Military Review

Will the US succeed in jumping off from the Middle East? On the prospects of a “deal with Iran”

Will the US succeed in jumping off from the Middle East? On the prospects of a “deal with Iran”20 November in Geneva begins a new round of negotiations of the "six" on the Iranian nuclear program. Many are convinced that Western countries will finally be able to conclude a "deal of the century" with "president-reformer" Hassan Rouhani and the Obama administration will be able to "turn the page" in the dragged out drama, recognizing Iran as a regional superpower and shifting responsibility for the fate of the Middle East to it. It is no secret that this has long been an idea of ​​a fix for the American president. After all, the United States, experiencing a shale revolution, will soon overcome its dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and it would be highly unwise to maintain the former system of alliances in Washington, which requires incredible efforts and huge financial investments in the region. However, it should be understood that it is not so easy to get off Obama. He has yet to fight with influential oil and military corporations, as well as lobbying structures interested in maintaining the status quo.

So far everything seems to be going well. The White House says that in exchange for a commitment to suspend work at nuclear facilities for half a year, Western countries will return frozen assets worth 3 billion dollars to Iran and may even suspend international sanctions (it is proposed to lift the ban on the import of spare parts for cars and airplanes, chemicals for the oil and gas industry, to remove restrictions on the purchase and sale of gold and precious metals, to partially allow the export of oil.All these measures, according to experts, will bring additional 10 billion Ars in the Iranian treasury). Then, a full-scale international agreement will be worked out, which guarantees Tehran the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but at the same time obliges it to abandon uranium enrichment up to 20%, not to create new nuclear fuel reserves and allow international inspectors to visit Iran’s nuclear facilities without hindrance.

Opponents of the deal

However, it’s not a fact that at the last moment the deal will not fall through. Recall that last week the Western countries had already planned to sign an agreement with Tehran. All the G6 foreign ministers came to Geneva on this occasion. And although, according to experts, the probability of a deal was five to one, the negotiations ended in a crushing failure. France demanded that Iran completely dismantle the heavy-water reactor in Arak, which has nothing to do with the military program and was built under the control of the IAEA. This unexpected demarche confused all the cards to supporters of a nuclear deal. “Stupid and careless” - this is how Iran’s rahbar Ali Haminei described Paris’s position in his microblog on Twitter.

After the Obama administration began flirting with Tehran, France, according to The Nation magazine, "became the spokesman for those forces that are against reformatting American politics in the Middle East." The existing system is debugged, has a high ability to adapt, and a strong Iran, which has broken out of isolation, does not fit into it in any way. The influential French philosopher Bernard Henri Levy, who once became the main instigator of the destruction of Libya, calls not to make concessions to “barbarians who have mocked at one of the largest world civilizations for thirty years, allowing them to create a nuclear bomb and get immunity".

It is known that Levi is one of the representatives of the Israeli lobby in France, and many political analysts are convinced that the tough stance of Paris is largely due to the titanic efforts of B. Netanyahu, who by hook or by crook seeks to thwart the deal between Iran and the United States. “France has not been so close to Israel for a long time,” writes Le Monde. “The current friendship with Jerusalem involuntarily revives the period when French scientists helped create the Israeli atomic bomb, while parachutists trained Israeli paratroopers.”

Netanyahu is generally a key figure in the camp of opponents of the US-Iran rapprochement. According to rumors, this week he just cut off the phone of Barack Obama, but the US president ignores his calls and does not respond to messages. When diplomats begin negotiations in Geneva, Netanyahu plans to fly to Moscow to meet with Putin. The conversation, of course, will be about Iran. The Israeli prime minister will try to prove that the nuclear deal is not in the interests of Moscow. However, it is not necessary to expect that under the influence of his arguments the Russian president will change his position. Rather, it is a gesture of despair. The media close to the Israeli government sow panic, talking about “the end of time” and calling Obama and Kerry “enemies of Israel”. The prime minister appeals to representatives of the Jewish diaspora to "stand up for the defense of the Holy Land" and "to wreck the Geneva collusion." Indeed, Jerusalem perfectly remembers that the previous attempt to improve relations with Iran led to very unpleasant consequences for Israel: Obama began to demand that the Jewish state abandon its nuclear ambitions.

The Saudi elite are in the same excited feelings. The oil kingdom is afraid of losing its position as a “beloved wife in a harem” and is watching with dismay as America is courting Riyadh’s main geopolitical rival. According to some reports, Saudi intelligence is now discussing with the leadership of the Mossad a joint military operation against Iran and promises to provide its drones and cargo planes.

Arab sheikhs are closely associated with the Western establishment and, coordinating with the Jewish lobby, expect to reverse the situation in Washington and European capitals. And although, at the insistence of Obama, the US Congress did not introduce new sanctions against Iran, the US lawmakers insisted that the administration not refuse sanctions that already exist. And, if something suddenly goes wrong, she returned again to the policy of the whip, forgetting about the gingerbread.

Is "discharge" possible?

It is not surprising that many political analysts believe that, despite Obama’s indifferent statements, another attempt to build bridges with Tehran will end in nothing. Recall that in the first year of his reign, the current US president was already trying to establish a dialogue with the ayatollahs. Even during the election campaign, he announced that he was ready to negotiate with Tehran without preconditions. Two weeks after the inauguration, in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV channel, he promised to "extend a hand to the Iranian leaders if they unclench their fists." Two months later, in his address to the Iranian people on the occasion of the Persian New Year holiday Nowruz, he recognized the legitimacy of the Ayatollah regime. Two months later, he agreed that Iran had the right to enrich uranium, and in Cairo for the first time openly declared that the CIA had participated in overthrowing the Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.

At the Munich Security Conference in February 2009, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani outlined a number of requirements — including compensation for undeliverable nuclear fuel — that were considered in the West as conditions for starting negotiations. He also recommended the United States "to stop playing boxing and learn to play chess." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then the Iranian president, personally secured the release of the Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, who was convicted of spying for 8 years. And observers began to talk about warming in relations between Washington and Tehran. However, in the summer of 2010, the Americans dramatically changed their position and secured the adoption of tough anti-Iran sanctions. And even the American media wrote then that Obama had abandoned the tactic of negotiation at the very moment when she began to bring her first successes. Of course, Ahmadinejad was blamed for the failure. In the West, they generally liked to exhibit an unshaven anti-hero.

However, we must not forget that this was not the first attempt to make peace with Tehran. In 1997, Mohammad Khatami came to power in the Islamic Republic, nicknamed "Ayatollah Gorbachev." He quoted Tocqueville, explaining the similarities between the ideas of Americans and Iranians about freedom, advocated a "dialogue of cultures." However, a serious breakthrough in relations was not achieved then, despite the efforts of the same Hassan Rouhani, who held the post of chief negotiator on the nuclear issue. Everything was limited to the visits of American wrestling athletes to Iran, the liberalization of the visa regime and the lifting of the American embargo on the importation of Iranian carpets and pistachios.

After 11, September, Iran supported the Bush administration in Afghanistan and even collaborated with it in forming the government of Hamid Karzai, but already in 2002, he was considered by the Americans to be the “axis of evil” states. After the fall of Baghdad in May 2003, George Bush rejected the “big deal” proposed by Iran, which involved resolving the most pressing issues related to the nuclear dossier and the support Tehran provided to radical organizations, HAMAS and Hezbollah.

When the Americans got bogged down in Iraq, it became obvious that this was a rash decision. Iran could be very useful to them for a dialogue with the Shiite majority who formed the government in Baghdad. And at the end of 2006, congressmen from the Baker-Hamilton Interparty Commission strongly recommended starting a dialogue with Tehran, or at least “opening a department representing American interests in the Iranian capital”.

The problem was that the neoconservatives who were in charge of the “Greater Middle East” project, in which there was no place for Iranian theocracy, were in power in Washington. They argued that Tehran is the main rival of the United States in the region, advocated tougher economic sanctions and allocated millions of dollars to covert operations against the ayatollahs.

It was they who developed the project of the anti-Iranian union of two ancient opponents - Israel and the Sunni Arabs, which is now becoming more and more clear. In the zero years, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States received weapons worth 20 billion. According to Nicholas Burns, the under-secretary of state in the Bush administration, one of the main goals of these supplies was to "give the Arab countries the opportunity to strengthen their defense capability and thereby ensure the containment of Iranian expansion."

Will Iran become a nuclear power?

As for the talks, the Bush administration insisted that they would be used by Iranian leaders in order to gain the time needed to create a nuclear bomb. As the former US representative to the UN, John Bolton, noted, "following five years of negotiations with the Europeans, Iran has advanced by five years towards nuclear status." “The chances of success of negotiations with the current Iranian authorities are zero,” said Terez Delpech, a French nuclear arms control expert. “There is only a military option for solving the Iranian problem.”

The question is whether such sentiments will prevail now. After all, it is possible that the Americans started a diplomatic game with Tehran only to state in the end: a dialogue with the ayatollahs is impossible, which means we are forced to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In any case, one should not expect that the Islamic Republic will agree to serious concessions. The experience of Libya and Iraq proves that cooperation with America does not give any guarantees of a sovereign future. And most experts are convinced that talk of detente is only a clever trick of the Iranian elite, which by all means hopes to gain nuclear status. As the President of the Institute of the Middle East, Yevgeny Satanovsky, notes, “Rouhani’s policy fully complies with the religious canons of the Shiites. There is such a principle of prudent silence: if you are Shiite and live in a hostile environment, then why go to death, talking about your faith. Now this principle is used by Iranian diplomats, who only pretend that they are negotiating, and in fact, by leaps and bounds, are moving towards the creation of a nuclear weapons. And this is not surprising: after all, for example, the Americans would not offer Stalin or Mao Zedong, they would hardly refuse the atomic bomb. ”

The most interesting thing is that, according to many political scientists, even a military operation will only slow down the development of the Iranian nuclear program for several years, but will not stop it, and talk of a military solution will only fuel the desire of the Iranians to have their own nuclear arsenal. “The policy of intimidation,” notes American political analyst Zbigniew Brzezinski, “did not prevent India and Pakistan from becoming possessors of nuclear weapons. And the United States had no choice but to establish relations with them. What lesson should Iranian leaders learn from this? ” If Iran does get an atomic bomb, experts do not rule out that small nuclear arsenals will also appear in a number of neighboring states that are not afraid to use them in the event of a "great Middle Eastern war."

If the North Caucasus becomes South Lebanon

Be that as it may, at this stage the Obama administration hopes to make a deal with Tehran, demanding it to stop military support for Hamas and Hezbollah, accept the Malaysian approach to Israel (non-recognition and non-interference) and agree to cooperate with America on Iraqi and Afghan directions. In response, America can recognize the important regional role of Iran, support the accession of the Islamic Republic to the WTO, return arrested Iranian assets, lift all sanctions and assist in modernizing the country's oil and gas industry.

In the case of rapprochement with the United States, Tehran will most likely begin to move away from Moscow, will intensify its role in the Caspian Sea and will demand twenty percent of the Caspian Basin instead of the twelve that it has now. “If America makes an agreement with Iran,” predicts Yevgeny Satanovsky, “it will be possible to forget about the serious role of Gazprom in Europe. And if we start to be outraged - the North Caucasus will become South Lebanon in a few months. Iranian officials are openly discussing such a scenario ... ".
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. makarov
    makarov 22 November 2013 08: 10
    France has long become an international "torpedo", and its leadership still does not realize that at the next stage it can become just an international prostitute. The whole world will laugh, while using, using and using ... without asking
    1. Tatarus
      Tatarus 22 November 2013 08: 26
      Quote: makarov
      France has long been an international "torpedo"

      Rather, a "cover" for a "torpedo". And the US "torpedo bomber" shoves her wherever he wants hi
    2. iConst
      iConst 22 November 2013 13: 01
      Quote: makarov
      France has long become an international "torpedo", and its leadership still does not realize that at the next stage it can become just an international prostitute.

      France has always stood apart. And she always tried to become a dominant in the Old World.
      But somehow all the time Germany was half a step ahead ...
      Clear desire to succeed in other fields ...

      But about the "next stage" - I do not agree.
      If you look, the principles of observing at least visible decency have long been forgotten.

      To turn around instantly and substitute a dumb "friend" for a freight train is almost valor and "the ability to conduct politics"!
  2. Predator-74
    Predator-74 22 November 2013 09: 59
    France, of course, is a torpedo, but before lifting sanctions from Iran, we still need to think about whether Iran will be the same torpedo for Russia. Personally, I doubt that after lifting the sanctions, Iran will be so white and fluffy. No wonder the Americans are so easy to take this step, are they not preparing us another torpedo?
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 22 November 2013 11: 29
      Here on the site, some users write about Iran with almost warmth. But this state has always been on its mind and pursued a cunning policy, always using the contradictions of large states to its advantage. It will be necessary, they will be friends with the United States and with Israel (remember Israeli mediation in the purchase of weapons during the war with Iraq), and by the Saudis against anyone, anytime.
  3. Romanychby
    Romanychby 22 November 2013 10: 34
    Something darkens America.
  4. Asgard
    Asgard 22 November 2013 11: 56
    Quote: Romanychby
    Something darkens America.

    I agree!
    Wait in the world pursues a policy of chaos.
    Desirable (sort of like)) "Americans" have nothing to do with ......., France has become more active, Iran is trying to REPRESENT a regional colossus, Erdogan was urged on with his ambitions of the Ottoman Empire)))

    Of course, Israel does not like this, Natanyahu is not very good as a politician, what he does, then "donkey ears" are immediately visible, wait, they are playing a "show" with the Saudis ...
    These -arabs themselves climb into the loop, because whoever got in touch with the Jews ended up badly)))))
    I think that the Israel_Separate State project will necessarily be collapsed, after a WELL SLOPING DOOR, we remember that the Jews have Nuclear Ammunition ......
    Brzezinski, as he called, to leave some of the families from the "promised land" - the rest are written off))

    So there are troubled times, they will light the Middle East (don’t go to the grandmother)) all the more so many ambitious-imbeciles-leaders ..... (they
    themselves do not understand what kind of game they play)))
    But we can also say that Everything will not go as planned by the Anglo-Saxons and Zionists ....
    Syria set fire to Turkey, the OAU will be destroyed, Iran will expand within the borders, China will be blown away quickly .....
    These are the RESULTS of all these creeping alliances ........... see me)))))
  5. Sergg
    Sergg 22 November 2013 12: 27
    You can’t be a vassal of the USA, they will betray you like jackals anyway. Looking at the example of Libya itself, or can Iraq stop Iran’s nuclear program? Defending ourselves against the international aggressor, which the United States is somehow necessary. The best way to protect: create your own nuclear weapons, this is necessary for the survival of the nation and people. I understand Iran very well, they will not give up the nuclear program.
    The United States, in turn, will not abandon its aggressive intentions to spark a major war in the Middle East, and they have big problems with the dollar and a complex of impunity.
    The most important thing is that Russia will not repeat the mistakes of World War 1, it’s not necessary to go into this conflict, it’s better to equip the warring parties, cynically, but only in this way can we survive. In any case: it’s better to laugh at the living than cry over the dead.
    1. iConst
      iConst 22 November 2013 13: 11
      Quote: Sergg
      Defending ourselves against the international aggressor, which the United States is somehow necessary. The best way to protect: create your own nuclear weapons, this is necessary for the survival of the nation and people. I understand Iran very well, they will not give up the nuclear program.
      The United States, in turn, will not abandon its aggressive intentions to spark a major war in the Middle East, and they have big problems with the dollar and a complex of impunity.

      It’s hard for me to imagine the presence of a nuclear device as a deterrent against the states. More likely an additional irritant.
      After all, modern delivery vehicles are still needed. Still, that launchers were invulnerable, at least a sufficient part of them ...

      A difficult task is almost impossible. But for the closest neighbors - it’s quite within reach.
  6. ZeMamba
    ZeMamba 22 November 2013 18: 54
    France, by its behavior, may be trying to achieve several goals, namely: 1. flirting with the Arabs (primarily the Saudis), in order to obtain political and economic dividends. It is unlikely that anything will work out - the USA kept, is holding, and will keep all those there in one place, it will not let the galls from the pie bite; 2. flirting with Israel - the same as item 1 - an empty idea, Washington will not allow to get closer at his own expense; 3. flirting in front of your local Jewish lobby - well, yes, it is, but ... This factor exists both in Britons and Americans ... however, they do not slow down ... Maybe there is some other factor explaining why the Gauls try to disrupt the signing of an agreement with the Persians with their hands and feet? - Yes! - and this is the following, and the only significant factor - 4. The presence of Germany in the negotiation process. An agreement on Iran involving Germany will be the first step towards the formation of Germany (for the foreseeable future) the sixth permanent member of the UN Security Council. Honestly, as Germany deserves it. And, of all 5 existing permanent members, the Gauls lose the most from gaining Germany in the international arena. If there were no Germans in the negotiations, the Gauls would have signed everything long ago. But ... the Kremlin is pulling the Germans, and this is a topic for comment on another issue.
  7. alone
    alone 22 November 2013 21: 24
    Iran’s situation, especially economic, forces it to negotiate and warm relations with America and the West. In Iran, economic decline, strong inflation and, most importantly, the outflow of capital. Businessmen are moving their business outside of Iran. Deteriorating the situation of the people can play a cruel joke on Iran. more in the country is also smoldering interethnic feuds.