Negotiations with Iran signify inability to use military option


What follows is the text of FNA’s interview with Ms. Sepahpour-Ulrich:

Q: The Iranian side says that the Americans’ shift of positions led to the failure in striking the deal Thursday night. What is your viewpoint on this issue? What are they seeking to gain by changing position?
A: I believe that the view from Moscow – and to some degree, China, is very different from the American and Europeans (England, France, Germany which follow America’s lead) perspective.

It is perhaps important to understand why the West has shown an appetite for negotiating (again), and what it hopes to gain. I believe there are several reasons.

Primarily, studies have concluded that engaging Iran is far more beneficial to the US than accepting the consequences of an attack against the Islamic Republic (The Iran Project). This report was signed off by many high ranking former and current US officials and it was made clear that the military option would have too many repercussions and it would not stop Iran’s nuclear program. They thought bombing Iran would set back the program, but troops would be needed to occupy Iran as “even with a regime change, Iranians would be hostile if attacked”. There were also fears of an Islamic reaction to a military attack. It was also emphasized that Iran should “respect” Washington’s interests in the region.
So after every effort was made not only to undermine the IRI, but also to disrupt its progress in the field of nuclear energy and related peaceful activities including banning Iranian students from study in related sciences, introducing the very dangerous Stuxnet virus, killing of Iranian nuclear scientists, and so forth – not to mention terrorism by way of sanctions. Defeated, Washington is giving what it dubs ‘diplomacy’ another go.

But from Washington’s perspective, there options for moving forward with Iran are limited Given that Washington has never given up the idea of total global domination, reiterated in its 2015 US National Military Strategy which points to Iran, Russia, and North Korea as its foremost threats.

The real danger emanating from Iran, from Washington’s perspective, is its defiance. Iran has challenged the world’s only superpower – successfully. An acceptance of the IRI and a peaceful coexistence with Iran would send a message that Iran has won the ‘war’ without a military confrontation. For an expansionist country with global hegemonic ambitions, this is just as unacceptable as a military confrontation with Iran would be impractical.

Washington has not abandoned the notion of creating mischief in Iran, which it hopes would possibly lead to a system change – one Washington can dominate and therefore work with.
Poll after poll as well as experts (even those hostile to the IRI) have indicated that the single most powerful uniting factor in Iran and in support of the IRI is the nuclear program. The current talks have centered on the removal of sanctions. While there is a global financial depression, many Iranians believe that the financial depression in Iran is due to sanctions (while sanctions have effected the economy, they are not the cause of it nor will the removal of sanctions turn the economy around without other measures being taken in Tehran). Mr. Obama has made a point of engaging Iran in these talks not only to raise the hopes of the Iranian people, but as the talks progress and more unreasonable demands are placed on Iran, if rejected, the US would point the finger at Iran not only to rally others in taking harsher action against Iran, but to cause mayhem in Iran by – from its perspective – indicating that the government in Iran is responsible for the hardships the Iranian people are facing. The hope is to turn the Iranians against their government and to create disunity. A nation divided is easy to exploit.

Comments are closed.

Live Chat

Join the Live Chat