Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Rafsanjani :The death of the Ayatullah Machiavelli

Published on January 9th, 2017 | by Eldar Mamedov1

Rafsanjani: The Death of the Ayatollah Machiavelli


by Eldar Mamedov
In October 2013, I was part of a delegation of the Social-Democratic Group of the European Parliament (EP) to Iran. The trip, which took place shortly before the Geneva nuclear interim agreement was reached between the P5+1 and Iran, was meant as a confidence-building measure between the EU and Iran, aimed at widening the space for diplomacy and re-establishing connections after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s toxic presidency. As such, it was the first official visit from the EP to Iran after a seven-year hiatus provoked by a string of misunderstandings, petty politicking and overbidding from both sides, but mostly due to the Ahmadinejad administration’s poisonous rhetoric and flagrant human rights violations, which made it politically unfeasible for mainstream European politicians to visit the country.
Among the Iranian officials that the delegation, led by the then-Social-Democratic-Group President Hannes Swoboda, met with in Tehran was the Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. At that time, Rafsanjani was the head of the Expediency Council, an institution he’d created to mediate between the different branches of power in Iran. More importantly, he was imbued with the mystique of someone who, together with the late Ayatollah Khomeini, was perhaps the most consequential leader of the Islamic Republic. Rafsanjani was the ultimate powerbroker, whose political skills and acumen prompted Ali Vaez, the Iran expert at the International Crisis Group, to call him the “Ayatollah Machievelli.” Rafsanjani did not defy expectations.
On a personal level, in a marked contrast to some decidedly dour characters representing the Islamic Republic, he came across as a gregarious man clearly at ease with a European delegation that comprised several female MPs. He was keenly aware of his place in the history of the Islamic Republic. For instance, he spoke at some length of his role as the “Commander of Reconstruction,” as his supporters called him, during the years following the end of the Iran-Iraq war when he served his two terms as Iran’s president (1989-1997). Like other Iranian officials meeting their Western counterparts, he didn’t fail to complain about the West’s backing of Saddam Hussein during that war, or the support that the radical Iranian cult Mojaheddeen-e Khalq (MEK), bitterly opposed to the Islamic Republic and removed from the EU terror list only in 2009, still enjoys in some quarters in the EU and the US.
This latter point had an intense personal connotation for Rafsanjani. Like other top figures of the newly minted Islamic Republic, including the current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, he was a target of an assassination attempt by the MEK in a massive terror blast in 1981. Later, in a culmination of a bloody power struggle, the authorities massacred thousands of real and alleged MEK prisoners in what surely remains a stain on the history and reputation of the Islamic Republic.
Yet overall in that meeting with the European MPs Ayatollah Rafsanjani lived up to his reputation as a moderate and a proponent of engagement with Europe. He spoke fondly of the days when, in his role as the president, he negotiated the normalization of relations with Germany. This détente included an end to assassinations of the Iranian dissidents in Europe—another dark chapter in the history of the Islamic Republic, in which Rafsanjani was deeply involved – and the beginning of what was known as a “critical dialogue” between the EU and Iran. Despite many false starts in his long career—such as a bold effort to reach out to the United States in 1996 by offering Conoco, an oil major, a $1 billion deal to develop offshore Iranian oil and gas fields, only to be punished with new sanctions by the Clinton administration—Rafsanjani was quite forward-looking and confident that at least Iran’s ties with Europe stood a fair chance of prospering.
Subsequent events have proved him half right. European diplomacy, spearheaded by the High Representative for the EU Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, played an important role in achieving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It continues to play this role through Mogherini’s chairing of the Joint Commission tasked with overseeing the implementation of the JCPOA. European politicians and businesses are busy exploring venues of cooperation with their Iranian counterparts. Iran Task Force, established in the Mogherini-led European External Action Service (EEAS), coordinates the outreach of the EU institutions and confidence-building through concrete projects in areas as diverse as aviation safety and banking. In October 2016, the European Parliament adopted a forward-looking and detailed report emphasizing mutual respect, a relationship of equals (extremely important notions for the Iranians of any persuasion), and further engagement with Iran. And the Council of the EU, the bloc’s main foreign policy decision-making body, has ratified this approach by adopting its own Conclusions in November 2016.
These developments reflect a certain level of institutionalization of the EU engagement with Iran. The strategy is to create a dense network of connections and interdependencies that would make the survival of the relationship less reliance on single individuals. In this sense, although the EU certainly has reasons to lament Rafsanjani’s passing as an influential Iranian advocate for rapprochement, it won’t change much in the way the EU engages Iran. If anything, the disappearance of a strong ally of the moderate president Hassan Rouhani, up for a re-election in April 2016, and the uncertainty associated with the Trump presidency, should mobilize the EU to double down on its commitment to normalize relations with Iran.
One area where Rafsanjani’s hand will clearly be missed is regional security and relations with the Persian Gulf states. In its Global Strategy, adopted in 2016, the EU announced its intention to pursue a balanced engagement with both Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Unlike the US, the EU is well placed to mediate between regional actors, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, to end their proxy wars. Rafsanjani had ties with top GCC leaders and was respected by them as an elder statesman. His passing definitely removes a powerful advocate of lowering tensions with Saudi Arabia and other GCC states. More assertive elements, tied to the Revolutionary Guards, might benefit as a result. This will make the EU’s task more difficult.
Ultimately, only time will tell whether Ayatollah Rafsanjani´s passing is more than a mostly psychological blow to the supporters of closer relations between Iran and the West. That it is not immediately seen as threatening to upend the rapprochement already testifies to the ground covered since that memorable EP visit to Iran in October 2013. Iran´s foreign policy is in the steady hands of the Rouhani administration and its foreign minister Javad Zarif. The death of Rafsanjani, however, also reminds us that the legacy of moderation and pragmatism can only be safeguarded if it is constantly built upon. That will be the main challenge in the coming months.
Photo: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announcing his candidacy in 2013 election.
This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the European Parliament.
Print Friendly


About the Author

avatar
Eldar Mamedov has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington D.C. and Madrid. Since 2007, Mamedov has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and Mashreq.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Trump and WW-III

Trump warning: the start of World War III and ISIS

by Gulam ASGAR MITHA (Canada)
The American lust for power and neo-con agendas has been causing catastrophes in the Middle East and the Muslim world now for over four decades. What is, however, a cause for greater fear is that this is leading towards a global conflict. The world just got another warning, this time from Donald Trump the US Republican Presidential candidate who has been speaking the truth though rather incoherently since he is not a politician. He has been set up by a strong establishment to ensure that Hillary Clinton wins the November 4 elections. It may seem that the Republicans did not want to host a conflict which is why they provided an opening for Trump against Hillary who will go down in history as the first US woman President. She has no qualms towing the neo-con agenda.

Trump has now openly come out on CNN on October 26 and suggested that Hillary Clinton, when elected, will start World War 3. Why? In my opinion the best reasonings were provided by WeAreChange in a video titled ISIS: The Start of World War 3 (2014). So here we’ve Trump who warns not only about the Great War but he is mentioning the need to focus on ISIS and not on Syria. One must remember that the seeds for the Great War were planted in 2011 in Libya first and following that in Syria under the pretext of toppling Assad.

There are too many dots to connect but by connecting some dots chronographically, it is interesting to note a few facts. One is that ISIL (the L being Levant) drove through from Eastern Syria into Iraq stretching from Mosul to Tikrit to slightly north of Baghdad along the banks of River Euphrates for establishing the “Islamic Caliphate”. Euphrates is the eastern boundary that Israel claims is the Biblical greater Zion; the Nile being the western boundary. Two, ISIL fighters appeared in a most enigmatic manner in early 2014, very well armed. Some sources have suggested that the weapons were looted from Libyan armories stashed by NATO to topple Gaddafi in 2011 and then smuggled into Syria through Turkey a key NATO ally. On June 13, 2013 the New York Times reported that three Qatari C-17 cargo planes collected arms from Libya then returned to Al-Udeid base from where the cargo was then flown to Ankara, Turkey, along with other weapons and equipment that the Qataris had been gathering for the rebels, officials said. Sources have suggested that funding of $2-4 billion initially came from Saudi Arabia and Qatar through Turkey.

Three, the behaviour of the “terrorists” was unbecoming of Islamic preaching or what any Muslim would condone, especially that towards women and children. Four, within one year of ISIL takeover of a large part of Iraq, the P5+1 nuclear deal was finalized as a historic achievement.

Though US-NATO may not have directly created ISIL or ISIS, there has most definitely been suggestions that the US played a covert role with the overt objective of creating a Sunni bloc.

1463828426rrcc3With retrospect to Iran, the Supreme Leader Ayotallah Ali Khamenei had told Javed Zarif that he supports the P5+1 N-deal maintaining that Iran never had the need for a N-bomb. His reservations were about the Israeli-American interests specifically that “beneath the nuclear bowl lies a half nuclear bowl”. He suggested to Zarif to try and find out the agenda but most importantly to get the sanctions lifted. In words of many experts the Iranians got more out of the deal. The Ayatollah was probably aware of the agenda which could well be the Shia-Sunni conflict. The sanctions against Iran had failed to satisfy the US towards weakening Iran; in fact Iran has become stronger much to American chagrin. By lifting the sanctions the US has economically and politically empowered Iran and by default created a Shia bloc extending from Iran to Lebanon which includes Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Iran had covertly supported Hezbollah in the July 2006 conflict with Israel and now they’re again supporting Iraq to successfully oust ISIL from Iraq. Mosul is the last remaining ISIL bastion after which they might flee and regroup with Jabhat Fatal al-Sham (formerly Al-Nusra) and the Sunni coalition (including Turkey, Egypt and Arab countries) in Syria where Russia, Iran and Hezbollah might become engaged in an open conflict.

President Obama has not supported the no-fly zone (NFZ) in his watch mentioning that the Syrian civil war is “not a conflict between the US and any party in Syria” although former US secretary of State Hillary Clinton has publicly supported the idea. In a paper published by the Washington based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) on November 4, 2015, it is mentioned that a UN sponsored NFZ resolution is desirable but not essential for US action. The ISW paper has stated that “if the US intends to lead a sustainable negotiated settlement to the Syrian Civil war or to reinvigorate the moderate rebels, establishing a NFZ is essential.”If as President, Hillary Clinton does arbitrarily institute the NFZ without a UN approval that would certainly imply the direct involvement of the US in the conflict which could well become the flashpoint for the Great War.


It might interest the reader that the founder of ISW is none other than Dr. Kimberly Kagan, wife of Dr. Frederick Kagan who is associated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington based conservative (neo-con) think tank and a signatory to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The Kagan family also include Donald, Robert (characterized as a leading neo-conservative) and Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in which position she maneuvered the Ukrainian crisis in early 2014. Are these diplomats, including John Kerry, slated to be a strong part of Ms. Clinton’s cabinet?

In conclusion, it is not unreasonable to forego that Trump is correct that Hillary Clinton could catalyse the Syrian civil war into a global conflict. This author’s premise and We Are Change video provides the reasoning that ISIS is the start of WW III.

Gulam Asgar Mitha is a retired Technical Safety Engineer. He has worked with several N. American and International oil and gas companies. He has worked in Libya, Qatar, Pakistan, France, Yemen and UAE. Currently Gulam lives in Calgary, Canada and enjoys reading and keeping in tune with current global political issues.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Published on July 14th, 2016 | by Peter Jenkins5

US Is Delaying Iran’s Return to Global Economic Community


by Peter Jenkins and Peter Oborne
It is a year on Thursday since Iran and the West struck their historic nuclear deal. It is in deep trouble – and the fault lies with the United States.
Iran promised to cut back its peaceful nuclear program. In return Washington undertook to relax its sanctions against Iran and open the way for its return to the global economic community.
This agreement, reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015, appeared to bring an end to nearly 40 years of cold war between Iran and the West stretching back to the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Since then Iran has cut back its nuclear program as required, notably by reducing its capacity to enrich uranium and by redesigning its nuclear reactor at Arak.
Iran is also cooperating well with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, to whom it has granted unprecedented access, and is honoring its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitment to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile the US is doing its best to undermine the deal. Last week Congress wrecked plans for the $25 billion deal to sell 100 Boeing planes to Iran.
US sanctions are inhibiting the development of European trade with Iran. Meanwhile the US Congress is making it impossible for Iran to access its overseas oil revenues worth tens of billions of dollars.
Iranian foreign currency deposits total at least $50 billion. Iranians were hoping for the rapid retrieval of these funds to boost a domestic economy that underwent four years of enforced austerity as a result of US and EU nuclear-related sanctions.
They have been disappointed. Most of these deposits are in countries that depend on the dollar as a medium of exchange for their local currency. Their holdings of major foreign currencies other than the dollar, e.g. the euro or yen, are too small for banks in these countries to be able to convert Iranian local currency deposits into those currencies without passing through the dollar.
The Obama administration proposed to solve this problem by an executive decision that would permit conversion of Iranian deposits via the dollar. Iranian money would be in dollar form for a fleeting instant on its way to a euro incarnation, for example.
Word of the administration’s intention leaked to Congress. Opponents of the deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed in Vienna last July) raised a hue and cry.
The administration’s resolve failed. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew declared on 11 April that the US would keep its part of the bargain of providing sanctions relief to Iran in return for curbs on its nuclear program – but that the Obama administration would not allow even limited access to the US financial system.
This failure, together with a failure to devise some form of immunity from fines for European banks, threatens the deal.
It denies Iranians many of the benefits they were promised last year. We believe that the US is in breach of its JCPOA commitment to lift all national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program, “including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy”.
Crucially, the nuclear deal required the American government to lift sanctions designed to coerce Iran into abandoning uranium enrichment and completion of the reactor at Arak.
It did not require the lifting of sanctions that target Iranian Revolutionary Guards and others suspected of support for terrorism or human rights abuses. It is these sanctions that resulted in several major European banks incurring billion-dollar fines in recent years.
Understandably these and other European banks are reluctant to run the risk of incurring further such fines.
Secretary of State John Kerry and US Treasury officials say that European banks have nothing to fear as long as they hire lawyers to advise them on the intricate details of US sanctions, and provided they perform due diligence on potential Iranian counterparts.
That advice leaves out of account the complexity and opaque nature of ownership structures in Iran, as well as the expected level of due diligence required by the US government. Without proper guidance, this has led banks to fear inadvertent transgression of US law and to hold back.
Also restraining them is uncertainty as to whether a President Trump or a President Clinton will want to preserve the deal. Trump has said he will want to renegotiate it. Clinton has shown sympathy for pro-Israeli opponents of the deal on many occasions.
Equally uncertain is whether this November’s elections to Congress will result in a decline or an increase in Congressional opposition to the deal.
These factors add up to a risk of fresh US sanctions on Iran in 2017. Sanctions cannot be retroactive but they could require European banks to withdraw once more from the Iranian market. This has been an added reason for the banks to hold back.
Some smaller European banks have been less affected by this extra-territorial intimidation. They are less vulnerable to US fines because they do not have US operations. They, however, lack the means to finance big transactions such as the purchase of Airbus aircraft and developments in Iran’s infrastructure.
It is these transactions that the moderate government of President Hassan Rouhani anticipated when it offered limitations on its sovereign right to a peaceful nuclear program in exchange for economic benefits.
The fact that so far few of those benefits show any sign of materializing is a boon to Rouhani’s political opponents, who are as opposed to the deal as Republicans and neoconservatives in the US.
Compounding these threats to the nuclear deal, the Obama administration has done nothing to counter the prevailing American notion that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a revolutionary rogue regime, with which normal relations cannot be contemplated.
Negotiating the deal required US Secretary of State John Kerry to spend many hours in the company of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and to familiarize himself with the defensive nature of Iranian foreign policy since the decade that followed the 1979 revolution.
This could have led Obama and Kerry to assure the American people that Iran is now a state with which normal business can be done.
Iranian behavior continued to cause concern, but so has the behavior of many other states with which the US conducts normal relations. Normal relations would give the US an opportunity to influence future Iranian behavior and, crucially, to encourage a prudent use of nuclear technology when restrictions imposed as part of the nuclear deal lapse. In moving to a normal relationship the US would merely be taking a path travelled by its European allies.
Instead, the Obama administration sold the deal as a measure which would impose on Iran a regime of nuclear restrictions and inspections that close all conceivable pathways to a nuclear weapon, and which would not require any closer US-Iran relations.
Since then, the Obama administration has failed to refute Congressional opponents of the JCPOA who want to exploit Iranian missile tests to justify further sanctions. The possession of nuclear weapons is outlawed by the NPT, the possession of chemical weapons by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
But there is no global prohibition on the possession, or testing, of missiles. Nor is Iran subject to any ad hoc Security Council prohibition. None of this has been made clear to Congress or the American public.
Much the same can be said about Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. The US State Department published on 2 June its annual assessment of global terrorist activity. It finds that in 2015 Iran remained the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
To justify that finding the author characterizes Iranian support for Syrian government operations in Syria, through the Quds Force and Lebanese Hezbollah, as support for terrorist activity.
Even more absurdly, Iranian support for Iraqi pro-government Shia groups involved in the counter-offensive against Islamic State group receives the same treatment.
This grotesque misrepresentation of Iranian support for the governments of Syria and Iraq will be grist for the mill of Congressional opponents of the nuclear agreement. It will do nothing to moderate American perceptions of Iran.
Obama has a right to see the nuclear deal as an achievement. It resolved global concerns about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program and averted the risk of a costly war in the Gulf. Yet he has done nothing to create conditions conducive to its survival after he leaves office. This has the potential to be a disastrous omission.
The deal has brutal and ruthless opponents both in the United States and in Iran. Already, working through Congress, they have taken significant steps towards reducing the benefits of the deal in Tehran. That in turn has done great damage to the standing of Rouhani. The hardliners on both sides are gaining confidence, and may yet wreck the deal and all hope of reconciliation between Iran and the West.
Republished, with permission, from Middle East Eye. Photo: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif conferring with US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Peter Oborne was named freelancer of the year 2016 by the Online Media Awards for a report he wrote for Middle East EyeHe was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.