|
Obama’s Pivot Requires Serious Negotiations With Iran
In recent negotiations with Iran the United States again tried to fudge on Iran’s right to enrich Uranium. Only severe pressure from Russia and China reversed that stand and made a deal possible. Writes the Washington Post:
Iran and six world powers took a significant and hard-won step toward nuclear rapprochement on Sunday, announcing a deal to implement a landmark agreement that caps Iran’s disputed nuclear program in return for a modest easing of crippling economic sanctions.
…
The weeks of bargaining to put the November agreement in force were more difficult than anticipated, with one brief walkout by Iranian envoys and rancor among the bloc of nations that negotiated the deal. Russia and China, long Iran’s protectors at the United Nations, pushed the United States to accept technical concessions that further make clear that Iran will retain the ability to enrich uranium, a key Iranian demand, once a final set of restrictions on its program is approved.
Russia and China threatened to ignore the sanctions and to thereby enable Iran to continue its nuclear program without limits while reviving its economy. The threat was issued via a Reuters “exclusive” on Friday afternoon:
Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month that would enable Iran to lift oil exports substantially, undermining Western sanctions that helped persuade Tehran in November to agree to a preliminary deal to curb its nuclear program.
Russian and Iranian sources close to the barter negotiations said final details were in discussion for a deal under which Russia would buy up to 500,000 barrels a day of Iranian oil in exchange for Russian equipment and goods.
Should such an agreement happen “western” equipment, exported to Russia and China, would easily find its way to Iran. Russia and Iran are connected through the Caspian Sea where the U.S. has no capabilities to enforce a blockade.
For now the Obama administration has given in to the Russian pressure but the difficulties will only increase with the negotiations of a permanent deal. Russia and China have now clearly set limits to the outrageous demands the U.S. is making. Even U.S. allies press for the end of sanctions and a quick deal:
Speaking to the BBC’s Jon Sopel, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, spoke about a number of political issues in the region, in particular the Syrian conflict, sanctions on Iran and the future of Egypt.
…
The interview mentions the need to lift sanctions on Iran to secure better cooperation in the country’s nuclear disarmament process.
“Iran is our neighbour and we don’t want any problem. Lift the sanctions and everyone will benefit,” said Sheikh Mohammed.
The Dubai Ruler also said he believed Iran is telling the truth when saying they only intend to use nuclear technology for civilian means.
“I talked to Ahmadinejad and he said ‘if I send a rocket to Israel, how many Palestinians will I kill. And then the US and Europe will destroy my cities. I’m not crazy to go for that. It’s a weapon of the past’,” he said.
Obama has no other sane option but to seriously go for a permanent deal. If he does not get one the sanction regime will surely fall apart. Neither is a war on Iran a viable alternative. Attacking Iran, which is not developing nuclear weapons, under some “non-proliferation” argument would destroy the U.S. moral-political position in the world while such an attack could not hinder but would justify Iran to start striving for a nuclear deterrent. Additionally a war in the Persian Gulf would be devastating for the world economy. “Containment”, without an effective sanction regime, is no containment at all and not serious option.
Obama wants a U.S. “pivot to Asia”. To achieve such a reduction of U.S. engagement in the Middle East is a necessity. Neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia want that. They want to keep U.S. attention on their perceived enemies. But the U.S. can not further engage in Asia and stay fully deployed in the Middle East. It is either or.
The Zionist are pressing Congress to blow up the negotiations with Iran by legislating new uni-lateral U.S. sanctions on third parties. Obama can blame himself for having enabled such self defeating “suffocating sanction” strategy. That strategy is failing and the way out of it will be difficult for him. But Congress will not dare to vote directly for a war on Iran.
If Obama would negotiate in good faith with Iran the United States could acquire a serious and reliable partner in the Gulf and enable its pivot to Asia. But playing games, as Obama again tried last week until Russia stepped in, will leave it with a mostly unenforceable Iran “containment” strategy that will drain its resources and leave the pivot to Asia an under-resourced dream.
Hello all,
This is my first post on this site, which I visit regularly due to many incisive views by “b”, as I think that my perspective is sufficiently different that it might contribute to the discussion.
Re: Syria: While the ongoing civil war is clearly fueled by the KSA, it is eminently clear to me that it would have started, and might still be ongoing, without any foreign intervention or incitement. What many of the commentators do not take into account is that Syria has a Youth Bulge of stupendous proportions. Its population has !quadrupled! in the last 50 years. Countries with huge Youth Bulges are very susceptible to inner turmoil or expansionist wars. Historical examples can be seen in the 16th till 19th centuries by the conquering of the Americas, Australia, many parts of Africa, and the subjugation of major parts of Asia by European states with extreme Youth Bulges.
In addition, due to the construction of dams in Turkey and climate change, Syria’s main sweet water source, the Euphrates, is becoming increasingly dry. That severely reduces the extent of agriculture in Syria, leading to shortages in available and affordable food supply.
Last, and certainly not least, Syria’s oil production has been declining to such an extent that the profits were not sufficient anymore to cover state expenses and subsidize oil consumption for its citizens.
These are the main drivers for the Syrian civil war, and they are almost entirely applicable to Egypt (which is going to explode or crumble as soon as the Saudi monetary prop-up is coming to an end).
Re: Iran: Iran certainly should have the moral right to use nuclear energy peacefully, as long as it adheres to the NPT. Moreover, the US would gain and increase some desperately needed resources by agreeing to a deal and gaining access to the Iranian markets. Needless to say, this is even more pertinent to Europe (I am European) as we really need the lowered oil price that would ensue as soon as Iranian oil would available for purchase again. Our industries also need the boost generated from increased trade with Iran.
However, relations between humans, and nations in particular, are not based on what is moral, rational, right or beneficial to the majority, but on might, the ability to impose on another party a specific outcome, and the self-interest of the mighty few in a given society. This tendency becomes even more pronounced in times of scarcity, such as we experience them now. By scarcity I mean scarcity of available energy (high oil prices!), scarcity of arable land, scarcity of potable and clean water, scarcity of resources that we need to to warm, clothe and feed ourselves, and to be able to have and sustain a family. Increasingly, scarcity is felt all over the world and it expresses itself by high unemployment, low economic growth civil wars, political turmoil, etc.
Therefore, Iran will, in all likelihood, not gain what it deserves, but what it is able to force the US and Israel to give up without being bombed to smithereens. I am not sure how many concession Iran will get, but I wish it all the best.
Re: Pivot to Asia: This is where I do not understand the majority of the commentators or “b”. I actually support the pivot as a means to contain China, because an American empire is vastly preferable to me than a Chinese one.
And let there be no doubt about it: As long as our energy resources will permit it, we will have a globalized world with a global empire. If history is any guide, then a power vacuum can not exist for very long. Neither, it seems, is a multipolar world in any way stable, peaceful or achievable.
The Chinese have clearly imperial aspirations and border disputes with virtually every neighboring country. In addition, China (same as India) has a severe overshoot in male population and a deeply ingrained sense of cultural and racial(Han) superiority. About 50-100 million sex craved Chinese men who cannot get some because of a lack of women, along with that sense of superiority do not spell anything good for countries that happen to be sucked into its orbit of dominance. Admittedly, they have some right to feel culturally superior has they have been so for several thousand years prior to the invasion by the British.
A confrontation, even a military one, between China and the US is much more likely than most of us would like to acknowledge as scarcity will bite ever deeper in the coming years and decades. Preparation is, as a consequence, an absolute key. Any western or Asian industrialized country has, as I perceive it, nothing to gain in a Chinese Hegemony but very much to lose because the current system works very much in these countries’ favor.
Only China and the US have some room in determining how “hot” that confrontation between them will turn out to be. Any other western or industrialized country would benefit much more if it supported the US. Russia, of course, is an exception as it could gain influence and standing by taking advantage of a confrontation that is bound to weaken both of its major competitors.
Posted by: HnH | Jan 15 2014 14:46 utc | 117
@b, bevin, some1, thanks for the replies.
With regards to Syria, the US, SA, Qatar and Israel certainly had and have their parts in keeping that conflict alive and burning. However, the outbreak into a civil war could not have happened without a highly restive population with little to lose and a weakened control of the Assad government precisely because of the conditions that I have mentioned previously.
While the US contributed training and intelligence at the beginning of the conflict, I am not so sure about its current involvement, which I estimate to be nil to very minor. A cue is the lack of Israeli aerial attacks on Syrian territory recently and the openly expressed disgruntlement by Turkey about the lack of support for the Syrian free armies. Turkey even seems to have started to close its borders for resupply runs destined for the insurgents. The US has also stopped its homeopathic weapons deliveries after they went to Sunny extremist war parties. Saudi Arabia is another story entirely.
What I mean by that is that US imperialism is not nearly as omnipotent as it is often made out to be. Contextual factors are more often than not far more influential. The US were “merely” exploiting the existing conditions.
The pivot to Asia will surely lead to gleefully rubbed hands in the boardrooms of the MIC corporations and their stockholders. It is, however, much more than that. It is the fight of the weakening but still preeminent global power to hold in check the most serious contender, whose might is growing with astonishing speed. Just a couple of days ago the news appeared that China was now the biggest trading nation. This further undermines the US Dollar as the global currency, the position of which has already taken some hard knocks by inter-BRICS trading agreements in Renmibi, Roubles, Real and Rands. The advantage of issuing the world currency is very significant for the USG in terms of income, trade and plain savings due to the lowest possible interest premiums of debt servicing.
China is also becoming much more assertive in foreign policy demands and in claiming ownership of territories that haven’t seen any kind of Chinese exertion of control over the last hundreds of years, if ever. China’s behavior in business relations with African countries, Australia and Pakistan, to name a few, has also become ever more imposing. This is coupled with demands of adjusting behavior in foreign relations so that it can be deemed acceptable by China, or else…
Combined with the exponential rise on defense R&D and procurement, and the aforementioned territorial disputes with virtually every neighbor, China has all the trappings of a potential Empire on the rise. It may not show the hallmarks of US- or European style imperialism, but the effects on suffering and death because of its policies do not have to be any less detrimental. It is telling that many Asian countries, overtly or covertly, have started to seek out closer relations and protection by the US because they are intimidated by China, if they don’t fear it outright already.
The other point is the male overshoot in China. “b” argued that the number was quite closer to 10 million rather than the 50-100 million that I mentioned. “b” is right if we are talking just about the 15-64y demographic, whereas my number includes the 0-14 demographic as well (53 million). Both numbers are a bit misleading because the one child policy was introduced with strong incentives but without coercion in 1972 before it became law (with coercion) in 1982. Also, Two year old children don’t care about mating. The numbers mislead, because it is precisely the younger generations from 1972, and 1982 in particular, onwards where the male overshoot is especially pronounced. This is also the age range, where the overshoot shows its strongest effects because these people are young(ish) and in a brutal competition over the few women in that age bracket. Reading news on China about the harsh requirements on men before they are considered marriage worthy is quite illuminating. I also don’t think that Chinese traditions support the practice for a woman to have several men/husbands at the same time ;).
@bevin regarding US propaganda & economic liberalism. I have read Schumpeter, Marx, Chomsky, Hayek, Smith, along with a couple of other “worthies”. The Prince by Machiavelli is my favorite, which is probably saying something about me. My conclusion is that true Marxism or Communism is just as big as a idealistic pipe dream as the notion of a Free Market. Both concepts can only exist as theoretical ideas, never to see the light of reality because of human nature and the simple fact that linear economic growth is incompatible with an exponential monetary system.
Current neoliberal capitalism has carried the day over sovjet-style socialism because it proved to be much more efficient in producing goods and wealth; up to now. It did so by pushing the “externalizations” onto the commons and the weaker and poorer nations. It has had its heyday and I doubt it will survive another decade, but who knows what comes next. A liberal, free and equal system it will most certainly not be, until we all revert to live in Hunter-Gatherer communities, for which we are far too many populating the planet.
Any kind of civilization needs structure and hierarchical levels. Systems thinking and network analysis suggests that very strongly, as does all our history since 10 000 BC. The more hierarchy, the more inequality. The one thing begets the other.
Enough for today.
Posted by: HnH | Jan 15 2014 23:03 utc | 141
|
