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD) has been one of the more outspoken organizations on the dangers of Chinese and Russian sanction-busting trade with Iran. Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, respectively a fellow and executive director of FDD, wrote in a September 13 Wall StreetJournal op-ed that China and Russia will continue to fill "the void" unless America punishes their "subversiveness" on sanctions.

They concluded that:

All of the offending Russian and Chinese companies could be banned from receiving U.S. government contracts and forcibly divested from state pension funds.

Of course, the diplomatic and economic fallout from such an aggressive policy against Chinese and Russian companies would have consequences, which appear to be of little concern to the op-ed’s authors. This past July, Gerecht made the case for an Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities in a Weekly Standard article.

Earlier this month, the FDD released a report co-authored by Dubowitz, "Iran’s Chinese Energy Partners," which called for U.S. sanctions against Chinese companies that continue to engage in oil and gas projects in Iran.

Dubowitz, in a press release, said:

If the U.S. does not counter Beijing, then the progress the administration has made with the Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans, Canadians and Australians, as well as the scores of companies that have terminated their business ties with Iran, could unravel.

Last Friday’s report that Turkey might triple its trade with Iran over the next five years has already drawn the assurance of Commentary‘s Jonathan Tobin that "Iran Sanctions are Futile." American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Resident Scholar Michael Rubinwas incredulous that the U.S. is selling Turkey the latest F-35 Joint Strike Fighters "without so much as a study to ensure that Turkey cannot transfer the technology upon which our Air Force will depend to Iran."

While China, Russia and Turkey’s business dealings with Iran underscore the difficulty of imposing effective multilateral sanctions in a global economy, it’s worth considering what price must be paid to close the holes in the sanctions.

The Obama administration has made steady progress over the last year to improve relations with China and Russia. But with the recent falling out between Turkey and Israel over the Gaza flotilla, the Obama administration seriously risks damaging relations with one of the U.S.’s closest allies in the Muslim world.

While FDD’s Gerecht and Dubowitz may only regard a crackdown on sanctions-busting companies – or, for that matter, an outright acknowledgment that sanctions have failed because of Russian and Chinese obstinance – as items to be checked off prior to an inevitable Israeli or U.S. bombing run on Iranian nuclear sites, the costs might be higher than they would care to admit.

By putting the U.S.’s strategic and trade relationships with Russia, China and Turkey on the line, the proponents of “crippling sanctions” have dramatically raised the costs of their policies. Even neoconservatives admit that this policy – effective punitive measures against sanctions-busters – may itself trigger a potentially disastrous Israeli bombing run on Iran.

Dubowitz and Gerecht wrote:

Any U.S. action will surely infuriate Moscow and Beijing, as well as those in Washington who have worked to “reset” our relations with both countries. Russia and China could retaliate in a variety of hardball ways that could greatly complicate American and European strategic interests. If Russia were to start delivering S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Tehran, for example, it could well provoke an Israeli preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.