Why Obama’s Iran Policy Will Fail

Dilip Hiro: The Administration Remains Stuck in Bush Mode in a Changed World

(CBS)  Dilip Hiro is the author of Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources, among other works. His forthcoming book, After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World, will be published in January 2010, also by Nation Books. His piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.

---

While the tone of the Obama administration is different from that of its predecessor, and some of its foreign policies diverge from those of George W. Bush, at their core both administrations subscribe to the same doctrine: Whatever the White House perceives as a threat -- whether it be Iran, North Korea, or the proliferation of long-range missiles -- must be viewed as such by Moscow and Beijing.

In addition, by the evidence available, Barack Obama has not drawn the right conclusion from his predecessor's failed Iran policy. A paradigm of sticks-and-carrots simply is not going to work in the case of the Islamic Republic. Here, a lesson is readily available, if only the Obama White House were willing to consider Iran's recent history. It is unrealistic to expect that a regime which fought Saddam Hussein's Iraq (then backed by the United States) to a standstill in a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s, unaided by any foreign power, and has for 30 years withstood the consequences of U.S.-imposed economic sanctions will be alarmed by Washington's fresh threats of "crippling sanctions."

Most important, the Obama administration is ignoring the altered international order that has emerged in the wake of the global financial crisis triggered by Wall Street's excesses. While its stimulus package, funded by taxpayers and foreign borrowing, has arrested the decline in the nation's gross domestic product, Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task -- performed by the U.S. in recent recessions -- has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power.

Backed by more than $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the state-owned Chinese oil corporations have been locking up hydrocarbon resources as far away as Brazil. Not surprisingly, Iran, with the second largest oil as well as gas reserves in the world, looms large in the strategic plans of Beijing. The Chinese want to import Iran's petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to U.S. naval interdiction. As this is an integral part of China's energy security policy, little wonder that Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated $120 billion dollars -- so far -- to Iran's energy industry.

During a recent meeting with Iran's first vice president, Muhammad Reza Rahimi, in Beijing, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao stressed the importance of cooperation between the two countries when it comes to hydrocarbons and trade (at $29 billion a year, and rising), as well as "greater coordination in international affairs." Little wonder, then, that China has already moved to neutralize any sanctions that the United States -- backed by Britain, France and Germany -- might impose on Iran without United Nations authorization.
Foremost among these would be a ban on the export of gasoline to Iran, whose oil refining capacity falls significantly short of domestic demand. Chinese oil corporations have already started shipping gasoline to Iran to fill the gap caused by a stoppage of supplies from British and Indian companies anticipating Washington's possible move. Between June and August 2009, China signed $8 billion worth of contracts with Iran to help expand two existing Iranian oil refineries to produce more gasoline domestically and to help develop the gigantic South Pars natural gas field. Iran's national oil corporation has also invited its Chinese counterparts to participate in a $42.8 billion project to construct seven oil refineries and a 1,000 mile trans-Iran pipeline that will facilitate pumping petroleum to China.

Tehran and Moscow

When it comes to Russia, Tehran and Moscow have a long history of close relations, going back to Tsarist times. During that period and the subsequent Soviet era, the two states shared the inland Caspian Sea. Now, as two of the five littoral states of the Caspian, Iran and Russia still share a common fluvial border.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, relations between the Islamic Republic and Russia warmed. Defying pressures from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Russia's state-owned nuclear power company continued building a civilian nuclear power plant near the Iranian port city of Bushehr. It is scheduled to begin generating electricity next year.

As for nuclear threats, the Kremlin's perspective varies from Washington's. It is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran. Significantly, it was during his recent trip to Beijing to conclude ambitious hydrocarbon agreements with China that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, "If we speak about some kind of sanctions [on Iran] now, before we take concrete steps, we will fail to create favorable conditions for negotiations. That is why we consider such talk premature."

The negotiations that Putin mentioned are now ongoing between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., Britain, China, France, and Russia) as well as Germany. According to Western sources, the agenda of the talks is initially to center on a "freeze for freeze"agreement. Iran would suspend its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for the U.N. Security Council not strengthening its present nominal economic sanctions. If these reports are accurate, then the chances of a major breakthrough may be slim indeed.

At the heart of this issue lies Iran's potential ability to enrich uranium to a level usable as fuel for a nuclear weapon. This, in turn, is linked to the way Iran's leaders view national security. As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is, in fact, entitled to enrich uranium. The key point is the degree of enrichment: 5% enriched uranium for use as fuel in an electricity generating plant (called low enriched uranium, LEU); 20% enriched for use as feedstock for producing medical isotopes (categorized as medium enriched uranium, MEU); and 90%-plus for bomb-grade fuel (known as high enriched uranium, HEU).

So far, what Iran has produced at its Natanz nuclear plant is LEU. At the Iran-Six Powers meeting in Geneva on October 1st, Iran agreed in principle to send three-quarters of its present stock of 1,600 kilograms (3,500 pounds) of LEU to Russia to be enriched into MEU and shipped back to its existing Tehran Research Reactor to produce medical isotopes. If this agreement is fleshed out and finalized by all the parties under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency, then the proportion of Iran's LEU with a potential of being turned into HEU would diminish dramatically.

When it comes to the nuclear conundrum, what distinguishes China and Russia from the U.S. is that they have conferred unconditional diplomatic recognition and acceptance on the Islamic Republic of Iran. So their commercial and diplomatic links with Tehran are thriving. Indeed, a sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged. In other words, the foundation is being laid for the emergence of a Russia-Iran-China diplomatic triad in the not-too-distant future, while Washington remains stuck in an old groove of imposing "punishing"sanctions against Tehran for its nuclear program.

Tehran and Washington

There is, of course, a deep and painful legacy of animosity and ill-feeling between the 30-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S. Iran was an early victim of Washington's subversive activities when the six-year-old CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadiq in 1953. That scar on Iran's body politic has not healed yet. Half a century later, the Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq and overthrow its president, Saddam Hussein, on trumped-up charges involving his supposed program to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's leaders know that during his second term in office -- as Seymour Hersh revealed in the New Yorker -- Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a budget of $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime. They are also aware that the CIA has focused on stoking disaffection among Sunni ethnic minorities in Shiite-ruled Iran. These include ethnic Arabs in the oil-rich province of Khuzistan adjoining Iraq, and ethnic Baluchis in Sistan-Baluchistan Province abutting the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Little wonder that Tehran pointed an accusing finger at the U.S. for the recent assassination of six commanders of its Revolutionary Guard Corps in Sistan-Baluchistan by two suicide bombers belonging to Jundallah (the Army of Allah), an extremist Sunni organization. As yet, there is no sign, overt or covert, that President Obama has canceled or repudiated his predecessor's program to destabilize the Iranian regime.

Insecure regimes seek security in nuclear arms. History shows that joining the nuclear club has, in fact, proven an effective strategy for survival. Israel and North Korea provide striking examples of this.

Unsure of Western military assistance in a conventional war with Arab nations, and of its ability to maintain its traditional armed superiority over its Arab adversaries, Israel's leaders embarked on a nuclear weapons program in the mid-1950s. They succeeded in their project a decade later. Since then Israel has acquired an arsenal of 80 to 200 nuclear weapons.

In the North Korean case, once the country had tested its first atomic bomb in October 2006, the Bush administration softened its stance towards it. In the bargaining that followed, North Korea got its name removed from the State Department's list of nations that support international terrorism. In the on-again-off-again bilateral negotiations that followed, the Pyongyang regime as an official nuclear state has been seeking a guarantee against attack or subversion by the United States.

Without saying so publicly, Iran's leaders want a similar guarantee from the U.S. Conversely, unless Washington ends its clandestine program to destabilize the Iranian state, and caps it with an offer of diplomatic acceptance and normal relations, there is no prospect of Tehran abandoning its right to enrich uranium. On the other hand, the continuation of a policy of destabilization, coupled with ongoing threats of "crippling"sanctions and military strikes (whether by the Pentagon or Israel), can only drive the Iranians toward a nuclear breakout capability.

During George W. Bush's eight-year presidency, the U.S. position in the world underwent a sea change. From the Clinton administration, Bush had inherited a legacy of 92 months of continuous economic prosperity, a budget in surplus, and the transformation of the U.N. Security Council into a handmaiden of the State Department. What he passed on to Barack Obama was the Great Recession in a world where America's popularity had hit rock bottom and its economic strength was visibly ebbing. All this paved the way for the economic and political rise of China, as well as the strengthening of Russia as an energy giant capable of extending its influence in Europe and challenging American dominance in the Middle East.

In this new environment expecting the leaders of Iran, backed by China and Russia, to do the bidding of Washington means placing a bet on the inconceivable.

[sliwas1]

good read with factual stuff, until the author slams Bush. Was it not the attack on our country and 2 wars that caused economic situation. One of which this admin is taking a similar stance, Afghan.

Market insolubility is something that happens over time cyclically. If you want to hash out the same economic condition by comparing both admin track records. Bush had job growth even thru the turmoil. Obama has none, even after artificially inseminating the markets. The encroachments on personal and in the form biz regulations sand taxes
The purview of legislation that Obama.

There seems no way to regulate how much uranium they enrich w/ Russia and China having such interests--unless their is ordained commitment by the big BEAR and China.
I don't understand how attempting to destroy their enrichment supplies as a last effort will speed up their commitment to strike back--the author says this but this makes no sense.
Iran must know that much of he rest of the world sees them as shady, and must go out of their way to rise any appearance of impropriety. No one is bombing Iran if there is no threat of nuclear capability that they have-hello? We want peace, and no threats to us.

[Benkgee]

If Iran feel like it need nuclear weapons, that is because Iran was threatened with war. If Iran is NOT threatened with war, it may not feel it need to have nuclear weapons. Can we do something about removing the threat of war? If not, why not? Who is the problem? Are we the problem?

[Benkgee]

Had sanctions ever worked? Did it work in Cuba? N Korea? China? Anywhere?
Communication may work. Only maybe, but does it not worth a try? War does not seem to work neither, look at Iraq or Afhanistan, is it worth it? There is an old saying: if you treat your enemies like friends, you may end up with friends and if you treat friends like enemies, you will have enemies. We can never have too many friends. We can not affort enemies. Lets change our enemies to friends by treating them as friends! You never know whether it will work or not until you try!

[babooph]

The last pres to have a good Iran policy was IKE& he would have modified that LONG AGO...

[DC106]

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister said ?If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.? This is exactly the strategy being adopted by Israeli leaders who are spreading lies, disinformation and half-truths about Iran in order to get the madmen in Washington D.C. and his gang of neocons and war criminals to attack another Muslim country on Israel?s behalf.

[PacificGatePost]

IRAN IS HEADING FOR NUCLEAR ARMAMENT

... sanctions or no sanctions. It won't matter.

When you have no will, and you have given up the leverage that Russia could have provided, ?discussion? will now prove futile. Current strategy will allow Iran to continue apace the development of its nuclear weapons.

Obama gave up a powerful element when he backed off the Europe based missile shield without concessions from Putin.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-blunder-on-iran.html

Additional sanctions will achieve nothing other than hurt Iranians who will ?blame? the West.

[Logical123]

How did you come up with the conclusion that "IRAN IS HEADING FOR NUCLEAR ARMAMENT?" What evidence do you have? You are simply quoting the neo-con and Israeli claims which are all based on pure speculation. There is ZERO evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. No IAEA report has presented any concrete evidence and the US 2007 NIE has confirmed it. I agree with you, however, that sanctions will have no effect on anything except making life more difficult for ordinary Iranians. Also, US businesses are losing an enormous potential market, while the Russians and the Chinese are making a killing in trading with Iran.

As far as the missiles in Europe are concerned, it was all a silly idea. Why would Iran want to shoot missiles at Europe? Thus, why should Russia give up anything when the US came to its senses and gave up on a crazy idea?

[Logical123]

Excellent article. It should be noted that Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice continue to make totally false and belligerent comments about Iran. Also, as long as sanctions are in place and more sanctions are passed by Congress we are stuck in a Bush-mode, to coin a phrase. Comments of reader stmtraveler are mostly appropriate. However, I don't see why Iran should agree to have a "Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium" with US and French participation on its soil. It is totally unnecessary and unrealistic. Besides the US, the French, particularly Sarkozy and Kouchner have made so many ridiculous comments on Iran that they will never be welcome in Iran.

[stmtraveler]

To Logical123:
I agree with your statement that "I don't see why Iran should agree to have a "Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium" with US and French participation on its soil. It is totally unnecessary and unrealistic."
The action of an international consortium in Iran for enrichment of nuclear fuel is to quell those who fear Iran may develop nuclear bomb. The other nuclear fuel cycle states, such as Japan, Brazil, and Germany, have not burdened themselves with joint operations with other nations.

[BiBiJon]

While this article is a plausible reading of international power politics, it is a rather simplistic reading of Iran's psyche, options, etc. Iran has the most to gain from rapprochement with US. Nuclear weapons have no use. Iran did not retaliate in kind against Saddam's use of chemical weapons. There is no conceivable attack on Iran that would cause Iran to escalate it to a full nuclear exchange, even if it had such means.

US, egged on by foreign powers' naked agendas, has fear-mongered itself into believing Iran is after getting nukes. This gives Iran a free-of-charge concession to make in return for normalization of relations, and consequently avoid becoming a Sino-Russian client state. That avoidance, beats any other calculation in Iranian psyche.

Détente with Iran is such a compelling win-win situation that no ideological lobby will be able to throw off track.

http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

[stmtraveler]

This article is right on the target.

Any prospect for a non-belligerent foreign policy by US congress toward Iran is not expected. The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday passed the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, a bill targeting Tehran and the firms conducting energy business with Iran. The recent bill, part of a larger effort to hurt Iranian people, was instigated to force Iran to abandon her nuclear enrichment program. Those who voted for the bill assumed that they were giving the Obama administration stronger powers to sanction companies that provide Iranian people gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum fuels.

The bill would give a legitimate reason to Iran to fear US government sincerity to fair play. This action is a hideous expression of hypocrisy [http://straveler-myamerica.blogspot.com/]. I suggest the following three steps to correct our failed foreign policy with respect to the Middle East:

1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium:
USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.

2. Nuclear Shield
An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran, from nuclear bomb states;

3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East
This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.

President Harry Truman in 1946 gave this statement about nuclear bomb:

"It is a terrible weapon, and it should not be used on innocent men, women and children who have nothing whatever to do with this military aggression. That happens when it is used." He was referring to using the bomb on Japan.

[DC106]

The probelm here is our foreign policy in the Mid-East is dictated by Israel, for Israel. America's priorities and interest are second thanks to the Israeli lobbies and the inability of our politicians to escape from their grasp.

[Mortarman_29]

Silly.