Aaron David Miller predicts that there will be neither an agreement nor an attack on Iran in 2012. Instead he sees a “peace process” which will create an illusion of progress then end badly. In 2013, with the failure of negotiations, we could see a war, unless there is an “unexpected breakthrough.”
Does this dire forecast sound familiar? In 2000, Miller was part of the group led by Dennis Ross, who met its final ignominious defeat by midwifing Ehud Barak’s “generous offer” at the Clinton Camp David summit. The failure of that negotiation led to the violence of the Second Intifada. Today, Miller and his colleagues are derisively called “peace processors.” Now, he uses the term “peace process” to mean a tactic that can delay war, but not resolve conflict.
Despite his past failures in diplomacy, Miller can usually be relied upon for original and provocative analysis. His CNN opinion piece titled, “A lull in the drift toward war with Iran” is no exception. For Miller, the conflict with the present Iranian government defies solution since it is more about hegemony than nuclear weapons.
Miller views the Iran negotiations or “peace process” as quickly reaching an impasse.
The only problem with this approach [continued negotiations] is that its chances of success are dubious. In coming weeks and months, the negotiating process may well produce limited understandings. But it's hard to see how these will turn into a sustainable deal that can convince the West, let alone the Israelis, that Iran has given up its quest for nukes.
Yes, Miller believes Iran will never relinquish its quest to achieve nuclear capability, but not because it wants to attack Israel. I find this pessimism a bit odd from a career diplomat, especially since we know so little about the extent of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, past, present and future.
Iran wants a nuclear capacity. Outside of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, four nations possess nukes: Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. All are fundamentally insecure and perceive nukes as a core advantage in their security and foreign policy theology.
Iran is insecure, but it believes it is profoundly entitled. This mix of vulnerability and grandiosity is a bad combination. The Iranian regime wants the bomb, not primarily to have the option of attacking Israel, a possible fringe benefit, but as a hedge against regime change and as a prestige weapon in its quest for regional power and influence. Had the Shah not been turned out by the 1979 revolution, Iran would already have nukes.
Iran fashions itself a great power, and great powers believe they need the ultimate weapon. Iran's nuclear program is too advanced, too entrenched, too redundant and too secretive to be stopped permanently, even by military attack. To do so, you'd need to change the regime.
The flip side of Iranian insecurity and hegemonic aspirations are the very real threats it faces from the U.S.
America wants an end to its [Iran’s] repression and brutality, freedom for the Iranian people and Iran's regional ambitions curtailed.
There's almost no issue on which Washington and Tehran agree, from support for Hamas and Hezbollah, to backing the Assads, to Iranian terrorism, to support for Shia insurgents, to Iraq and to Israel and the Palestinians. Given the level of suspicion and mistrust, the odds of finding a sustainable modus vivendi soon, particularly against the backdrop of the regime change issue, are slim to none.
As long as the regime is convinced that America wants it replaced and Iran's regional ambitions muzzled, Iran will continue its quest for nukes. Indeed, the nuclear issue can't be separated from the issue of regime insecurity. It's emblematic of Iran's hopes and fears.
Finally, you have to talk about Israel and its influence on sanctions and its much threatened military option. I think Miller lets Israel off the hook way too easily, since he writes only about U.S. hegemonic goals and ignores Israel’s. However, when you realize that Yitzhak Rabin was a familiar guest in Miller’s Zionist Cleveland home when he was a child, this is not surprising.
Israeli hopes and fears factor centrally into the equation too. We wouldn't have the tough sanctions we do if it weren't for President Obama's and the Europeans' fear of an Israeli strike.
But the Iranian regime won't stop, and will inch closer to a breakout capacity to produce a weapon. And the Israelis will then have to decide whether to launch a military strike or bring enough pressure on the Obama administration to do so, even if it only means a setback of a year or two [in Iran’s nuclear program].
Miller’s article is fundamentally dishonest — as one would expect from a scholar who is reflecting primarily a liberal version of the Israeli perspective. Glossing over the uncertainties and simply assuming, without evidence, an Iranian commitment to nuclear weapons is meant to provide a softer, non-Neocon, justification for war and regime change.
Here’s a giveaway: “perhaps even export its stockpile of weapons-grade material out of the country”. . .
Nobody, no country, not the IAEA claims that Iran possesses highly enriched weapons-grade uranium (90% plus). The 20% enriched uranium that Iran possesses — all of it under IAEA monitoring — is still classified as LEU by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and very far from what is required for a weapon.
Miller’s is not honest commentary.
Jeff Klein, maybe he conflated “dirty bomb” with clean bomb? I read 20% is enough for a dirty bomb. If I were Iran (or George Carlin or Ron Paul), I’d point at a map, and US military bases, assets surrounding Iran, coupled with Israel’s and USA’s saber-rattling, not to mention the Shah and the US supported 8 year war on Iran by Iraq, and say it’s very understandable why Iran wants the bomb, tossing in the preemptive wars already under Israel and US belts.
I no longer think that the west will ever attack Iran, the rest of the worlds western puppet nations can not afford either financially nor politically this imposition from the U.S and will simply just not go along.
The narrative of attacking and hating Iran is nurtured just in case they can ever muster enough popular support to warrant an attack, so unless the Iranians start to crucify christians or put yellow starts on their jewish population or maybe bayonet babies in their incubators or can be accused of commiting some heinous concoction of a crime, i am in the highly doubters camp on this one.
The europeans can not be led by the nose into any more of these western concocted schemes to stay engaged against the moooz-slims, european politics seem to be turning against the old order, from what i can surmise the new enemy du jour for the United States is China, will be China, and can not be anything other than China, as we are seeing and will continnue to see as we time travel towards our destiny.
2 cents worth of tea leaf reading.
I think it’s a bridge too far for Zionism and that Israel will just have to suck up whatever Iran does.
link to youtube.com
The immensity of the Iraq failure continues to be ignored by the MSM in the US.
sometimes I wonder if Zionism will have run itself into the sand before it gets around to attacking Iran. The Israelis seriously overrate their capabilities in any case. Why are they still fighting the Palestinians 64 years on?
attacking Iran is on the same level of insanity as forcing Greece out of the Euro.
Gee, wasn’t China already our de facto real enemy, along with Ali Baba in Afghanland, when the neocons took us to war in Iraq? Was that merely because Shrub Jr didn’t like the idea Saddam H wanted to kill his daddy?
Aaron David Miller is on NPR a great deal. He often promotes what seems to be a reasonable approach with Iran then he much more smoothly repeats the unsubstantiated claims about Iran. Wonder if Israel will pre-emptively attack Iran between Nov 6 and inauguration day the way they with with the Gaza. Oh yeah Iran is not Gaza…
Kathleen, more like attack Gaza again around that time, then, over New Year’s attack Iran?
A good place for the US to again test our nuclear depleted weapons as we did in Libya, leaving the grateful citizens to clean up the permanent nuclear waste we dumped in order to “liberate” them. Of course most are Muslims, so that’s just delivering what we call Judeo-Christianity to the non-Judeo-Christian heretics.
1- Obama fears more than Iran does of an Isarli attack .
That is an interesting position.Miller could be direct and could have said that Iran should listen to the fear mongering of Israel as Obama is doing and Iran should give in to the corrupt aggressive armtwisting , tactices of Israel achieved by financial position of jews in the right places across the Europe,US,Canada and Australia.
One wonders why Obama is doing.Not out of love of Iranain or environmental disaster or for economy.
why would the iranians already have nuclear weapons if the revolution of 1979 didnt happen? BECAUSE THE US SOLD/BUILT A NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR THE SHAH. Its still in use. Weird that Miller doesnt mention this…..or maybe not
The name of the program that built reactors in Iran and Pakistan, you ask? ATOMS FOR PEACE.
You couldnt make this shit up.
Miller is right about one thing and that is the current talks are really no more than a cease-fire. They will definitely delay war. I don’t trust his predictions about what will happen in 2013. He sounds like he is part of that Israeli/neocon campaign to sabotage the negotiations. If he is not consciously part of that he is saying what he hopes will happen.
Ira, we know so little about the extent of the Iranian nuclear weapons program
can we, at a minimum, reference it as an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program? even the US says they have not found evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
link to moonofalabama.org
more at the link
“can we, at a minimum, reference it as an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program?”
You may be correct. I actually thought about whether to use “alleged” when I wrote the post. I did not partially because of the 2007 US intelligence report that stated that Iran had a weapons program before 2003. If my memory serves me, I think Trita Parsi also talked about this pre 2003 weapons program in “A Single Roll of the Dice.” That is why I added, “past, present and future.” I thought that may have covered me.
I admit that I am influenced by the MSM, the doubts of the AIEA, and the declarations of Western officials. For instance, Catherine Ashton was quoted as a saying that the Baghdad round of talks would be the beginning of the end of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Maybe those are not the best reasons.
I also just figure that any country in Iran’s position would at some point want to develop, at least, a nuclear capability.
Anyway, thanks for raising this important point. And it is important.
Blurring the distinction between allegations and facts is how we wound up in the Iraq quagmire and various other misguided adventures, the vast majority of the population having believed Saddam was stockpiling WMDs and the like. Another dangerous distinction to ignore is that between nuclear capability and nuclear weapons capability: Iran has unabashedly been developing the former, but only allegedly have they ever worked on the latter.
admit that I am influenced by the MSM, the doubts of the AIEA, and the declarations of Western officials. For instance, Catherine Ashton was quoted as a saying that the Baghdad round of talks would be the beginning of the end of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
well, not too many declarations by western officials. she shouldn’t have said what she did, since our intel claims iran, thus far, is only ‘keeping open the option’. fyi Ira, here’s some responsible reporting from reuter’s
link to ca.reuters.com
and thanks for your report!
a few lines of miller’s stand out: America wants an end to its [Iran’s] repression and brutality, freedom for the Iranian people
hahahahaha, as if we care about repression/ brutality or freedom for muslims and/or arabs. what a joke.
let’s face it, nobody – not the Iranians, the Europeans, the Obama administration, not even the Israelis, particularly if they have to do it alone — wants a war.
hogwash. there are people salivating for war.
If one wishes to reprise Iran’s repression/brutality/ freedom, in contrast to Israel
one needs only to compare the status of Iranian Jews, which constitute a population of 75,000 to the status of Israeli Christians/Palestinians in Israel:
Jews are protected in the constitution of Iran (I believe Israel not only has no
constitution but has/does actively resist the creation of such a document) and have
a reserved seat in Parliament.
One, in reprising the effects of bombing Iran, should also consider that Iran is
home to the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East and that these
people are not actively choosing to emigrate to Israel although they are not
prevented from doing so.
It would be wonderful to see freedom for the American people. Imagine if they had a choice in a presidential eelction between Wall St and an alternative.
seafoid, Americans do have choice between Wall St & current US foreign policy, but most Americans have dismissed Ron Paul; he may as well be a teen or young adult on MTV’s show Dismissed.
The Iranian peaceful nuclear enrichment program as has been established by the U.S agencies whose job it is to analyse such information have concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear arms program.
link to antiwar.com
Miller’s lies: “America wants an end to its [Iran's] repression and brutality, freedom for the Iranian people.”
To see how false this is, let’s try out the following sentence: “America wants an end to the Shah’s repression and brutality, freedom for the Iranian people”. (In fact, the US supported the Shah and the CIA put him in power in 1953.)
Or this one: “America want an end to General Pinochet’s repression and brutality, freedom for the Chilean people” (CIA put Pinochet in power in 1973 coup)
Or this one: “America wants an end to the military junta’s repression and brutality, freedom for the Honduran people” (Full story not public yet, 2009 coup d’etat supported by the US)
Or this one: “American wants an end to Mubarak’s repression and brutality, freedom for the Egyptian people” (US supported Mubarak dictatoship for 30 years)
Or this one: “America wants an end to Israeli repression and brutality, freedom for the Palestinian people” (nothing more needs to be said to the readership of MondoWeiss)
I could go on and on…. Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Batista’s Cuba? Somoza’s Nicaragua? Trujillo’s Dominican Republic? Duvalier’s Haiti? Marcos’ Philippines? Castello Blanco’s Brazil? General Ongania’s Argentina?
Welcome to the US Empire.
The take-home lesson: US foreign policy in the Middle East isn’t really different from the policy in the rest of the world.
Now, what does anyone suppose this is all about?
link to presstv.ir
Nick, Interesting. I have found the Iranian reporting to be pretty accurate generally, but I am skeptical about this one.
Here is another story which I believe originated at Ha’aretz, (admittedly not the most objective source either) that says that Sherman did meet with Ehud Barak.
link to allvoices.com
It does not mention Netanyahu who had been scheduled to attend according to at least one source.
The main thrust on the Ha’aretz piece was that there is no gap between US and Israel now. I think that was the headline. According to an American official, Netanyahu does not have to pressure Obama anymore on Iran. Allegedly, a US official claimed that in Baghdad the Iranians asked that their right under the NPT to enrich uranium be recognized. They P5+1 rejected this summarily.
All of the above supposedly was sourced to a press conference during the Sherman visit although none of the officials doing the briefing were named.
Yes, it’s almost as if this is a delaying tactic, bounce the ball around while waiting for something else to happen. It’s a bit of a wild guess but it might just have something to do with Azerbaijan. If Israel establishes bases there, the need for practical cooperation from the US for at attack is diminished. There was this link to presstv.ir and although it’s a denial, the issue is obviously floating about somewhere.
so “iran is insecure but believes it is profoundly entitled” and its “mix of vulnerability and grandiosity is a bad combination.” but hasn’t the author’s made a typing error, since far more than iran his description fits the apartheid entity israel?
RE: “so ‘iran is insecure but believes it is profoundly entitled’ and its ‘mix of vulnerability and grandiosity is a bad combination.’ but hasn’t the author made a typing error, since far more than iran his description fits the apartheid entity israel?” ~ yourstruly
MY COMMENT: Israel’s “Samson Option” certainly seems to be the product of a “mix of vulnerability and grandiosity” that is a very bad combination!
FROM WIKIPEDIA [Samson Option, as of 5/25/12]:
SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org
ALSO SEE – “The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy”
LINK – link to en.wikipedia.org
“For Miller, the conflict with the present Iranian government defies solution since it is more about hegemony than nuclear weapons.”
This is a correct assessment. An Iranian nuclear capability (not even actual weapons) would place restraints on imperial actions and on Israeli ambitions. It’s all about power and hegemony. The Godfather doesn’t tolerate defiance. Mossadegh begat the Shah. The Iranian revolution begat ongoing hostility. Iran is a critically important geostrategic pivot. The goal is regime change. The stakes are high.
It would be a mistake to discount the prospects for an attack on Iran because of the effects on the world economy. The people calling the shots don’t think like you or me. There is opportunity in disaster. Who would suffer the most? Europe and China. Goodbye competition! Then the banksters would buy up real assets on pennies to the dollar. The fat-cats would own the planet lock, stock and barrel. We are headed in that direction now, a collapse would serve to speed up the process. We are ruled by sociopaths. Take care.
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greater good of everyone.” (John Maynard Keynes)
“Who would suffer the most?”
The innocent people of Iran followed by US grunts followed most likely by innocent Americans abroad and innocent Jews everywhere .
SEAFOID- My comment is referring to the economic consequences of an attack frequently referred to as a reason that the elites will show prudent restraint, not to the carnage and other consequences. As to the likely suffering of the Iranian people, etc, I seriously doubt that very many of our sociopathic elites will lose any sleep over it. To them, this is like a game. A grand chessboard.
When the Wall came down in ’89 I remember the line that “Capitalism” had destroyed Communism. I couldn’t help wondering if it had another ‘enemy’ to destroy – Democracy. And it certainly seems to be the general direction of things.
Keith, I agree; in this sense US is also no different than Argentina, which via its then elite fought England over those islands, at the expense of its citizens to divert the Argentineans’ attention from supreme unhappiness with their own government. US elite, via HMS, Patriot Act, internet act proposals, is moving towards a US STASI state.
Is it just a coincidence that the headline “Iran has enough uranium for five nuclear weapons, claims US thinktank” fails to note that the thinktank, Institute for Science and International Security is that of David Albright who has a history of peddling anti-Iranian “scientific” information of behalf of Israel?
link to guardian.co.uk
“Both Marcy, here, and b, over at Moon of Alabama, have roundly criticized the cartoon released on Sunday by AP’s George Jahn purporting to depict a chamber at Iran’s Parchin site where various groups accuse Iran of carrying out work aimed at an explosive trigger device for a nuclear weapon. David Albright, working through his Institute for Science and International Security, has been near the forefront in most of these accusations, with one of his accusations coming out in December of 2009 (pdf). As described in his 2009 piece, Albright accuses Iran of attempting to replicate A.Q. Khan’s uranium deuteride (UD3) initiator for a bomb, which “works by the high explosives compressing the nuclear core and the initiator, producing a spurt of neutrons as a result of fusion in D-D reactions. The neutrons flood the core of weapon-grade uranium and initiate the chain reaction.”
Prior to the release of the cartoon, Albright had claimed on May 8 that he had detected activity aimed at “cleansing” the Parchin site. I debunked that claim the next day, by pointing out that all traces of radioactivity cannot be washed away and that Albright’s claims would mean that the waste water carrying the radioactivity was allowed to drain freely onto the grounds surrounding the building, where the radioactivity could be found without much effort. Albright repeats those claims in Jahn’s article accompanying the cartoon, and he brings in another expert to support his claims that residue from testing a trigger device could be scrubbed:”
link to emptywheel.net
Ira et al, keep in mind that if Iran is attacked and if it turns into an intractable world conflagration there is one group in the crosshairs that will be scapegoated if things do not go as they plan which seems to be a pretty fair expectation given their past performance at prognosticating other military adventures which they fomented.
Just remember how easy it was to scapegoat the migrants who cross the river and come here to work for slave wages when the economy turned down…given the right circumstances certain groups have a target on their back…history can serve as a peek into the future for when an easily identifiable population segment foments for political actions that are deemed unacceptable by the native population, especially when things go awry, my guess is that the cross will be bared as in the past.
The term israel firster wasn’t feared by the Dersh and the neocon minions for nought, they see in it a hate filled appelation which points blame for military actions on an easily identified group.
They are concerned and for good reason given what history has taught those who wish to learn.
This is merely one of the flood of articles which are designed to massage public opinion into thinking that war is inevitable, and that nobody can stop the process which has started. The same thing happened over Iraq, it is all part of the strategy of priming the media and the public so that in time it almost seems impossible to halt the juggernaut and there is a resigned apathy over it. In the midst of it all, the facts become irrelevant, since repetition (of lies and deception) is fundamental to propaganda. And the question that gets obscured and never asked is ‘what threat exactly is Iran to the US?’ The impression that Iran has nuclear weapons, and that they are irrational is enough, regardless of the truth. It worked for Iraq, with the same people cheerleading the propaganda.
Justice, that sounds so correct. Miller is playing the concern troll here. ‘Oh my god, war would be so horrible. But Iran has such unreasonable expectations and the US can never accept Iranian enrichment for nuclear fuel that the ending is inevitable — the US will have no choice but to go to war with Iran. I (Miller still talking here) am the humanitarian liberal and as much as I hate war, the Iranians are leaving us no choice.’ Miller is obviously another dual loyalty Zionist/American like Dennis Ross and Indyk who will promote Israeli policies over those of America.
In any case we must isolate these guys and expose their game. They are not working for US.
“For Miller, the conflict with the present Iranian government defies solution since it is more about hegemony than nuclear weapons.”
This is a correct assessment. An Iranian nuclear capability (not even actual weapons) would place constraints on imperial action and Israeli ambitions. It’s all about power and hegemony. The Godfather doesn’t tolerate defiance. Mossadegh begat the Shah. The Iranian revolution begat ongoing hostility. Iran is a critically important geostrategic pivot. The goal is regime change. The stakes are high.
Oops! Inadvertent duplication. Sorry. So little time, so many excuses!
What is so diabolical about Miller’s argument is that it designed to torpedo the current negotiations with Iran or, at least, make it very difficult for Obama to succeed. This became more clear to me after reading Stephen Walt’s May 25 posting (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com) that describes the negotiations in very straightforward terms.
In part Walt writes From a purely strategic point of view, this situation is pretty simple. Iran is not going to give up its right to enrich uranium. Period. If the West insists on a full suspension, there won’t be a deal. It’s that simple. At the same time, the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 would like to maximize the amount of time it would take Iran to “break out” and assemble a weapon. The best way to do that is to limit Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium to concentrations of less than 5 percent. If Iran insists on keeping a large supply of 20 percent enriched uranium on hand, we’ll walk too.
What was so promising in the last few months is that Obama signaled that the US would accept enrichment to 5% and Iran signaled that they would limit enrichment to 20%. Other topics would have to be addressed but none are deal breakers — the US would have to drop its talk about regime change, perhaps some softening on sanctions (Europe would be quite happy if the oil embargo was lifted) and so on.
What we are seeing now are the Israeli and AIPAC tactics designed to thwart this progress by mobilizing Congress and public opinion against Obama reaching that “simple” solution. This is taking the form of insisting that Iran give up any enrichment, insisting that the Iranian enrichment facilities are vulnerable to Israeli bombing attacks, keeping the demand for regime change on the agenda and whatever other poison pills they can devise. Aaron Miller laid this all out quite clearly in this latest piece. If Obama showed any flexibility in the negotiations on any of these points between now and November, the lobby in coordination with the Romney campaign would pounce with cries of betrayal and weakness.
All we can hope for in the short term is that the diplomats can keep the talks going until November. I hope the Iranians have the patience to play this game. And I don’t see why not, for they will continue to enrich to 20% as long as Obama delays which will just give them more chips on the board for when the negotiations become serious. I remain optimistic that this will work out. There is not much evidence for this but I feel that the US Congress is getting a little impatient with AIPAC continuing to demand more and more resolutions from them.
It may be all we can hope for longer term as well. Just try to imagine a scenario where sanctions are lifted and Israel is happy. A lot of nations and individuals all over would be relieved if they were but the main participants, the US Legislature, AIPAC, Israel and Iran, are simply not arranged in any conformity that can lead to that end. They are in deadlock. Some external factor has to come into play, something no one anticipates, something to shake the kaleidoscope. Meanwhile we just wait like a cat at a mouse hole.
So, we await a new Lavon Affair?
Or another Cast Lead? The Zionists are on a plank which is slowly becoming a tightrope thanks to the work of many like those here.
link to presstv.ir
Meanwhile Ahmadinejad blithely enriches uranium in much the manner Netanyahu builds settlements.