Iran not for the first time is on the receiving end of a barrage of criticism for not being transparent in its nuclear programme. Ever since Barack Obama become US president, Iran has been told to declare all its nuclear sites and halt enrichment activity. Obama under Israeli pressure has reiterated that it will impose crippling sanctions on the Gas rich state by the beginning of October 2008 if it did not comply.
The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was carved out in 1968 and Iran became a signatory in 1970. It is well known that Iran under the Shah had begun its nuclear activity in collaboration with French and German companies.
Khomeini halted Iran's nuclear activity in 1979, whilst Rafsanjani, when he came to power resumed Iran's nuclear programme in 1995. The nuclear programme continued during the reformist period (1997-2005) under Khatami. It was in 2003, after the occupation of Iraq that a number of exiled Iranian's made public that Iran was pursuing a secret and unsafe nuclear programme and was hiding the programme from the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Based on this, the chief of IAEA, Mohammed el Baradai prepared a report and presented it to the IAEA. This is when the Iranian Nuclear Crisis gained momentum.
During the rule of Khatami in 2003 an ‘additional protocol' was signed which allowed, IAEA inspectors to carry out checks without notice as Iran could be hiding a number of installations during planned and scheduled inspections.
Iran ceased Uranium enrichment for the sake of negotiations, however the Troika' of Germany, France and Britain refused to guarantee Iran's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran therefore resumed its uranium enrichment programme.
The US, since this crisis began has done everything it can to sabotage a possible solution. Whilst the European ‘Troika' are engaged in negotiations with Iran to find a solution to the problem, the US has constantly delayed a possible solution. Whenever the negotiations reached a point of near-solution, US officials would issue a statement with an implied warning that the US had all options open to it - even after the Troika made progress on a solution.
For instance in April 2007, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief envoy, two days after his meeting with Larijani on 25th April 2007, called upon Washington to open all channels of communication with Tehran including the nuclear issue and added that the Iranians, including their higher authorities are open to such a dialogue. Solana had in his talks with Larijani proposed that both parties abandon their positions in favor of a mid-way solution in good faith. But Washington backed off insisting that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment as a pre-condition for any direct dialogue. Iran's nuclear enrichment was only at 5% which is well below the weaponisation limit. A nuclear warhead needs an enrichment of 95%.
This shows that the US has no intention of solving this conflict and it has actually ensured no solution is ever reached.
The Bush regime in its first term was dominated by neoconservatives who held the opinion that the best way to control the people of the Middle East was through the promotion of democracy through forcible regime change. This model failed soon after the invasion of Iraq, and set in motion a vigorous policy debate amongst American policy makers. The Bush administration in its second term made some adjustments and abandoned this approach. Nevertheless, it was unable change its rhetoric towards Iran because the bellicose language helped the US aggressively push its missile shield programme in face of stiff Russian opposition. Additionally, it enabled the US to enter into new security pacts with the frightened gulf countries. The close ties between the Jewish lobby and Bush administration prevented it from removing the military option off the table-even though the probability of war between US and Iran had greatly diminished.
Despite the continuous imposition of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, the West is nowhere close to halting its enrichment programme. The US has exploited the five year old negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran to coax the Europeans into a protracted discussion over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Furthermore, America has added fuel to the fire through the bravado of the neoconservatives and doggedness of Ahmadinejad, which has resulted in an atmosphere of war and created perpetual tensions in the region. By doing so, America has gained a strategic advantage by persuading the Gulf Arab countries to acquire nuclear energy, by nudging the Israelis into a security pact and by permitting Iran to divert its civilian programme to build atomic bombs. In December 2008 the US State Department announced that the US was close to concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United Arab Emirates. The so-called 1-2-3 agreement would be similar to the nuclear cooperation accord the United States reached with India in 2005. It would allow the United States to sell nuclear fuel, equipment and technology to the UAE. Similar agreements were also being pursued with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In summary, America is working towards the nuclearization of the Middle East.
Aside form all the rhetoric, the US and Iran have cooperated on a number of issues which has protected American interests in the region These include supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in the Levant, strengthening the Iraqi government through the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and stabilising Afghanistan. Official contact has gradually grown since the end of the Bush term. America even snubbed Israeli advances to attack Iran. America played down Israel's show of air power over the Mediterranean in November 2008 and has refused to sell the powerful GBU-29 bunker-busters bombs.
When Iran sits down on October 1st 2009 to negotiate, Obama is in a very weak position. Since his honeymoon came to an end, various factions have pushed Obama into a corner that will only exasperate Obama's options. Iran's declaration of a second enrichment site only complicates matters as it shows an intelligence failure and intelligence challenge faced by Israel and the US in drawing up military contingencies. Until US intelligence is able to ascertain the number of nuclear sites it becomes impossible to halt Iran's nuclear programme. Obama is finding the healthcare reform bill being challenged domestically and Israeli lobby, pushing for military action if nothing substantial comes out of the October 1st talks. Obama will need to achieve something substantial to tackle domestic opposition.
With regards the threat of crippling sanctions, no sanctions regime is water tight. The real vulnerability in the sanctions comes from Russia. Iran has become a major pressure point in Russia's ongoing geopolitical tussle with the United States, and Moscow has signalled in a number of ways that it isn't going to be shy about using its leverage with Tehran to turn the screws on Washington. Moscow has a list of core demands that revolve around the basic concept of the West respecting Russian influence in its former Soviet periphery. As long as the United States continues to rebuff these demands and write off Russia as a weak power, the Russians not only can refuse to participate in sanctions but they can also blow the entire sanctions regime apart. The more bogged down the United States is in the Islamic world, the more Russia weakens the US.
The Obama administration is pressing ahead with normalising US relations with Iran as both nations have virtually the same interests in the region. The pace of the normalisation process will be slow and America will employ a series of carrots and sticks to mould the Iranian regime to implement its policies and protect US interests.
The Middle East is moving from being a uni-polar region where the US enjoyed uncontested hegemony to a multi-polar region with both China and Russia now moving in the region. The introduction of NATO is ominous sign in that America wants to safeguard the hydrocarbons of the Middle East from Russia and China. Iran will serve as America's lynchpin in providing energy security and both the US and Russia are competing over influence in Iran. The spread of nuclear technology in the Middle East under US auspices signals that from a geo-strategic perspective, America is looking to completely surround Russia and China with nuclear armed states stretching from Eastern Europe to the Asian pacific.
The debate about Iran being independent and potentially Islamic or even a Shi'ah state, Iran is nothing other then pragmatic without any consistent basis from where it derives it's polices. Iran saved Iraq from becoming America's Vietnam and whilst traditionally the reformists reached out to the West both the conservatives and the reformists are in bed with the US. The Muslims of the region and beyond have been manipulated before and served as US pawns to bring down the Soviet Union. Today, Obama and some of his advisors believe that this feat can be repeated against Russia and China. The Muslim Ummah must learn from its past experience and turn the tables on these major powers by re-establishing the Khilafah which will make these powers fight each other and raise high the Islamic banner over their destruction...inshallah.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Adnan
said:
 |
The US has plans to bring the oil reserves of the middle East under its grip. The Khilafah no doubt would be an obstacle to this, the sunni/shiah fracture would in all cases be a very key tool in this whole strategy. Most of oil in the Middle East is actually in Shiah dominated area’s and an arc of crisis has long been seen as the way forward by US planners. Saudi oil lies primarily in Eastern Saudi, including the ghawar oil field, the worlds largest, these are shi’ah dominated areas. To the North in Iraq the oil fields straddle the South of the country – shiah dominated through to central iraq, the remainder of the regions oil is in Iran, with reserves in Kuwait and the gulf. US policy makers have favoured organised chaos around these area’s, for shiah loyalty the US would provide security, hence gaining the coveted oil reserves of the region. Fundamentally the people of Iran need to decide between the US and the Khilafah. Whilst there are some fiqhi/political differences with mainstream shiah, it should be remembered that that there are even more differences amongst sunni schools. We also have much in common with the shi’ah. The sunni hold Imam Ali with high regard, the sunni’s agree Muawi’yah was wrong in the manner he dealt with Imam ali when he was leader we also agree Yaazid was a usurper to the thrown and an illegitimate ruler. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abu Aisha
said:
 |
Jzk for an excellent analysis. I am of the opinion that Iran will be built as a military leader over the middle east, not least as a surrogate to the missile shield program, but to act as a US ally against a future sunni Khilafah state. I mention the latter because as America's view of its methods of projection in the middle east changed after the replacement of the neo-cons with the 'realists' it is forced to think about an alternative strategy because it cannot continue to colonise by force through regime change in any significant way (that policy is now some what discredited and highly unlikely to return) and its role and security guarantor to Europe is discredited as America weakens politically and economically, so aside from the EU-US small battles the overall picture of the big brother needs to be maintained too. All this coerces America into establishing the strong subordinate alliance in favour of regime change, for the sake of more than just its own interests in the region (and if this case is sold to Russia/EU they may well reluctantly allow the scenario to play through with their own conditions etc.. but they would pose less resistance). Additionally, America needs to leave a lasting policy on the region in a cost effective way while ensuring its own security, even if at the perceived expense of Israeli security (while simultaneously creating a buffer against China & Russia), building a strong Iran will achieve all of this. To achieve this objective to make Iran primarily the stronger arm of America in the region to secure the American interests and building /helping to build the military might of Iran will help to secure this relationship (given the chronology of events, it is likely this understanding will already have been agreed upon). However, having tasted fighting the Muslims, it knows the greatest threat to American interests will be the Khilafah state and America wishes to purchase as a mercenary the Iran state to fight the Khilafah state on its return. This is the new security solution after the defeat of the neo-con vision for the middle east and the use of a Shi’a state to accomplish it (knowing full well the theological barriers in Iran to establish a Khilafah system, thus using a Shi’a state to counter any likely ‘sunni’ khilafah state). America was taught how to pitch Shi’a against Sunni in Iraq and so it is using these lessons to establish a security status in its favour for the immediate and medium term in the middle east, time will tell how successful it is given the relative weakness of America these days. We may see more moves such as this in the immediate future and ear mark the potential candidates that may have been targeted by America. Additionally, Iran is not the Khilafah but a theological debate with Iran to induce an acceptance for the Khilafah model and given its political interest to support the Khilafah state would be a critical activity and one which may only have a year or so to complete given the pace of events as they unravel. I further suspect that we may be hearing the nuclear announcement of Iran very soon, and remember America is the only colonizing power with experience of controlling potentially Islamic militarily nuclear states, namely Pakistan so America would be the only candidate for feeling comfortable to allowing Iran to make the nuclear announcement. Apologies for the lack of evidences supplied, much of this is projection of previous proven analysis and personalities involved. Jzk Abu Aysha |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Adnan
said:
|
Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israeli and anti US rhetoric is purely for domestic consumption. He is part of the conservative camp, who believe in the revolutionary ideas of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. The conservatives and the US do not trust each other and view each other with disdain. Hence Ahmadinejad’s support base views the US with much mistrust and hence are anti-US and this is why Ahmadinejad constantly attacks both the US and Israel. HAMAS and Hizbollah are not able to achieve their interests on their own, due to them being weak or not having sufficient control over the levers of power. As a result when they evaluate what political actions to undertake they are generally pragmatic rather then sincere to any ideas as sticking to their positions is impossible when you have nothing to bargain with |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Adnan
said:
|
LAVENT THEATRE Sarkozy unlike his predecessors has drawn close to the US, this is something he promised during his election campaign. Sarkozy is known to be a Neocon and he actually has Jewish heritage – his mother is Jew. Because of all these factors the competition between the US and France in Lebanon was replaced with cooperation rather than competition. However it appears that Britain placed a spanner in the works. This is because when Sarkozy met the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 27th March 2008, where talks were taking place with regards the global financial crisis and the European response. After this meeting France become hostile with the US in Lebanon, especially since both the US and France agreed to reach some compromise on Lebanon with France – The US has in fact delayed a solution. It now has become cleat that the US has no plans to share Lebanon with France and hence the French-US conflict has entered a new phase. It should be remembered that Capitalist states believe in ‘the ends justifies the means.’ Hence they will even contradict their core beliefs if benefit can be achieved. So as an example the US contradicted the free market to save its economy and threw human rights aside when arresting Muslims in Afghanistan. Capitalist states also have no problem competing in one region of the world and cooperating in another region, each theatre is treated according to its own circumstances, irrespective of the fact that such nations could be working against each other in other parts of the world |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Adnan
said:
|
HAMAS Whist there is no doubt HAMAS has amongst its ranks many sincere sons of the Ummah and has even undertaken actions which the Ummah is collectively proud of, over time however a number of developments have effected the orientation of the movement. HAMAS was formed after FATAH and was actually established on the same lines, i.e. the forming of a resistance movement that would liberate Palestine from East to West. It even criticised FATAH for having recognized the Jewish State and for its willingness to accept the 1967 borders. HAMAS contested the election in 2006 – which it won, which was a condition agreed for an independent viable Palestinian state. It participated in a government that was under occupation. Its real betrayal was the Mecca Accords, which actually agrees to a Palestinian state on the 1967-occupied lands along with a Jewish State over most of the Palestinian territories. HAMAS even dropped the call for the destruction of Israel Palestine from its election manifesto. Khalid Mashal HAMAS spokesmen has declared on numerous occasions that HAMAS would end the its armed struggle against Israel if Israel withdrew to its pre-1967 borders and recognized Palestinian rights In an interview with a Western journalist earlier during the year Mashal said “Hamas has declared it’s acceptance of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories; we have joined the political process; we have entered short-term truces with Israel – this is the reality that the world needs to deal with” We’re willing to open a new page with the US and Europe.” The reality unfortunately is that HAMAS is a weak movement that has absolutely no bargaining power, even though it has many sincere people amongst its ranks. This is why it has to come onto some middle ground, because they have nothing to bargain with, this makes them very easy to manipulate. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Saeed
said:
 |
Salam bro, could u please elaborate on how Hamas has accepted the two state solution and what are the indications that they have done so? JazakAllah |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Saeed
said:
|
"With regards HAMAS in Palestine, its acceptance in words or deeds of the two state solution, is exactly the US plan for the region". Bro could u please explain how hamas has accepted the two state solution and what r the indications that they have accepted it? JazakAllah |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Adam Khan
said:
 |
I concede that what you say makes an awful lot of sense - politically and historically However, this is the first time I've come across an analysis that comprehensively strings all of these multi-dimensional facts together into a cohesive narative . . . it does make sense I was, nevertheless, intrigued to learn that the historic rivalry between France and the United States ceased with the election of President Sarkozy and that Paris and Washington are now cooperating in the Levant. Does this mean that the 'Lebanese Theatre' and all its characters will be more cooperative with each other, especially, the respective camps of Hezbollah and Fouad Siniora !? I, also, agree that HAMAS is a very dangerous movement with regards to the interests of Islam and Muslims. I believe that Muslims of the region are aware of the fact that HAMAS has accepted the US-backed "two-state" solution to the Middle East conflict. Those that have read into the detail of such a proposal will know that this is - IN FACT - a ONE STATE solution for Zionism and a pseudo-state for the Muslims of Palestine . . . a unique entity which has all the trappings of a conventional state, but, without a military capacity to defend its people, no rights over its own airspace, no capability to police its own borders and dependant on Tel Aviv for access to water and economic resources . . . oh and I, almost, forgot . . . NO JERUSALEM !! The great lesson of history (in general) and Islamic history (in particular) is that a JUST PEACE is only possible through political strength HAMAS and FATAH are symbolic of Muslim political weakness, impotence and sterility . . . they haven't got the credentials to deliver peace for the Muslims . . . forget about Jerusalem (that goal can only be secured by the sons and daughters of Islam) >> Salah Ud Din |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Simoom,Bangladesh!
said:
 |
2.US may try to gain own interests using Hamas & Hizbollah (through Iran, through process of burgaining with Iran); but how Hamas-Hizbollah evalutes the US involvent along with their role(whether conciously or subconciously)? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Simoom,Bangladesh!
said:
|
1.What are the political objectives behind Ahmadinejad's continuous fiercefull speech against Israel, e.g. wipe out from world map (as it seems, such speech creating more sympathy & moral ground worldwide generally in favour of Israel)? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Adnan
said:
|
US INTERESTS IN THE LAVENT To understand how the US has benefited from Iran’s actions in the Levant through Hamas and Hizbollah ones needs to understand the politics being played out. In Lebanon France was given the mandate for Lebanon after WW1, It gave so called independence to Lebanon around WW2, but maintained its influence through its French educated elites and economic aid. The US managed to gain influence once the Tai’f Accord was signed, as this legitimised the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. Syria protected US influence in Lebanon when it sent its armed forces there under US orders until the assassination of Rafiq al Hariri. President Chirac of France exploited the assassination by raising international public opinion against America, Syria, and all their allies who were the de-facto rulers over Lebanon at the time of assassination. The conflict between American and France continued in Lebanon and both nations have used whatever means available to them to maintain their hegemony. America wants to retain its hold over Lebanon as in previous years, while Europe – led by France is attempting to restore its old colony. France saw an opportunity in the Hariri assassination crisis to escalate the conflict against America and its ally Syria and thus realize its dream of hegemony over Lebanon. The EU led by France succeeded in Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon and through UN resolutions managed the handover of senior Syrian officials—many of them close to Assad to be tried by a tribunal under the auspices of the UN. Furthermore, the resolutions demanded cessation of support to Hizbollah and for Syria to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty. These resolutions and the assassinations of prominent politicians have deeply divided Lebanon into pro-American and pro-EU camps. The Lebanese President at the time of the assassination Emile Lahoud and Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berry have repeatedly thwarted Fouad Siniora’s attempts to cast parliamentary votes to legalise the jurisdiction of the UN tribunal, whereas the mass demonstration by Hizbollah have sought to embarrass Siniora’s government internationally. Hence Lebanon is divided between Pro-USA and Pro-European (led by France) camps. Lebanon has a political system called confessionalism. High-ranking offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups. The President has to be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim. The parliament is elected by the electorate, the Parliament, in turn, elects the President and the president and parliament choose the Prime Minister. As such posts require two thirds majority coalitions are the key in Lebanese politics, Hizbullah represents the Shi’ah in the country, which controls the speaker of parliament. Hizbullah’s guaranteed shi’ah votes has ensured Europe cannot gain total hegemony over Lebanon – as long as this remains the case US interests of keeping itself in Lebanon will remain, hence Hizbullah since the removal of the Syrian army has allowed the US to remain in Lebanon as Europe is unable to gain complete control over the parliament. It should be remembered that since Sarkozy succeeded Chirac as the French president. He changed French policy of competing with the US to working with it. This is why in Lebanon the conflict between the US and France was replaced by cooperation. Sarkozy hoped to reach an understanding with US on the solution to the Lebanese conflict and thus protect French interests. Hence America and France are now looking for a solution that allows each one to play a role in Lebanon and are not working against each other as was the case during Chirac’s presidency. With regards HAMAS in Palestine, its acceptance in words or deeds of the two state solution, is exactly the US plan for the region. The key Issue with all the Muslim rulers and all the groups is through removing the rhetoric, what exactly are the colonialists aims in the region and what exactly are the rulers or such groups doing. Hence HAMAS and FATAH actually both want the same thing – an independent Palestine, with permanent borders. However both are too weak to achieve this on their own, thus HAMAS gets support from Iran whilst FATAH has been pro-West since the day it was created. Due to this they are influenced by those who provide them with funding and support. If FATAH and HAMAS were not fighting each other they would have driven Israel into the sea by now |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Adam Khan
said:
|
In your analysis, you state that Iran and the US have cooperated on a number of matters that have assisted in protecting American interests. One such matter is the support afforded to Hamas/Hezbollah in the Levant by Tehran . . . in what way does this help to protect Washington's interests in the Middle East !? The general view is settled on the opinion that Hamas/Hezbollah are working against the American agenda, no !? Jzk |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|