General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIran in U.S. Senate Crosshairs.
Pending legislation actively supported by a significant minority of the U.S. Senate, including 15 Democratic Senators, establishes strict economic sanctions to be imposed on Iran should it not adhere to actions demanded of it during the current interim six month negotiating window regarding it's nuclear program. The Obama Administration opposes the Senate Bill, arguing that talks with Iran are at a fragile and sensitive stage and any further talk of sanctions at this point runs the risk of scuttling them. Not surprisingly the Senate sponsors of this bill deny any desire to torpedo the current negotiations with Iran. They claim their intent is to provide incentives to Iran to negotiate in good faith. Their actions, they say, increase the likelihood of reaching a negotiated outcome with Iran consistent with long stated U.S. security concerns. They may say that, and some of them may even believe it, but their actions are far more likely to increase the chances of a war with Iran.
No knowledgeable observer can deny that powerful forces, some inside Iran, others associated with the U.S. and our allies, are unsettled if not unabashedly alarmed, at the direction the current nuclear talks have taken. That type of concern seems to flare up whenever long time adversaries show mutual signs of breaking loose from deeply entrenched opposing positions. International disputes ultimately are settled in one of two ways. Either one side essentially capitulates in the face of threats, up to and sometimes including the use of force against them, or some type of settlement of outstanding differences is negotiated. The former often leads to war. The latter almost always involves some degree of compromise, but hardliners on BOTH sides of a dispute usually oppose the granting of any real concessions to their adversaries.
The motives of those opposed to the current negotiations over Iran's nuclear program on both sides may differ wildly, but the short term tactical goal is identical; derail any real diplomacy that proposes anything other than a blueprint for the terms of the other side's surrender. When hardliners lose an internal struggle with more moderate elements to shape their nation's stance in an international dispute, they will try to inflame extremist passions on BOTH side of the dispute. They know it makes no difference which side ultimately disrupts negotiations. All that matters is the failure of the negotiating process.
No doubt opponents of the current peace process inside of the Iranian regime are doing all that they can to poison the well; to stoke up as much hatred of and suspicion toward America as possible. Opponents of the current peace process inside of America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are counting on exactly that. There is a phrase that gets used in diplomacy that we seldom stop to ponder the meaning or implications of, and that term is in good faith. It's not the sort of precise criteria that is easily verifiable, but whether or not each side believes that the opposing side is negotiating in good faith is critical to the success of most negotiations. Another important diplomacy related concept is trust building initiatives. There seems to be a diplomatic consensus that trust building measures are crucial before real progress can be made resolving long standing disputes between nations with an entrenched distrust of each other.
If it is possible for a party to be recognized for negotiating in good faith it is equally possible for it to be accused of negotiating in bad faith. The latter is actually the more likely outcome when negotiations occur against the backdrop of deeply held suspicions. And that is precisely why trust building measures are so central to diplomacy, and why they are needed now during the standoff with Iran. Diplomacy at the highest levels has resumed between the United States and Iran. It is an historical breakthrough. Both sides are intently studying how this breakthrough is being perceived by the other, across the great divide. Is it being viewed with relief, and at least cautious optimism, or is it a cause for greater concern, with an expectation of failure and worse days to come?
Cue the United States Senate, where lobbyists representing the interests of other nations aligned with the United States are hard at work behind the scenes trying to influence U.S. policy toward Iran during the current stand off regarding Iran's nuclear program. Clearly there are honest differences of opinion over if and how to proceed with negotiations. Those differences have been at the heart of countless debates within the U.S. State Department and have been the focus of endless consultations with our allies. They were fully weighed, they were fully considered, and the current negotiations with Iran are the product of those deliberations.
Secretary of State John Kerry could not be clearer in warning that new Congressional initiatives regarding Iran policy at this point in our relationship with that nation are not only counter productive, they are dangerous and undercut the chances of successfully defusing our impasse with Iran, and significantly increase the likelihood of armed conflict with that nation. Those warnings have not deterred those who object to the diplomatic process now underway, but they have influenced the tactics that they are using to undercut those negotiations
An initial flurry of voices rose in stark opposition to the 6 month interim agreement reached with Iran when it was first announced, until the American people weighed in on the deal. Most polls have shown a clear majority of Americans supporting it. As a result, rather than directly opposing the current six month window for negotiations, opposition strategy has shifted toward more subtly undermining it. Hence the current emphasis on providing incentives to Iran, in the form of specifically defined threats. Yes, it is argued, they will not take effect unless the negotiations fail, but the effect of those threats is to increase the likelihood of that failure. New threats from America coincident with the first hesitant warming of relations between our nation in over 30 years, predictably play poorly inside of Iran, and that plays directly into the hands of hard line Iranian elements who thrive on opposing America.
That is the real goal of the threats the U.S. Senate is weighing against Iran. The neocons may have lost the last few Middle East rounds but they have not exited the field. They still want to topple the Iranian regime, just like they wanted to depose Saddam Hussein. They still are promising the American people that it will be a cakewalk to liberate Iran from oppression, just like it was supposed to be in Iraq. Just a few more hard turns of the economic screws and the regime will crumble in the face of domestic unrest, Don't stop now, we're winning is their mantra. And if it comes to blows there is always shock and awe.
The neocon position is known and understood by the government in Iran. What they are unsure of is how much support that position has in the United States government. Iran is no more likely to make critical concessions to an opponent negotiating in bad faith than we are. If the U.S. Senate succeeds in lining up new sanctions against Iran now, when trust building rather than saber rattling is a prerequisite to any long term diplomatic settlement. the fate of the interim negotiations is sealed. American hardliners, and their counterpoints in Iran, will have carried the day, and they can then get on with pursuing the mortal conflict that they believe to be inevitable.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)our Government is.
What they are unsure of is how much support that position has in the United States government. Iran is no more likely to make critical concessions to an opponent negotiating in bad faith than we are. If the U.S. Senate succeeds in lining up new sanctions against Iran now, when trust building rather than saber rattling is a prerequisite to any long term diplomatic settlement. the fate of the interim negotiations is sealed. American hardliners, and their counterpoints in Iran, will have carried the day, and they can then get on with pursuing the mortal conflict that they believe to be inevitable.
Response to: Tom Rinaldo (Original Post)
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)...it is very much an open question. And if it is an open question for us sitting here in the U.S. how must it seem to those sitting in Iran?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Just in case anyone is wondering
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/23/senate-democrats-iran-war_n_4493636.html
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)It is a good example of how elections have consequences. Obama may end up being the reason why we don't go to war with Iran. Neocons are gaining the upper hand in Congress again.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)The checks will be given at large fundraising banquets.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)They are still thirsty for war with Iran despite the seemingly obvious reasons why it would be an even worse idea than attacking/invading Iraq
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)It's very realistic looking and no poor soldiers die.
Get your Wargasm elsewhere guys
spanone
(135,826 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but my guess is that Mark Begich and Mary Landrieu are opposed to loosening sanctions because Iranian oil would flood the market, lowering the value of domestically produced petroleum. Alaska production has already declined considerably, already a major concern here.
I don't know this for a fact, but that's been the speculation here among those of us scratching our heads and wondering why Mark would oppose moves toward reconciliation with Iran.
spanone
(135,826 posts)not shocking, but sad.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I'm really very disappointed with Mark's position on this. I realize this is a largely Republican-leaning state, dependent on the oil industry, but I really wish he would take a principled stand once in a while instead of constantly caving to the monied interests.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)It's a lot more important than opposing a bridge to nowhere.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)"Fifty-three lawmakers have now signed on to the measure from Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), according to the latest count from the Library of Congress.
The bipartisan bill had 26 co-sponsors when it was introduced on Dec. 19 and has quickly been gaining traction since then; it drew another seven before the recess and 20 more this week.
The bill calls for new sanctions if Iran reneges on its commitments under an interim deal reached last year or fails to agree to a final bill that would ban it from enriching uranium. The White House has threatened to veto the measure."
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/194916-its-official-most-senators-now-back-iran#ixzz2pumLKVgB