Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Why Iran challenges US-Afghan pact

Tehran has broken its silence on the conclusion of the security pact between the United States and Afghanistan leading to open-ended American military presence. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marziyeh Afkham said on Sunday that continued US military presence adversely impacts Afghanistan’s stability and security and that the stabilization of that country should not be made conditional on the establishment of the American military bases.

Afkham said, “Given the negative record of the US forces’ performance, we are suspicious about the continued presence of these forces in the region, specially Afghanistan, and believe that continued deployment of the US forces in Afghanistan will not help the establishment of stability and security in the country.”

She added, “The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the regional and trans-regional states’ assistance to Afghanistan within the framework of international undertaking for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and establishment of security and stability in there shouldn’t be conditioned on the materialization of the interests of a certain country or countries or establishment of military bases in Afghanistan.” (here).

A careful reading of the remarks will show that Tehran is suspicious about the true American intentions in establishing military bases in Afghanistan.

Secondly, Tehran refuses to see the American strategy in Afghanistan in isolation and would rather view it against the US regional strategies in the Middle East as a whole.

Thirdly, Tehran estimates that the US is acting in self-interest rather than out of concern for Afghanistan’s stabilization or regional security.

Tehran has been watching in silence for the past several months the developments leading to the signing of the US-Afghan security pact on September 30. If anything, it conveyed the impression that against the backdrop of the US-Iranian tango, Tehran was calibrating its Afghan stance and harmonizing it with the Barack Obama administration’s strategy to put together a ‘national unity’ government in Afghanistan led by a politician who is widely regarded to be ‘pro-American’ and is a predictable personality, unlike his mercurial predecessor.

Many questions arise. First, the timing of the Iranian statement. Tehran knows that the US-Afghan pact is a sealed affair with the ratification by the Afghan parliament last week and it is no more open to discussion. So, what is Tehran’s calculus?

Interestingly, Tehran has thrown the wrench at a time when the national unity government is struggling to gain traction. All is not well in the court of President Ashraf Ghani, as a report in the New York Times shows.

Tehran would know from experience that the discord within Afghanistan always has a tendency to feed into the regional discord — and vice versa. Therefore, the Obama administration should take the Iranian warning seriously.

Secondly, Ghani has been to Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan so far and may just have been reminded that a visit to Tehran is long overdue. To compound matters, Ghani is behaving as if all he needs is Pakistani cooperation for negotiating an Afghan settlement. He is mistaken in assuming so. Countries like Iran (or India) are also stakeholders.

Similarly, the Iranian statement coincides with the visit of the Pakistani army chief Gen. Raheel Sharif to the US. Tehran would have noted that the Americans are lionizing the Pakistani general to the extent of even describing the Pakistani military as a “truly binding force.”

Tehran may just have reminded Obama that he is downright naive to assume that with the helpful Pakistani general around, the US doesn’t need anyone else as ‘partner’ in the Afghan endgame.

Obama is relatively new to Afghanistan and may not know that there is an ancient regional discord much more ferocious than the Indian-Pakistani squabble that has been playing out in the Hindu Kush for decades — Iran-Pakistan rivalry.

It is much more ferocious because for Iran it forms part of an existential struggle with profound cultural and historical dimensions as well as holding great contemporaneity.

The US seems to have overlooked that Iran-Pakistan ties have come under strain in the recent times due to the cross-border terrorism from the Pakistani side.

The heart of the matter is that the surge of the Islamic State [IS] already threatens Iran’s western borders. Tehran is anxious that the foreign powers who manipulated the IS could be having grand designs to inject the virus into Afghanistan as well at some point so that Iran literally comes under siege.

The Iranian statements continue to flag that the US lacks sincerity and is merely dissimulating that it is involved in a campaign to vanquish the IS, whereas there is a long history of such radical groups having covertly served as geopolitical tool for America’s regional strategies, including in Afghanistan.

Indeed, it does not give comfort to Tehran at all that Washington has once again got into bed with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to create a rebel army in Syria. The fact that the IS has been the byproduct of one previous holy communion between the US and its Gulf allies doesn’t seem to perturb the Obama administration.

Overarching all this has been the unwillingness of the Obama administration to clinch a deal with Iran on the nuclear issue and instead to drag on the negotiations on various pretexts. In the Iranian estimation, Obama dithered because of pressure from Israel and the Gulf allies.

Suffice it to say, Tehran cannot be faulted in concluding that continued American military presence in Afghanistan and the US military bases on its eastern borders will be detrimental to its core security interests.

Obama’s U-turn in deciding to resume the combat mission in Afghanistan, contrary to everything he had pledged so far since his 2008 election campaign, only underscored that the US is working on some master plan that has many hidden facades.

The thing to be watched in the weeks ahead is how and when the unraveling of the national unity government in Kabul (if that happens) would tap into the discontent in the region (not only in Iran) over the American drive to keep Afghanistan as its playpen with a view to expand its interference in regional politics in Central and South Asia.

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with Taliban reconciliation, US bases in Afghanistan.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 1, 2014

Click to expand...

Britain returns to the east of Suez

The announcement of the establishment of a permanent British military base in Bahrain cannot but be seen as a landmark event in the regional politics of the Middle East. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond who signed the deal at a security conference in Manama on Saturday, following 2-year long negotiations, described it as an “example of our growing partnership with Gulf partners to tackle shared strategic and regional threats.”

Hammond added that the setting up of the base underscores, “Your [Gulf Arab] security concerns are our security concerns.”

Other British remarks said the base will be a “permanent expansion of the Royal Navy’s footprint”; that it will “enable Britain to send more and larger ships to reinforce stability in the Gulf”.

Curiously, Bahrain has undertaken to bear the cost of establishing the British base.

The geopolitical significance of the development needs to be assessed from various angles. No doubt, Britain has acted in close consultation and coordination with the United States, whose Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.

Interestingly, only this week Pentagon formed a new military command to handle the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. The indications are that the US is revisiting the ‘regime change’ agenda in Syria.

There are also signs that the US is projecting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] as a provider of security in Iraq on the pattern of the alliance’s operations in Afghanistan. Significantly, the first ministerial conference of the US-led anti-Islamic State coalition was held last week in Brussels where NATO is headquartered.

All things are suggesting that a historic Anglo-American project to assemble a new Middle Eastern order could be unfolding in Iraq and Syria. The spectre of the Islamic State has provided the US and Britain the perfect alibi to perpetuate with renewed vigor the western hegemony over the Muslim Middle East.

Quite obviously, these developments will precipitate new alignments in the Middle East and ratchet up tensions — in particular, in the Persian Gulf region. Tehran cannot but oppose the Western military intervention in Syria and Iraq, which aims at whittling down Iranian influence in these countries and at breaking the Iran-Iraq-Syria axis that had worked against Israel’s regional supremacy.

Bahrain is a theatre where tensions are already high. The majority Shi’ite community is clamoring for empowerment and it is being suppressed brutally. The Sunni regime in Bahrain will draw comfort from the British military presence.

On the whole, Iran’s surge as regional power is viewed with unease and fear by the Gulf Arab regimes. Britain has been historically the guarantor of regional stability in the Gulf region up until 1971 when it wound up its military presence ‘east of Suez’ while saving on defence expenditure.

By this return to ‘east of Suez’ after four decades, Britain is signaling to the autocratic regimes of the Gulf region its commitment to secure regional stability. For the Gulf Arab regimes, the comfort level with Britain is high, since Britain (unlike America) has no passion for the ‘Arab Spring’ and is quite comfortable with the repressive regimes in the region.

Indeed, Britain never acts our of generosity. It can be trusted to exploit the developing situation to its advantage and self-interest by expanding its commercial and economic interests in the petrodollar states of the Gulf by boosting its exports, civil and military.

In every sense of the word Britain is a ‘stakeholder’ in the present order in the Gulf, as London is a major beneficiary of the petrodollar recycling. Arguably, any regime changes or democratization in the petrodollar states would grievously shake up the British banking system.

Suffice it to say that Britain and the Gulf oligarchies are locked in an embrace that is delightful and fruitful for both parties.

From the Indian perspective, this is one more disturbing sign that the Indian Ocean is steadily getting crowded. With its aircraft carriers and destroyers and submarines operating out of Bahrain, Britain is poised to register a weighty presence in the sea lanes between the Gulf and Malacca Straits.

Taking into account Diego Garcia as well, Indian Ocean is actually becoming an Anglo-American lake. This, in turn, will attract other big powers to the region — China and Russia in particular. On the other hand, Iran may make its own countermoves by providing facilities to Chinese or Russian navies. All in all, a new level of volatility may be appearing in the Indian Ocean politics, as the big-power rivalries gather momentum.

Posted in Military, Politics.

Tagged with Arab spring, Indian Ocean, Islamic State, NATO's expansion, Syria's conflict.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 7, 2014

Click to expand...

Libya: Be careful what you wish for
By Brian Cloughley

On March 19, 2011, the United States led NATO countries in a blitz of aircraft and missile strikes against the government of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's batty dictator who was visited in 2004 and 2007 by British prime minister Tony Blair, in 2007 by French president Nicolas Sarkozy, in 2008 by US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and in 2009 by Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, all of whom cordially assured him that relations between their countries and his were comfortable.

Gaddafi was a despot and persecuted his enemies quite as savagely as the dictator Hosni Mubarak in neighboring Egypt, but life for most Libyans was comfortable and even the BBC had to admit that Gaddafi's "particular form of socialism does provide free education, healthcare and subsidized housing and transport", although "wages are extremely low and the wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a narrow elite" (which doesn't happen anywhere else, of course).

The CIA World Factbook noted that Gaddafi's Libya had a literacy rate of 94.2% (better than Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, for example), and the World Health Organization recorded a life expectancy of 72.3 years, among the highest in the developing world.

But back to the Western figures who flocked to Libya before NATO's war. A leaked 2009 US diplomatic cable recorded that "Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the US interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship" while Senator Lieberman declared Libya "an important ally in the war on terrorism".

Condoleezza Rice said the US-Libya "relationship has been moving in a good direction for a number of years now and I think tonight does mark a new phase", and Britain's Blair considered his meeting "positive and constructive" because his country's relationship with Libya had "been completely transformed in these last few years. We now have very strong co-operation on counter-terrorism and defense."

The BBC reported that "As Mr Blair met Mr Gaddafi it was announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to 550 million [British pounds] (US$860 million) for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast." The US oil companies ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil Corporation and the Hess Company were also deeply involved in Libya's oil production, because it has the world's ninth largest oil reserves.

Things were looking good for Libya.

But on January 21, 2011, Reuters reported that "Muammar Gaddafi said his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign firms due to low oil prices". He suggested that "oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production".

Then in February, immediately after Gaddafi's hint of nationalization of Libya's oil resources, there was an uprising by rebels who wanted to overthrow him and on March 17 the UN Security Council established a "no-fly zone" in Libya "to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country".

The insurgents were supported by the US, Britain and 12 of their 26 NATO allies (notably not Germany or Turkey), three Arab nations (not including Saudi Arabia), and Sweden which has abandoned honorable neutrality and become a NATO country in all but name. Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia excluded themselves from the Resolution, advocating peaceful resolution of Libya's internal conflict and warning against "unintended consequences of armed intervention."

Two days after the "no-fly" resolution the US-led NATO onslaught began and continued for seven months, until the end of October. On April 30, a US missile killed one of Gaddafi's sons and three of his grandchildren in what NATO called "a precision strike" against a "military command and control building". When asked about a massive attack on Gaddafi's residential compound the Pentagon's spokesman announced that "We are not targeting his residence. We have no indication of any civilian casualties."

At the height of the attacks on Libya, US President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Sarkozy jointly declared that "as we continue military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya ... Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Gaddafi has destroyed - to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society."

Gaddafi's response was: "You have proved to the world that you are not civilized, that you are terrorists - animals attacking a nation that did nothing against you."

On October 20, Gaddafi did indeed "go for good", being brutally murdered by one of the rebel groups. Obama greeted his death with enthusiasm, saying that "Today we can definitively say that the Gaddafi regime has come to an end. The last major regime strongholds have fallen. The new government is consolidating control over the country. And one of the world's longest-serving dictators is no more."

NATO carried out 9,658 air attacks on Libya and the BBC reported that "throughout the seven-month campaign NATO admitted there had been one weapon 'malfunction'. On June 19, several civilians were reported to have been killed when a missile hit buildings in Tripoli. A NATO spokesman later said that 'a potential weapon system failure occurred and this caused the weapon not to hit the intended target'." (There were also 105 US drone strikes about which nothing is known.)

It is astonishing, even miraculous, that out of 9,658 airstrikes only one killed any civilians. But Human Rights Watch has a different take on the matter, and records that there were many civilians killed - although its report is irrelevant because not one single person of any US-NATO country has been or ever will be independently investigated for killing any civilian, anywhere in the world, by missile, bomb or rocket.

We were told that the aim of the US-NATO war on Libya was to achieve democracy by bombing and the UK prime minister Cameron declared that "I'm an optimist about Libya; I've been an optimist all the way through and I'm optimistic about the National Transitional Council and what they are able to achieve. I think when you look at Tripoli today, yes, of course, there are huge challenges - getting water to that city, making sure there is law and order - but actually so far, the cynics and the armchair generals have been proved wrong."

The "cynics" - better described as realists - and armchair generals were right, of course, in predicting that the country's collapse was inevitable; just as they had been right about forecasting chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But two highly placed intellectuals, Ivo Daalder, the US Permanent Representative on the NATO Council from 2009 to 2013, and Admiral James G ("Zorba") Stavridis, the US Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period, had their own views and wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs in 2012: "NATO's operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi."

According to these objective analysts, Libya was liberated and became a free country thanks to NATO. And they were supported by columnists like Nicholas Kristof who wrote that "Libya is a reminder that sometimes it is possible to use military tools to advance humanitarian causes". That statement would be hilarious were it not so obscenely bizarre, because Libya has collapsed into anarchic ruin. Britain's declaration to the UN in 2012 that "today, Tripoli and Benghazi are cities transformed. Where there was fear, now there is hope and an optimism and belief that is truly inspiring" has been shown to be preposterous.

As CNN reports, "Assassinations, kidnappings, blockades of oil refineries, rival militias battling on the streets, Islamist extremists setting up camps, and above all chronically weak government have all made Libya a dangerous place and one whose instability is already spilling across borders and into the Mediterranean. There is effectively no rule of law in Libya." How "truly inspiring", to be sure.

According to Amnesty International, "since July 2014 at least 287,000 people have been internally displaced as a result of indiscriminate attacks and a fear of being targeted by militias, and a further 100,000 have been forced to flee the country in fear for their lives". Western nations have withdrawn their diplomatic missions and Britain warns its citizens "against all travel to Libya due to the ongoing fighting and greater instability throughout the country".

NATO has done nothing whatever to "repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society" which Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy declared so necessary while their bombs and rockets and Tomahawk missiles were destroying homes, hospitals and basic utilities. And not one of these people - the excited world leaders, the condescending commentators or the expert intellectuals who foolishly claimed that "NATO's operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention" - has indicated the slightest regret for their enthusiastic approval of the onslaught that led to devastation and disaster.

During their war on Libya, Obama and Cameron declared that, "We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya." Tell that to the millions of Libyans whose lives have been destroyed by NATO's "model intervention". The scale of human suffering is not as terrible as that inflicted on Iraq by the US-UK war, but it is still appalling. On November 30, for example, Reuters reported that "about 400 people have been killed in six weeks of heavy fighting between Libyan pro-government forces and Islamist groups in Libya's second-largest city Benghazi". So much for the "better times" that were to be enjoyed after NATO's seven month blitz of missile and bombing strikes.

And what next for NATO? Where will it chose to mount its next "model intervention" after its destruction of Libya and its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan?

NATO is desperate for a cause to justify its survival and is enthusiastically moving forces further east in Europe, involving US troops in "exercises" in Ukraine and US and other deployments to Poland and the Baltic States. It has created a multi-national "Baltic Air Policing Mission" and is carrying out the fatuously-named "Operation Atlantic Resolve" to menace Russia.

But NATO, and especially the US, should bear in mind the wise words of Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia, who warned against "unintended consequences of armed intervention". As Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked on December 4, "Hitler wanted to destroy Russia and got to the Urals. However, everyone remembers how that ended." Exactly.

Brian Cloughley is a former soldier who writes on military and political affairs, mainly concerning the sub-continent. The fourth edition of his book A History of the Pakistan Army was published this year.

(Copyright 2014 Brian Cloughley)

Click to expand...

Saudi oil and the Shi’ite crescent

The Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s dramatic description of the recent decline in oil price as due to ‘Muslim treachery’ calls attention to Saudi Arabia’s motives. At a cabinet meeting in Tehran on Wednesday, he said, “The fall of crude prices is not merely an economic issue, rather it is the result of certain states’ political plot and planning.

“The decrease in oil price is a plot against the regional people and Muslims which merely serves the interests of some other countries. Certainly, people will react to such schemes and the countries which have hatched this plot should know that they have just increased the Muslim world’s hatred for themselves,” Rouhani added.

The many interpretations and conspiracy theories in vogue currently on the issue of the drop in oil price in the world market broadly fall into three categories. One, the phenomenon of oil price is attributable to the demand-supply situation prevailing in the world market – that is, a glut in supply has resulted due to increased production and fall in demand (due to slowing demand in China, Japan and Europe), and the plunge in oil price ensued.

Two, this is an invidious political plot hatched by the US and Saudi Arabia to weaken the Russian and Iranian economies. Three, what is happening is partly political and partly economic.

The second thesis is the most alluring, of course. Who wouldn’t like a conspiracy theory? However, the Russians and the Iranians themselves do not think that President Barack Obama has hatched a plot against them.

Moscow, despite its problems with Obama, sees through issues rationally and calmly and is disinclined to see his shadow behind every bush – that is, even despite Washington’s determination to fight Russia on the beaches, in the air and in the hills.

The Russian news agency Sputnik, in fact, just featured an incisive analysis to explain that the US shale gas industry is actually skating on thin ice if the current decline in oil price persists and, in turn, this may eventually bring the roof down on the American economy if the current ‘shale bubble’ meets the fate of the dotcom bubble and real estate bubble.

The Russian commentary just stopped short of making the point that the US and Russia have shared interests here – although, it is improbable that anyone in Washington is in a mood to listen to the sage Russian expert advice.

Interestingly, Rouhani too kept Uncle Sam out of the matter. But, unlike the Russians who have been confabulating with the Saudis on the oil price issue to find common ground, he points the finger at Riyadh (without naming it explicitly) for deliberately hurting the Iranian economy.

There was a time when Iran would have most certainly brought in the ‘Great Satan’ somewhere into all this but then, times have changed. The US-Iranian engagement has gained traction. (On the crucial Afghan issue, Rouhani has been openly endorsing the US-backed national unity government in Kabul.) and it is entirely conceivable that while eating together or sipping tea in the corridor on the sidelines of their meetings, American and Iranian diplomats have exchanged notes on what is happening on the world oil market.

Besides, Tehran exudes cautious optimism that the 7-month extension of the nuclear negotiations could be leading to a resolution of the problem. In a report this week, the International Crisis Group broadly concurs with such an estimation, too – “Obstacles notwithstanding, there is a credible path to an agreement… Now that the fog has receded, the parties should move ahead quickly.”

Rouhani couldn’t have been propagandistic when he hit at a Saudi plot against Iran. The point is, he has been a long-time advocate of a Iran-Saudi rapproachment. Evidently, his patience is wearing thin that there are no signs of a change of thinking toward Iran in the Saudi calculus, which is still permeated by a strong antipathy bordering on hostility toward the prospect of Iran’s imminent integration with the international community.

Indeed, the Saudi-Iranian tango over oil price is not a new development. Books, in fact, have been written on the subject. (The Oil Kings: How the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East By Andrew Scott Cooper.)

A pivotal moment came when the Saudis replaced Iran (following the Islamic Revolution in 1978) as the principal power broker in the OPEC. It still becomes a debatable point, though, as to how far the US-backed Saudi ascendancy in the OPEC in the post-1973 period might actually have been contributory factor in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran (who was critically dependent on oil revenue for the massive urbanization program to transform and ‘modernize’ Iran.)

Suffice it to say, it is an entrenched belief in Riyadh that the Iranian regime’s popular legitimacy and social base is directly linked to its ability to provide a certain level of economic prosperity to the country.

In the prevailing regional milieu, there is the added factor that the Saudis are extremely worried about Iran’s surge as regional power and Tehran’s possible replacement of Riyadh as a key interlocutor for the US in the latter’s regional strategies. The Saudis are also rooted in the belief that Tehran is providing covert support to the Shi’ite empowerment in the region in such crucial theatres as Bahrain and Yemen, which have direct bearing on Saudi Arabia’s political economy.

Having said that, the big question is how much of a lethal blow the Saudis could be inflicting on the Iranian economy by keeping the oil prices low?

The fact of the matter is that Tehran anticipates a prolonged period when oil prices may remain low and is ably adjusting to the new reality. The Iranian budget which has been presented in the Majlis in Tehran last week suggests that the economy can absorb the body blow from the Saudis. Some indicators:

Despite a 28 percent decline in the base crude oil price, the budget projects only an 8% decline in oil and gas export revenues.
The defence and security expenditure increases by 32 percent ($12.6 billion).
Infrastructure expenditure will increase by 25 percent.
The economy has succeeded in reducing its dependence on oil income to somewhere around one-third of all income. Tax revenues and proceeds of privatization amply compensate for the shortfall in oil income, as non-oil exports have done well and are expected to register a 20% growth in the coming year. (See an analysis on the subject, here.)

Put differently, Tehran knows that time is working in its favor and the sanctions regime is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Ironically, the Western sanctions may have helped Iran to emerge as the only petrodollar state in the region with a diverse industrial base and indigenous military capabilities to safeguard its national security.

All in all, Saudis are immensely experienced in oil politics and their calculus would have several templates and most of them are interlocking. There is no denying that the global oil production is changing and the diminishing importance of the traditional producers is a cause of genuine concern.

Nonetheless, the Saudis have been explicit about their hostility toward Iran. The Financial Times reported this week the vignette of a private conversation between the US secretary of state John Kerry and a “senior Saudi official” and where the latter remarked, “ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] is our [Saudi] response to your [US] support for the Da’wa [Tehran-aligned ruling party of Iraq].” Read the FT commentary here.

Posted in Uncategorized.

Tagged with energy security, oil price, shale boom, Shi'ite empowerment, Sunni-Shia rivalry.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 11, 2014

Click to expand...

Iran nuclear deal within grasp

The US-Iranian negotiations for a nuclear deal are slated to resume on Monday amidst growing optimism that this could be the end of the year-long endgame under way, and an accord is in sight, finally. The US secretary of state John Kerry recently said that the effort will be to reach an accord even before the extended deadline of end-June.

The target is to reach a political agreement by March 1, 2015 and a comprehensive agreement by July 1. To be sure, if there was any disappointment that the deal couldn’t be struck yet after intense talks began an year ago, that has dispelled. The mood in Tehran bazaar is “bullish”, according to New York Times, sensing that a deal with the US is in the works.

The main reason for this growing optimism is that the two sides have a good idea by now of each other’s ‘red lines’ and also the grey area where give-and-take is possible. In sum, there is no more a need for brinkmanship or grandstanding.

A first-hand American account captured the increasingly relaxed mood: “At a human level it’s very interesting to watch the evolution of these talks. Slightly more than a year ago, it was impossible to imagine that the parties [US and Iranian diplomats] would mingle with each other in such a relaxed manner and would call each other “Hey Bob” and “Hey Abbas”. They bump into each other at the breakfast buffet and joke about the watery scrambled eggs or the giant chocolate croissants. Obviously the Iranians avoid pork and alcohol, but they share everything else. There may not be trust at the political level but there now is significant trust at a personal level. They’ve spent so many hours with each other that now they are intimately familiar with one another’s body language and mood. In the last days in Vienna, even the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers were meeting alone, as they no longer felt the need for the EU mediator.”

The respective ‘red lines’ are: a) Iran insists on the right to industrial-scale nuclear enrichment and wants sanctions to be lifted and not merely suspended; b) the US wants the ‘breakout time’ (time needed for Iran to develop one nuclear weapon) to be not less than a year and is eager to retain in some measure the leverage of sanctions to ensure Iran’s commitment to any deal.

Besides, new salients have appeared. For sure, the US and Iran are already working together (without acknowledging so) to ease regional tensions in the Middle East, which in turn instills mutual confidence at the negotiating table.

Second, the US’ ‘partners’ within the P5+1 (European allies, Russia and China) are eager to settle the Iran nuclear issue and move on with Iran’s full integration with the international community.

Third, steadily, an Iranian domestic consensus has formed as regards the imperative need to resolve the nuclear issue. Fourth, there is, possibly, a certain easing of Israeli opposition to an Iran deal (that is, any deal that allows Iran’s enrichment program to continue in any form).

Five, and most important, a breakdown of the talks becomes in reality a ‘non-option’. On the one hand, Europeans and Russia and China have had enough of Iran’s sanctions, while on the other hand, the US (and Israel) simply lacks the capacity to stage a military attack against Iran with impunity.

Finally, at least for the present, the Obama administration is not allowing itself to be held hostage by the US’ Gulf Arab allies – Saudi Arabia, in particular – and has not embarked on a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime (which would upset the apple cart.) See an excellent round-up of the overall state of play by the International Crisis Group’s Iran Senior Analyst Ali Vaez.

Some of this may have begun rubbing on the US Congress, which, according to conventional wisdom, is under the Israeli thumb and/or is itching to somehow deny President Barack Obama a historic foreign-policy legacy.

At any rate, there are incipient signs that the Congress is opting for a pragmatic approach and sidestepping the route of imposing any more sanctions to pressure Iran. The Congress is strengthening its oversight by legislating that there ought to be formalized reporting and information sharing by the Administration regarding the negotiations but, interestingly, not insisting an immediate ‘up-or-down’ vote in the Congress following the negotiation of an accord with Iran.

Equally, there is a groundswell of circumspection among lawmakers regarding new sanctions that would have curtailed the US diplomats’ ability to strike a nuclear deal. At any rate, the 113th Congress is winding up without passing new Iran sanctions. Therefore, in diplomatic terms, as an AP report assessed last week, the US diplomats would have “a short window to negotiate unimpeded by Congress.”

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with US-Iran talks.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 13, 2014

Click to expand...

The recent (and very low profile) announcement by the U.S. Department of Defense of a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) of MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) to Saudi Arabia could possibly be an indication of the procurement of Littoral Combat Ships or DDG-51 type (Burke class) Destroyers by the Royal Saudi Navy. Here is Navy Recognition's take on it.

Click to expand...