News

US, Iran and Spoilers

Thankfully, at last, the leaders of Iran and the United States have exchanged civil, apparently well-intentioned words with one another. Many of us are pleased to see the possibility of rapprochement develop despite the persistently niggling awareness that an agitated Grinch lurks in the wings.

Netanyahu may succeed in undermining a deal between America and Iran. He’s deployed a lot of Lobby baltageya and he may still choose (insanely) to bomb the country. It’s alleged that he now wears the overlarge britches of the Leader of the Free World; there’s no reason to believe that he perceives the smallness of his actual stature.

However, the prospects for a deal may be better than many of us think. Obama is a second-term president. Legacy is undoubtedly on his mind – and to date, he hasn’t done very much that’s positive and memorable on foreign policy (ending two unwinnable wars is hardly memorable; who ‘ended’ the American war in Korea?). What remains is Drones – and that’s a very bloody legacy. Solving the Iranian issue – which should never have been an issue – could be to Obama as containing the USSR was to Eisenhower. Obama’s ego may resist Netanyahu’s attempts to dictate history.

In any event, the overall impact of a working relationship between the Americans and Iranians will be felt by every country in the region (except for maybe Egypt). Syria, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE will be impacted to a greater or lesser degree, although it is impossibly difficult to assess exactly how.

It may be the case that a negotiated outcome to the Syrian civil war becomes more likely with the resolution of the Iran-US relationship. A ceasefire (then peace) in Syria prevents the further destabilization of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. A deal may also help induce the Iranian leadership into aiding with the stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan where it has vital interests. Moreover, American assurances that an Iranian nuclear weapon will not develop may help to produce opportunities for energy diplomacy between Iran and the Gulf countries. Second-order effects on Pakistan and India may also be observed. “Peace” pressure on Israel could lead to Netanyahu’s ouster.

Things could go the other way too. The sectarian Gulf regimes may respond negatively to a deal. They may hold the view that anything that renews the Iranian ascendancy presents a threat, despite American assurances, which could lead to the further development of their own nuclear programs. Iran could refuse to broker a Russian-Syrian-American-Rebel (who are the rebels anyway? And can they overcome their fragmentation?) ceasefire in Syria as a consequence of sectarian considerations. It may also be the case that the Iranian influence in Iraq and Afghanistan is overstated or that the Iranians will seek to avoid issue linkages. And pressure on Netanyahu may push the Jewish-Israelis more deeply into apartheid, Dimona and Masada.

It’s really anyone’s guess at this point…

20 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As you point out, Isreal still has a lot of leverage here. AIPAC will spare no expense to scuttle a deal. In the absence of a successful AIPAC campaign to undermine the President, Netanyahu could resort to more cyber attacks, assassinations or a bombing campaign of his own. Presumably Obama will be telling Netanyahu that any Israeli attempts to wreck a deal through violence will be a punishable offense. I won’t hold my breath on that though. I hope rather than believe that Obama is strong enough to make peace with Iran.

RE: “Who ‘ended’ the American war in Korea?” ~ Ahmed Moor

MY COMMENT: Of course, Eisenhower ended Truman’s war in Korea, though he’s not much remembered for it. But it is one of the reason’s I always considered myself (until G.W. Bush) a moderate Republican rather than a Scoop Jackson Democrat.

A big spoiler will be netanyahu speaking in general assembly on monday.

RE: “And pressure on Netanyahu may push the Jewish-Israelis more deeply into apartheid, Dimona and Masada.” ~ Ahmed Moor

MY COMMENT: The Dimona-Masada “axis of Armageddon” scares the living hell out of me!

FROM “Bob Dylan – The Rolling Stone Interview” (by Kurt Loder – 1984)

. . . • Q (Loder) – Your latest album, ‘Infidels’, is hardly subteen fodder. Some critics have even detected a new note of conservatism in some of the songs — even outright jingoism in “Neighborhood Bully” in which the metaphorical subject is said to be “just one man” whose “enemies say he’s on their land.” That’s clearly a strong Zionist political statement, is it not?
• A (Dylan) – You’d have to point that out to me, you know, what line is in it that spells that out. I’m not a political songwriter. Joe Hill was a political songwriter; uh, Merle Travis wrote some political songs. “Which Side Are You On?” is a political song. And “Neighborhood Bully,” to me, is not a political song, because if it were, it would fall into a certain political party. If you’re talkin’ about it as an Israeli political song – in Israel alone, there’s maybe twenty political parties. I don’t know where that would fall, what party.
• Q (Loder) – Well, would it be fair to call that song a heartfelt statement of belief?
• A (Dylan) – Maybe it is, yeah. But just because somebody feels a certain way, you can’t come around and stick some political-party slogan on it. If you listen closely, it really could be about other things. It’s simple and easy to define it, so you got it pegged, and you can deal with it in that certain kinda way. However, I wouldn’t do that. ‘Cause I don’t know what the politics of Israel is. I just don’t know.
• Q (Loder) – So you haven’t resolved for yourself, for instance, the Palestinian question?
• A (Dylan) – Not really, because I live here.

• Q (Loder) – Would you ever live in Israel?
• A (Dylan) – I don’t know. It’s hard to speculate what tomorrow may bring. I kinda live where I find myself.
At another point in the song, you say, “He got no allies to really speak of,” and while “he buys obsolete weapons and he won’t be denied…no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.” Do you feel that America should send troops over there?
No. The song doesn’t say that. Who should, who shouldn’t — who am I to say?
• Q (Loder) – Well, do you think Israel should get more help from the American Jewish community? I don’t want to push this so far, but it just seems so…
• A (Dylan) – Well, you’re not pushing it too far, you’re just making it specific. And you’re making it specific to what’s going on today. But what’s going on today isn’t gonna last, you know? The battle of Armageddon is specifically spelled out: where it will be fought, and if you wanna get technical, when it will be fought. And the battle of the Armageddon definitely will be fought in the Middle East. . .

SOURCE – http://bobdylantalks.blogspot.com/2007/03/bob-dylan-rolling-stone-interview-by_5060.html

I think the Persian Gulf monarchies would welcome an end to the threat of war in the Gulf.