Barack Obama signed the Iran sanctions bill into law on Saturday, significantly intensifying economic pressure on the country. The latest news from the Financial Times is worrisome:
Iran made a fresh move to ratchet up tensions with the west on Tuesday, sending oil prices higher when it implied that it would take military action if the US Navy moves an aircraft carrier back into the Gulf.
In the latest sign of tension between Iran and the west over the future of the Strait of Hormuz, a key transit point for oil, Iran stated that it did not want to see Washington redeploying an aircraft carrier in the Gulf region.
It’s enough to make you forget that there were hopes of a rapprochement with Iran when Obama came into office. How did we get from there to here?
Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran, has an important new book out (Google Books has excerpts here) that helps answer that question. Barbara Slavin reports on the book for the Inter Press Service:
Negotiations should have continued, Parsi argues, and perhaps would have continued, if not for other pressures on Obama.
Parsi, citing a leaked State Department cable, reveals that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who took office shortly after Obama, told a U.S. Congressional delegation led by Sen. Jon Kyl in April 2009 that engagement with Iran should be tried for only four to 12 weeks “with the explicit objective of putting an end to the Iranian nuclear program – a near impossible task.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress – actively lobbied by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – began pushing for new sanctions before Obama had had a chance to make a serious overture to Tehran.
Netanyahu also sought to leverage Obama’s main priority in the Middle East – resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute – to cut short U.S. engagement with Iran. As Parsi writes, “the Netanyahu government declared that it would not move on peace talks with the Palestinians until it first saw progress in America’s efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program and limited Tehran’s rising influence in the region.”
As of this writing, there has been no progress on the Arab-Israeli front and Iran’s nuclear programme continues.
The current tensions in the Persian Gulf are a direct consequence of the war footing the Netanyahu government pressured the Obama administration to follow.
Which would be the least harmful….the old lesser of two evils?….letting O and congress and the neos and zios go to war on Iran?…..or ….just disappearing them all?
I’d like to see that question put before the public….I think I know what their answer would be.
Good cartoon.
http://www.bendib.com/newones/2009/October/small/10-12-NukeSchnaze.jpg
Trita Parsi wrote “the Netanyahu government declared that it would not move on peace talks with the Palestinians until it first saw progress in America’s efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program….”
Ah, so:
A.) Using American jewish influence Israel secures American support for its actions;
B.) Because of that support the U.S. sustains damage not only in terms of the money it directly devotes to same but even more importantly in terms of causing the U.S. trouble with other countries, increasing the cost of oil to it, being seen as aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing, becoming a target for terror, getting involved in wars and etc.;
C.) Naturally the U.S. tries to moderate that damage by supporting a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians;
D.) Despite being the recipient of the U.S. support causing this damage in the first place, Israel essentially blackmails the U.S. by saying it will impede its efforts to moderate that damage via impeding those peace talks unless the U.S. does other things it wants.
Raises an interesting point given the state this has reached: Is it even possible anymore for anyone to say that they continue to “support Israel” without it also effectively meaning they support seeing the U.S. used as a piece of toilet paper?
Just saw an interview with Parsi on France24 (not yet available).
In this he pointed out that sanctions have been around for 30 years and produced no results but damage the people rather than the regime.
He also said diplomacy attempts lasted less than one year and did produce a positive result. He was referring to the agreement Iran signed with Turkey and Brazil as a result of their efforts, which by then the US could not acknowledge because they had already gone too far in the sanctions direction.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59895.shtml
For a discussion he took part in four days ago http://www.france24.com/en/20111229-debate-Tensions-rise-following-Iran-threat-to-block-oil-route?page=5
“How did we get from there to here?” DENNIS ROSS