The US should not expect the Iranian government to roll over and capitulate to the US demands to (1) “return” to the negotiating table, (2) curb its human rights abuses, (3) cease its destabilizing actions in the region, and (4) limit or scrap its ballistics missiles program.
The US’s Iran policy in the last four years is that proverbial exhibit “A” in support of why none of these objectives can be reached without an unconditional return of the US to the nuclear deal complete reversal of the Trump Administration’s economic, financial, trade, and investment sanctions.
The notion that the US wants Iran to “return” to the negotiating table is an unreal and fantasy expectation: It is not clear what the US means by “table”. If the US means the table around which the nuclear deal was achieved under the Obama Administration, then the Us must realize that after that deal was consummated the parties left, the china was bussed, the table cloth laundered and the table folded and put away. There is no table for Iran to return to. That is why the Iranian position that there is nothing to negotiate on the nuclear front is a valid one. Other issues of concern would need the setting up of anew table and chairs.
The US walked away from the nuclear under the Trump Administration, which triggered Iran’s policy of scaling back its bargained-for commitments under the deal. The insistence by some voices in the US to equate Iran’s self-help steps under the terms of the deal with “violations” of the agreement is intellectually dishonest.
The only violation of the deal came from the US side when it re-imposed it primary and secondary economic and financial sanctions on Iranian government in violation of international law, causing irreparable harm to the Iranian economy, finance, trade, and investment. Earlier this year the International Court of Justice by a whopping majority denied the US motion to dismiss the Iranian complaint about the US violations of the nuclear deal. The case will now proceed to its merits phase.
The policy of “maximum pressure” pursued against Iran by the Trump Administration also included the erstwhile policies of regime change that several US administrations have pursued from the day that Iranian revolution toppled the Shah. Successive administrations set aside funds and pursued covert and public campaigns promoting the overthrow of the Islamic regime. Not until the regime achieves as sense of internal and external security that one should expect the Iranian government indulge in such western liberal democratic niceties as human rights. The Trump Administration’s efforts to delegitimize the US electoral outcome and long-time practice of Republican Party’s multi-faceted voter suppression makes any US talk of improving human rights in Iran a nonstarter.
The policy of maximum pressure also included countering Iran’s influence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The upshot of that aspect of the policy resulted in making the region the region “safer” for the US allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE. As long as the Iranian regional interests – not that different from those pursued by the Shah – dictate ideological and armed presence in the various hotbeds of the region any talk of Iran curbing its malign or “destabilizing” conduct is another nonstarter.
The Biden Administration has an opportunity to shape a new security paradigm for the Middle East, but only when it takes the bold step of decoupling its Middle East policy from Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Netanyahu has shown repeatedly his disdain for Democrat presidential candidates, for President Obama personally, for the nuclear deal, and for Mr. Biden personally when he visited Israel during the Obama years.
Neither the Democrats nor the Biden Administration owes Netanyahu a thing. One should not fall for the old excuse of supporting Israeli security and turning a blind eye to its excesses. Israel has the bomb; it has the most sophisticated military in the region; its intelligence and cyber capabilities are pervasive and effective; it has the anti-missile dome/shield; and it receives billions annually in US economic and military assistance. Mr. Biden is a position to make demand of Israel for the sake of stability in the region, which includes the US rapprochement with Iran.
Iran’s missile program is not negotiable and the Biden Administration will best be served by not raising it – at least for now. Ballistic missilery is the most cost effective deterrence that the Iranian could pursue. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-988), the Iranians – who were under arms and economic embargos -- stood alone against the Iraqi forces who had the political and military support of the western powers and the financial help of the Arab world. That sense of defenselessness experienced then pervades the Iranian strategic thinking today. Furthermore, the military sales and support by the US administrations to countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – as well as the physical presence of the US forces in the Persian Gulf region – leaves Iran no choice but to adopt the most effective and economically efficient weaponry for its deterrence – that is, ballistic missilery.
The state of affairs between Washington and Tehran for now has the parties stuck in the doorway as one insists that the other go first. The logjam created by what the Iranians call ta’ruf – oriental courtesy – resolves itself only if the first entrant is sure that the one following does not have a dagger.
A few days ago, President Biden told the G-7 and the Munich Security Conference that “America is back” and she is eager to earn back its place of leadership in the international community. He also added that the US does not wish to look back and is focused on the future. Mr. Biden is wrong when he insists on not looking back – at least when it comes to Iran. Maybe this approach would work with Europe, but not with Iran.
With Iran it is never a case of letting bygones be bygones. There are lessons to be recalled form the past, and mistakes not to repeat. To ignore that history as one embarks on a future-oriented policy with Iran will be nothing but a fool’s errand. With the Iranians, it is always about the past.
Will someone please remind me of how many of the 12 demands set by rRUMP was accomplished during his 4 year of terror?
As it has been said much more eloquently above, US broke it and therefore has the responsibility to fix it.
Iran is not going to forget nor she should, else the history will repeat itself.
Sure. Let's support the whole entire notion of sticking to their guns and cheer them and applause them, the domestic heroes! endlessly where the corrupt people will continue lining their pockets, create their own kingdoms abroad, white the average joe continues to struggle and the talk about "freedom" and "democracy" iranian style will never end and will keep the lights in the chatrooms well lit.
Let's not ever learn how to play and interact with other nations and understand where the balance of power lies and have hope upon hopes that gods in heaven will reward our sense of always wanting to deviate from the norms. After all, There is always North Korea, Cuba and venezuela to look up to.
It is always better to stand up to the superpowers!! and wait for them to blink than to get our own Sh...together.
Wash. rinse. Repeat. Like we have been doing for the past 40 or so years.