Has the game changed?

[David Guyatt]

It seems to me a possibility that the middle east gameplan may have changed. With the Russian initiative on Syrian chemical weapons, now Iran's new bossayatollah, Rouhani, ready to talk about the Iranian nuclear programme, there seems to be a new energy towards diplomatic settlements.

25 September 2013 Last updated at 01:29

Share this page

• Email
  
• Print
  

835

• Share
  
• Facebook
  
• Twitter
  

Iran ready for nuclear talks, says President Rouhani

President Rouhani: "Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region"

Continue reading the main story

Iran nuclear crisis

• Would Israel launch an attack?
  
• Issue stalks poll
  
• Q&A: Nuclear issue
  
• Key nuclear sites
  

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says he is prepared to engage in "time-bound and results-oriented" talks on his country's nuclear programme.
He told the UN General Assembly's annual meeting in New York that sanctions against Iran were "violent".
He also welcomed Syria's acceptance of the Chemical Weapons Convention and condemned the use of such weapons.
Earlier, US President Barack Obama said he was encouraged by Mr Rouhani's "more moderate course".
Continue reading the main story

Analysis

Jeremy BowenBBC Middle East editor
President Rouhani rejected what he sees as the Western conception of a world with a civilised centre and an uncivilised periphery. The result, he said, was a monologue in international relations.
Although the Israeli delegation boycotted his speech, President Rouhani used a very different tone at the UN to that of his predecessor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The new president condemned what he said was the criminal occupation imposed on the Palestinians, although he used milder language than President Ahmadinejad.
But so far the hopes of a thaw in relations between Iran and the West have been based on atmospherics, not substance. Negotiations later this week between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, might show if there has been a change of attitude - on both sides.

• New tone, old differences
  

He told the General Assembly that the diplomatic approach to settling the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme must be tested.
Mr Rouhani, who was elected earlier this year, has pledged a more open approach in international affairs.
Iran is under UN and Western sanctions over its controversial nuclear programme.
Tehran says it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes but the US and its allies, including Israel, suspect Iran's leaders of trying to build a nuclear weapon.
'Full transparency'President Rouhani said the "so-called Iranian threat" was imaginary.
"Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region," he said.
"Nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defence doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions. Our national interests make it imperative that we remove any and all reasonable concerns about Iran's peaceful nuclear programme."
To this end he said Tehran was prepared to engage "immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency".
Continue reading the main story

"Start Quote

The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested"

US President Barack Obama

• Q&A: Iran nuclear issue
  
• Iran leaders' UN speeches compared
  

He criticised the use of international sanctions against Iran, comparing them to the punitive measures used against Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power.
"These sanctions are violent - pure and simple," he said, adding that it was not political elites that were affected "but rather... the common people".
President Rouhani said that, while condemning any use of chemical weapons "we welcome Syria's acceptance of the Chemical Weapons Convention".
Iran, a staunch ally of Syria, has criticised US threats of military strikes over the deadly chemical weapons attack on 21 August in the suburbs of Damascus.
Speech 'cynical'Syria has since agreed to a joint US-Russian plan to have its chemical weapons arsenal destroyed.


The real US and Iranian presidents failed to meet at the UN

President Rouhani said Tehran believed that access by extremist groups to chemical weapons "is the greatest danger to the region".
He added: "Simultaneously, I should underline that illegitimate and ineffective threat to use or the actual use of force will only lead to further exacerbation of violence and crisis in the region."
However, President Rouhani's address failed to impress Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who described it as "cynical... full of hypocrisy".
"It had no practical suggestion to stop Iran's military nuclear programme and no commitment to fulfil UN Security Council decisions," he said in a statement.
In his speech, Mr Obama called for a strong UN resolution on Syria's chemical arms.
A much-anticipated encounter with President Obama did not materialise
He said the purpose of such a resolution should be "to verify that the regime is keeping its commitments" to remove or destroy its chemical weapons.
Mr Obama referred to Iranian suffering from chemical weapons at the hands of Iraq when he said the ban on chemical weapons was "strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocated in the trenches; Jews slaughtered in gas chambers; and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands".
The deal for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons by mid-2014 was agreed earlier this month - averting a possible Western military strike.
Differences have since emerged over whether the deal should be enforced by a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the organisation's charter, which would authorise sanctions and the use of force if Syria did not comply with its obligations.
On Iran, Mr Obama said the US wanted to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully, but was determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
'Concrete gestures'"We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy," he insisted - an acknowledgment of the assertion frequently made by Iranian authorities.
"Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions."
"The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested" he added further into the speech, saying he had urged Secretary of State John Kerry to pursue a deal.
Earlier Mr Rouhani shook hands with French President Francois Hollande, who said he expected "concrete gestures" from Iran to show it was not developing nuclear weapons.
But a much-touted informal encounter between Mr Rouhani and Mr Obama failed to materialise.
On Thursday, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will discuss its nuclear programme with US Secretary of State John Kerry - a rare instance of a formal encounter between the counterparts.
The meeting will be attended by foreign ministers from the other four permanent UN Security Council members - the UK, China, France and Russia - and also Germany, which make up the so-called P5+1.

[Phil Dragoo]

David

In 2004 the Council on Foreign Relations published "Iran: Time for a New Approach" co-chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates

Overview


The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned American troops along Iran's borders, making the United States and Iran wary competitors and neighbors who nonetheless possess overlapping interests. Meanwhile, questions continue to be raised about Iran's nuclear program and its involvement with terrorism. Clearly, contending with Iran will constitute one of the most complex and pressing challenges facing future U.S. administrations. This informative report, which sparked sharp debate in Washington and extensive coverage by U.S. and international media, offers a timely new approach.



Rejecting the conventional wisdom that Iran is on the verge of another revolution, the report calls for the United States to reassess its long-standing policy of non-engagement with the current Iranian government. The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, director of central intelligence during the George H.W. Bush administration, the report highlights several areas in which U.S. interests would be better served by selective engagement with Tehran, and breaks with current U.S. policy by encouraging a new strategy.



This report focuses on developments inside Iran, tapping into the Task Force members' extensive expertise on Iranian politics and society. It includes a comprehensive chronology of important dates in U.S.-Iranian history, economic and demographic facts about Iran, and reference materials on Iranian state institutions and governance.

A pdf is available for free download at:

http://www.cfr.org/iran/iran-time-new-approach/p7194

The timing of this was on the heels of GWBush and his 2001 Axis of Evil sloganeering in the wake of the 9/11 incident

Obviously it supplanted that warmongering

It was cemented by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate

This National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran's nuclear capabilities states "We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015."

Wherein the CFR from whose site comes the above summary puts off the threat; the threat is distant, not imminent.

In March Kissinger foresaw a future ally in Iran.

Prior to election Obama said he would negotiate with leaders in Iran:


A questioner asked in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate if the candidates would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"


"I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."



He argued that "Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire."

I would stipulate that while Obama expressed high ideals, in fact, there are substantial differences between Rouhani and Khrushchev

Rouhani I insist is not the seat of power in Iran; that is occupied by Khamenei

Khrushchev expressed a desire to shift scarce resources to consumer goods from arms, hence JFK and Khrushchev were on the peace wavelength

In the case of Rouhani based on informed observations of the region he is likely staving off economic collapse hastened by mismanagement and economic sanctions

His superior will not have relinquished the stated right to nuclear weapons and the unequivocable opposition to the existence of the zionist entity

As for Obama he may see a Peace Prize II in it, a place in history, a cynical distraction from various flypapers, or in the extreme a way to facilitate Iran's emergence into full nuclear membership for some reason of the CFR

The CFR appears to be a form of art for the expression of the geostrategic desires of the cabal

The term grand cabal would be redundant

At last word Putin was planning a trip to Tehran to seal a deal for S-300s and another reactor project

Iran is an ally of Syria, and Russia is as well

We see Iran, Syria, Russia with at least limited common interests

Obama cannot identify a U.S. interest in Iran--

but then, he has not identified a U.S. interest in the Arab Spring operation another trade term of art for CIA running guns to Muslim Brotherhood for a Turkey Saudi Qatar triple entente

So Woodrow Wilson is setting up the bowling pins for WW III

Did I type that or only think it

What I forecast is a North Korea type I'll-be-good-dammit-now-hand-over-my-candy

And the parent will be weakened while the child is empowered

And the poor Menendez brothers are orphans

[David Guyatt]

Thanks Phil. I hadn't seen that CFR paper. If the ruling elite thinks it's time for a change, then it's time for a change. ::

[Magda Hassan]

Yes. We've got the document on line here too. Should come up under a search for 'Iran'. My understand of Rouhani is that he has some sort of intel back ground but is quite western friendly. I think he was also western educated, in Scotland.

[Magda Hassan]

From Richard Silverstein in Tikun Olam

Iran and U.S.: Gathering Momentum for Peace

by Richard Silverstein on September 26, 2013 · 0 comments
in Mideast Peace

The past weeks have seen a remarkable change in both the tone and substance of relations between Iran and the west, particularly the U.S. It began with Pres. Hassan Rouhani's Rosh Hashana greeting in early September to the world's Jews. Though such a gesture might seem at best symbolic, no Iranian leader had offered such a gesture in years, if ever. That the act had more than symbolic meaning was signified by Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's immediate and curt rejection. He also called the Holocaust a "reprehensible crime" against the Jewish people.
Last week, cognizant of Iran's faltering human rights record and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, Iran's president released 80 political prisoners. He also penned an op-ed published in the U.S.' paper of political record, the Washington Post in which he called for an end of bellicosity and the beginning of dialogue and diplomacy in resolving outstanding differences between Iran and the west.
Israeli embassy's mock Rouhani LinkedIn profile

In planning his activities during the United Nations General Assembly week in New York, Rouhani invited progressive Iranian-Americans to meet with him. He even invited Iranian-Jews as well, and brought with him a Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. Iranian-American Jews were fond of the Shah. They were enormously wealthy in Iran and have only grown more so here. They are politically conservative, even monarchists. Their answer to the president's invitation was a resounding "No."
Israel's Nyet' (With Caveat)
Israel's response has also been resoundingly negative. From the top, the rightist government has universally panned the peace overture. Netanyahu has called Rouhani a "wolf in sheep's clothing." The Israeli embassy tweeted a sophomoric mock-LinkedIn profile for Rouhani in which he listed his achievements in promoting nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Someone should've reminded the embassy staffer who cooked this up that Israel is itself a nuclear proliferator which refuses to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Iran).
Israel, it should be remembered, has long supported regime change against Iran. Its intelligence services, first reported by Tikun Olam in 2010 and confirmed by NBC News in 2012, have collaborated with the MeK to bomb military installations and assassinate nuclear scientists. It is a country steeped in fear and loathing of Iran.
Maariv's front page features Rouhani op-ed

But not all Israelis reacted with such cynicism to Rouhani's peace offerings. Maariv, Israel's center-right daily newspaper, ran a Hebrew translation of Rouhani's Washington post op-ed under the headline: The Era of Blood Feuds is Past. For a country steeped in anti-Iranian sentiment, this was a major attitude readjustment.
There is a gathering consensus that now may just be the time to forge a nuclear agreement with Iran. Both leaders' speeches at the UN, while they continued some of the hardline rhetoric of the past, seemed to point to new lines of thinking. Unlike the presidency of Mohammed Khatami, Ayatollah Khamenei seems to have embraced the Rouhani approach…for now.
Solving Syria
There is also a parallel sense that the road to solving the Syrian crisis may run between Washington and Tehran. Rouhani, unlike any previous Iranian leader, has said that his country would support any Syrian leader elected by the people:
Radio Free Europe reported Pres. Rouhani sharply diverging from previous Iranian policy toward Assad:

"Whoever Syrian citizens vote for to rule their country, we'll agree with it," Rohani was quoted as saying by Iran's IRNA news agency. Rohani was addressing commanders of the IRGC.
Rohani's remarks marked a shift from previous statements by Iranian officials, who vowed never to allow the fall of Assad's regime.

In today's Washington Post interview with David Ignatius, Rouhani specifically affirms Iran's interest in playing a constructive role in resolving the Syria crisis:

My government has full authority based on discussions with the Supreme Leader to negotiate any issue that is necessary to be negotiated to preserve Iran's security and national-security interest. That includes any necessary cooperation at the international level to help settle the Syria crisis, ending the civil war there and to insure the right of self determination of the Syrian people. We would enter in any talks or meetings including Geneva 2 as long as there are no preconditions for Iran's participation.

All this may mark increasing Iranian flexibility and hope for transforming Syria into a multi-ethnic state in which power is shared among religious and ethnic groups, like Lebanon.
In case there is any doubt about Rouhani's resolve on the matter, he told Ignatius that he was fully empowered by the Iranian people and Ayatollah Khamenei to resolve any outstanding differences between Iran and the west:

…Settlement of the nuclear file is one of the responsibilities of my government. It is regarding the general strategy on the issue that the Supreme Leader also has his own views. You know that since I myself led the nuclear negotiations for several years, I'm quite fully cognizant of the general framework, in terms of strategy. So within that political framework, my government is fully empowered to finalize the nuclear talks.

Time (and Ayatollah) Waits for No Man'
But, as the president likes to say about Iran, there is a limited window of opportunity. Khamenei will not wait for years to see if honey draws the bee to the flower. There will come a point, if Obama doesn't seize the moment, when the former will wash his hands of diplomacy and return to truculence as policy. You can even see an allusion to this in the sentence in which he states that "the Supreme Leader also has his own views," meaning that they are different from Rouhani's.
Iran's president also alluded to the need both for resolve and speed in negotiating an end to the nuclear question:

The only way forward is for a timeline to be inserted into the negotiations that's shortand wrap it up. That is a decision of my government, that short is necessary to settle the nuclear file. The shorter it is the more beneficial it is to everyone. If it's 3 months that would be Iran's choice, if it's 6 months that's still good. It's a question of months not years.

Though he doesn't say this specifically, Rouhani realizes there are hardliners on both sides who are going to dig in their heels and delay. The longer the delay the stronger opponents become. It's why it's critical to strike a decisive deal for peace now.
The following passage is critical to understanding the types of forces within Iran that might try to derail an agreement. It is also revelatory in the way it parallels the "securitization" of Israeli society (what I call the "national security state"):

One of the…pledges o[f] my campaign was to insist on bringing a cultural, social and political environment in Iran and diluting the security dimensions of society at the moment. Regarding the IRGC, it's an important institution. It helped Iran emerge victorious from the Iraq-Iran war. What the Supreme Leaders said, and I have also said, is that the IRGC should understand and analyze political affairs. But it shouldn't get itself involved in any political groupings or activities.

In other words, Rouhani bravely has taken on the IRG and told it not to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. Can you imagine any Israeli prime minister telling the security chiefs that they have too much power? That the security dimension of Israeli society is stifling the full development of cultural, social and political life and that civilians must control the levers of the national security apparatus? What a breath of fresh air that would be! Maybe (shocking as it is) Israel can learn a few things from this man?
U.S. Anti-Iran Lobby
It's almost never pointed out in the mainstream media that here in the U.S. we too have our own anti-Iran power bloc spoiling for a fight over Obama's return to the negotiating table. Fueled by Aipac and the Israel lobby, along with GOP neocon hawks and Tea Party stalwarts, there is a strong anti-Iran contingent in Congress that wants nothing more than to torpedo any deal. In fact, M.J. Rosenberg believes that Aipac has the power to single-handedly undo any chance of a deal. I'm not as downbeat about prospects, but he definitely has a point. When it's stirred, Aipac is a fearsome adversary. And if it feels its ox is being gored, it will stop at nothing to beat down this initiative.
In short, both sides, Iran and the U.S., have powerful, entrenched interests opposing a negotiated resolution.
Conclusion
For any agreement to be possible, Rouhani, Obama and pragmatic forces on both sides will have to rally for compromise. They will have to rise to "the better angels" of their nature.
Until now, both sides have pandered to their respective prejudices and shouted slogans. Now is when the real test begins. Can they declaw their respective hawks, get beyond rhetoric and come up with a substantive agreementin six months?

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/0...ign=Buffer

[Tracy Riddle]

Yes, the new Iranian president seems to have a different attitude towards Jews. Rachel Maddow had a rather funny accounting of his friendly-to-Jews remarks in recent months, and how the Iranian state-run media has tried to deny that he said these things. Sounds like he may be a reformer who will have try to govern with the hardline clerics watching his every move.

Reminds me of the short papacy of John Paul I, who had to deal with the official Vatican newspaper publishing official positions that he didn't actually support.

[Tracy Riddle]

Another clip. Someone will probably put the Maddow segment on Youtube soon.

[David Guyatt]

Yes, the new Iranian president seems to have a different attitude towards Jews. Rachel Maddow had a rather funny accounting of his friendly-to-Jews remarks in recent months, and how the Iranian state-run media has tried to deny that he said these things. Sounds like he may be a reformer who will have try to govern with the hardline clerics watching his every move.

Reminds me of the short papacy of John Paul I, who had to deal with the official Vatican newspaper publishing official positions that he didn't actually support.

I think also that he is going to have a tough time with Israel. Being a moderate doesn't play well there, sadly - and Netanyahu has already shunned his attempts at solution finding. Hard-liners at home and abroad don't want peace and tranquility. It stymies business heh.

[Dawn Meredith]

Yes, the new Iranian president seems to have a different attitude towards Jews. Rachel Maddow had a rather funny accounting of his friendly-to-Jews remarks in recent months, and how the Iranian state-run media has tried to deny that he said these things. Sounds like he may be a reformer who will have try to govern with the hardline clerics watching his every move.

Reminds me of the short papacy of John Paul I, who had to deal with the official Vatican newspaper publishing official positions that he didn't actually support.

I think also that he is going to have a tough time with Israel. Being a moderate doesn't play well there, sadly - and Netanyahu has already shunned his attempts at solution finding. Hard-liners at home and abroad don't want peace and tranquility. It stymies business heh.

Indeed, the second any Middle East leader looks toward peace there is an assassination.

[Magda Hassan]

I hear there has been a tentative first phone conversation between Rouhani and Obama this morning while he was visiting NY. Positive noises from the State Department blurbs. The foreign ministers have been asked to follow up with solutions. Kerry the klutz I'm not sure is up to it.