{"id":23787,"date":"2012-12-10T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2012-12-10T12:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=23787"},"modified":"2012-12-08T14:03:53","modified_gmt":"2012-12-08T14:03:53","slug":"mr-president-tear-down-this-wall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2012\/12\/mr-president-tear-down-this-wall\/","title":{"rendered":"Mr. President, Tear Down This Wall"},"content":{"rendered":"

Washington\u2019s Iranian Future<\/em><\/p>\n

In Election 2012\u2019s theatre-of-the-absurd \u201cforeign policy\u201d debate, Iran came up no less than 47 times<\/a>. Despite all the fear, loathing, threats<\/a>, and lies in that billionaire\u2019s circus of a campaign season, Americans were nonetheless offered virtually nothing substantial about Iran, although its (non-existent) WMDs were relentlessly hawked as the top U.S. national security issue. (The world was, however, astonished to learn from candidate Romney that Syria, not the Persian Gulf, was that country\u2019s \u201croute to the sea<\/a>.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Now, with the campaign Sturm und Drang<\/em> behind us but the threats still around, the question is: Can Obama 2.0 bridge the gap between current U.S. policy (we don’t want war, but there will be war if you try to build a bomb) and Persian optics (we don’t want a bomb — the Supreme Leader said so — and we want a deal, but only if you grant us some measure of respect)? Don\u2019t forget that a soon-to-be-reelected President Obama signaled<\/a> in October the tiniest of possible openings toward reconciliation while talking about the \u201cpressure\u201d he was applying to that country, when he spoke of \u201cour policy of… potentially<\/em> having bilateral discussions with the Iranians to end<\/em> their nuclear program.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tehran won\u2019t, of course, \u201cend\u201d its (legal) nuclear program.\u00a0 As for that \u201cpotentially,\u201d it should be a graphic reminder of how the establishment in Washington loathes even the possibility of bilateral negotiations.<\/p>\n

Mr. President, Tear Down This Wall<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s start with the obvious but important: on entering the Oval Office in January 2009, President Obama inherited a seemingly impregnable three-decade-long \u201cWall of Mistrust\u201d in Iran-U.S. relations. To his credit, that March he directly addressed<\/a> all Iranians in a message for Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, calling for an \u201cengagement that is honed and grounded in mutual respect.\u201d He even quoted the thirteenth century Persian poet Sa\u2019adi: \u201cThe children of Adam are limbs of one body, which God created from one essence.\u201d<\/p>\n

And yet, from the start he was crippled by a set of Washington misconceptions as old as that wall, and by a bipartisan consensus for an aggressive strategy toward Iran that emerged in the George W. Bush years when Congress ponied up $400 million<\/a> for a set of \u201ccovert operations\u201d meant to destabilize that country, including cross-border operations by special forces teams. All of this was already based on the dangers of \u201cthe Iranian bomb.\u201d<\/p>\n

A September 2008 report<\/a> by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank, was typical in assuming a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran as a fact.\u00a0 It was drafted by Michael Rubin from the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, the same AEI that had unashamedly promoted the disastrous 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. Several future Obama advisers \u201cunanimously approved\u201d the report, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, future Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Anthony Lake, future U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, and Richard Clarke. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by all U.S. intelligence agencies stating that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003 was bluntly dismissed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mirroring the Bush administration\u2019s \u201call options are on the table\u201d approach (including cyberwar<\/a>), the report proposed — what else? — a military surge in the Persian Gulf, targeting \u201cnot only Iran\u2019s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.\u201d In fact, such a surge would indeed begin before George W. Bush left office and only increase<\/a> in scope<\/a> in the Obama years.<\/p>\n

The crucial point is this: as tens of millions of U.S. voters were choosing Barack Obama in 2008, in part because he was promising to end the war in Iraq, a powerful cross-section of Washington elites was drafting an aggressive blueprint for a future U.S. strategy in the region that stretched from North Africa to Central Asia and that the Pentagon was then still calling the \u201carc of instability.\u201d And the key plank in this strategy was a program to create the conditions for a military strike against Iran.<\/p>\n

R.e.s.p.e.c.t.?<\/strong><\/p>\n

With an Obama 2.0 administration soon to be in place, the time to solve the immensely complex Iranian nuclear drama is now. But as Columbia University\u2019s Gary Sick, a key White House adviser on Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the Tehran hostage crisis of 1979-1981, has suggested<\/a>, nothing will be accomplished if Washington does not start thinking beyond its ever-toughening<\/a> sanctions program, now practically set in stone as \u201cpolitically untouchable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sick has proposed a sound path, which means that it has no hope of being adopted in Washington.\u00a0 It would involve private bilateral discussions by credible negotiators for both sides based on a mutually agreed-upon agenda. These would be followed by full-blown negotiations under the existing P5+1 framework (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — U.S., Russia, China, France, and Britain — plus Germany).<\/p>\n

Considering the frantic post-2009 seesawing of sanctions, threats, cyber attacks<\/a>, military surges<\/a>, and colossal mutual incomprehension, no one in his right mind would expect a pattern of \u201cmutual respect\u201d to emerge easily out of Washington\u2019s \u201cdual track\u201d approach.<\/p>\n

It took Ambassador Hossein Mousavian, research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and spokesperson for the Iranian nuclear negotiating team from 2003 to 2005, to finally explain it all last August in a single sentence<\/a>: “The history of Iran’s nuclear program suggests that the West is inadvertently pushing Iran toward nuclear weapons.” Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, agrees, suggesting<\/a> in a recent speech that Iran now \u201cseems to be reenacting Israel\u2019s clandestine weapons development program of five decades ago, developing capabilities to build and deliver nuclear weapons while denying that it intends actually to do any such thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

What makes these developments even more absurd is that a solution to all this madness exists.\u00a0 As I\u2019ve written elsewhere<\/a>, to satisfy the concerns of the West regarding Iran’s 20% stockpile of enriched uranium,<\/p>\n

\u201ca mutually acceptable solution for the long term would entail a \u2018zero stockpile.\u2019 Under this approach, a joint committee of the P5+1 and Iran would quantify the domestic needs of Iran for use of 20% enriched uranium, and any quantity beyond that amount would be sold in the international market or immediately converted back to an enrichment level of 3.5%. This would ensure that Iran does not possess excess 20% enriched uranium forever, satisfying the international concerns that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. It would be a face-saving solution for all parties as it would recognize Iran’s right to enrichment and would help to negate concerns that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.\u201d<\/p>\n

Time to Hit the New Silk Road(s)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The current U.S. strategy is not exactly a raging success.\u00a0 Economist Djavad Salehi-Esfahani has explained<\/a> how Tehran\u2019s theocratic rulers continue to successfully manage the worst effects of the sanctions and a national currency in free fall by using the country\u2019s immense oil and natural gas wealth to subsidize essential imports.\u00a0 Which brings us to the bedrock question of this — or possibly any other — moment: Will Obama 2.0 finally admit that Washington doesn\u2019t need regime change in Tehran to improve its relationship with that country?<\/p>\n

Only with such an admission (to itself, if not the world) are real negotiations leading to a Wall of Mistrust-blasting deal possible.\u00a0 This would undoubtedly include a genuine d\u00e9tente, an acceptance of Iran\u2019s lawful pursuit of a peaceful nuclear program, guarantees that the result would not be a covert weapons project, and a turning away from the possibility of a devastating war in the Persian Gulf and the oil heartlands of the Greater Middle East.<\/p>\n

Theoretically, it could also include something else: an Obama \u201cNixon in China\u201d moment, a dramatic journey or gesture by the U.S. president to decisively break the deadlock.\u00a0 Yet as long as a barrage of furiously misinformed anti-Iran hawks in Washington, in lockstep with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2019s Israeli government, deploy a relentless PR offensive<\/a> burning with incendiary rhetoric, \u201cred lines,\u201d deadlines, and preemptive sabotage of the P5+1 negotiations, such a moment, such a gesture, will remain the faintest of dreams.<\/p>\n

And even such an elusive \u201cObama in Tehran\u201d moment would hardly be the end of the story.\u00a0 It would be more like a salutary twist in the big picture. To understand why, you need to grasp just how crucial Iran\u2019s geopolitical positioning is.\u00a0 After all, in energy and other terms that country is the ultimate crossroads of Eurasia, and so the pivot of the world.\u00a0 Strategically, it straddles the supply lines for a sizeable part of the globe\u2019s oil and gas reserves and is a privileged hub for the distribution of energy to South Asia, Europe, and East Asia at a moment when both China and India are emerging as potential great powers of the twenty-first century.<\/p>\n

The urge to control that reality lies at the heart of Washington\u2019s policy in the region, not an Iranian \u201cthreat\u201d that pales as soon as the defense spending of the two countries is compared.\u00a0 After all, the U.S. spends nearly a $1 trillion<\/a> on \u201cdefense\u201d annually; Iran, a maximum of $12 billion<\/a> — less, that is, than the United Arab Emirates, and only 20% of the total defense expenditures of the six Persian Gulf monarchies grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Iranian nuclear \u201cthreat\u201d would disappear for good if Obama 2.0 ever decided to push for making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. Iran and the GCC have endorsed the idea in the past. Israel — a de facto<\/em> (if never officially acknowledged) nuclear power with an arsenal of up to 300 warheads<\/a> — has rejected it.<\/p>\n

Yet the big picture goes way beyond the strategic gaming of the U.S. and Israel about Iran\u2019s possible future arsenal. Its position at the ultimate Southwest Asian strategic crossroads will determine much about the future New Great Game in Eurasia — especially whose version of a modern Silk Road will prevail on the great energy chessboard I call Pipelineistan<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve argued for years that all these intertwined developments must be analyzed together, including Washington\u2019s announced Asian military \u201cpivot<\/a>\u201d (aka \u201crebalancing<\/a>\u201d).\u00a0 That strategy, unveiled in early 2012 by President Obama, was supposed to refocus Washington\u2019s attention away from its two disastrous wars in the Greater Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region with a special focus on containing China. Once again, Iran happens to lie right at the heart of that new policy, given how much of its oil and natural gas heads east to China over waters patrolled by the U.S. Navy.<\/p>\n

In other words, it hardly matters that Iran is a rickety regional power run by aging theocrats with an only modestly impressive military.\u00a0 The relationship between Obama 2.0 and Iran is guaranteed to involve the nuclear question, but also (whether acknowledged or not) the global flow of energy across Pipelineistan, and Washington\u2019s future relations with China and the rest of Asia. It will also involve Beijing\u2019s concerted movements to prop up the yuan in relation to the dollar and, at the same time, accelerate<\/a> the death of the petrodollar.\u00a0 Finally, behind all of the above lies the question of who will dominate<\/a> Eurasia\u2019s twenty-first century energy version of the old Silk Road.<\/p>\n

At the 2012 Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) meeting in Tehran, India, Iran, and Afghanistan pushed for the creation of what might be called a new southern Silk Road — really a network of roads, railways, and major ports that would connect Iran and its energy wealth ever more closely to Central and South Asia. For Delhi (as for Beijing), getting closer to both Afghanistan and especially Iran is considered crucial to its Eurasian strategy, no matter how much Washington may disapprove.<\/p>\n

India is betting on the port of Chabahar in Iran, China on the port of Gwadar in Pakistan (and of course a gas pipeline from there to Iran) as key transshipment hubs linking Central Asia and the Gulf. Both ports will be key pawns in Pipelineistan\u2019s New Great Game<\/a>, which is quickly slipping from Washington\u2019s control.\u00a0 In both cases, despite its drive to isolate Iran, there is little the Obama administration can do to prevent these and other instances of closer Eurasian integration.<\/p>\n

Washington\u2019s grand strategy for a \u201cGreater Central Asia\u201d under its control once centered on Afghanistan and India.\u00a0 Its disastrous Afghan War has, however, blown a hole through its plans; so, too, has its obsession with creating energy routes that bypass Iran (and Russia), which looks increasingly irrational to much of the rest of Eurasia.\u00a0 The only version of a Silk Road that the Obama administration has been able to devise has been war-related: the Northern Distribution Network<\/a>, a logistical marathon of routes crisscrossing Central Asia for bringing military supplies into Afghanistan without relying fully on an increasingly unreliable Pakistan<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, in the long term, Moscow will do anything to prevent a U.S.\/NATO presence in Central Asia. As with Moscow, so with Beijing, which regards Central Asia as a strategic rearguard area when it comes to its energy supply and a place for economic expansion as well.\u00a0 The two will coordinate their policies aimed at leaving Washington in the lurch through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. That\u2019s also how Beijing plans to channel its solution for eternally war-torn Afghanistan and so secure its long-term investments<\/a> in mineral and energy exploitation. Ultimately, both Russia and China want post-2014 Afghanistan to be stabilized by the United Nations.<\/p>\n

The ancient Silk Road was humanity\u2019s first globalization highway centered on trade.\u00a0 Now, China in particular is pushing for its own ambitious version of a new Silk Road focused on tapping into energy — oil and natural gas — from Myanmar to Iran and Russia.\u00a0 It would, in the end, link no less than 17 countries via more than 8,000 kilometers of high-speed rail (on top of the 8,000 kilometers<\/a> already built inside China). For Washington, this means one thing: an evolving Tehran-Beijing axis bent on ensuring that the U.S. strategic target of isolating Iran and forcing regime change on that country will be ever just out of reach.<\/p>\n

Obama in Tehran?<\/strong><\/p>\n

So what remains of the initial Obama drive to reach out to Iran with an \u201cengagement that is honed and grounded in mutual respect\u201d? Not much, it seems.<\/p>\n

Blame it — once again — on the Pentagon<\/a>, for which Iran will remain a number one \u201cthreat,\u201d a necessary enemy.\u00a0 Blame it on a bipartisan elite in Washington, supported by ranks of pundits and think tanks, who won\u2019t let go of enmity against Iran and fear campaigns about its bomb.\u00a0 And blame it on an Israel still determined to force the U.S. into an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities that it desires.\u00a0 In the meantime, the U.S. military build-up in the Persian Gulf, already at staggering levels, goes on<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Somebody, it seems, has yet to break the news to Washington: we are in an increasingly multipolar world in which Eurasian powers Russia and China, and regional power Iran, simply won\u2019t subscribe<\/a> to its scenarios. When it comes to the New Silk Road(s) linking South Asia, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and China, whatever Washington\u2019s dreams may be, they will be shaped and constructed by Eurasian powers, not by the United States.<\/p>\n

As for an Obama 2.0 \u201cNixon in China\u201d moment transplanted to Tehran?\u00a0 Stranger things have happened on this planet.\u00a0 But under the present circumstances, don\u2019t hold your breath.<\/p>\n

_______________________<\/p>\n

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for <\/em>Asia Times<\/em><\/a>, an analyst for al-Jazeera and the Russian network RT, and a <\/em>TomDispatch regular<\/em><\/a>. His latest book is <\/em>Obama Does Globalistan<\/a> (Nimble Books, 2009).<\/em><\/p>\n

Copyright 2012 Pepe Escobar<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 tomdispatch.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On entering the Oval Office in Jan 2009, President Obama inherited a seemingly impregnable three-decade-long \u201cWall of Mistrust\u201d in Iran-U.S. relations. To his credit, that March he directly addressed all Iranians in a message for Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, calling for an \u201cengagement that is honed and grounded in mutual respect.\u201d Now, with the campaign Sturm und Drang behind us but the threats still around, the question is: Can Obama 2.0 bridge the gap between current U.S. policy and Persian optics?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-in-focus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23787","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23787"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23787\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}