Doc's Talk: HOW TO JUMPSTART U.S. STRATEGY TOWARD IRAN

Monday, February 25, 2013

HOW TO JUMPSTART U.S. STRATEGY TOWARD IRAN

PolicyWatch 2040
February 25, 2013

By Michael Singh

To read this PolicyWatch on our website, go to:
http://washin.st/ZEySZA

******************************

Rather than seeking alternative approaches, Washington and its allies should sharpen their focus on P5+1 negotiations, targeted sanctions, credible military pressure, and outreach to the Iranian opposition.

******************************

After an eight-month lull, Iran and the P5+1 states -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States -- will meet in Almaty, Kazakhstan, for a new round of nuclear talks. The summit comes after Tehran dismissed a prior P5+1 offer of incentives in exchange for caps on the regime's nuclear activities. The long scheduling delay and the now-customary tussling over venue illustrate the stagnation, if not regression, of the process: after eight years of multilateral discussions and more than a decade of military warnings against Iran, the nuclear issue has resisted all attempts at resolution. This in turn has given rise to a search for simple solutions, such as more sanctions or direct U.S.-Iran talks. What is truly required, however, is a disciplined and coordinated approach using multiple levers simultaneously -- the sort of effort that has long eluded Washington and its allies.

U.S. AND P5+1 STRATEGY

Washington's Iran strategy rests on a dual-track approach. For some time, though, only one of these tracks -- sanctions -- has been functional, while the other -- negotiations -- has stalled. In the past, the two tracks operated in parallel, with rounds of talks taking place between increasingly tough sanctions resolutions by the UN Security Council. Today, however, the pressure is no longer international in scope, but dependent on U.S. and EU measures. The process has also become sequential rather than parallel -- as talks are delayed and take on an increasingly pro-forma air, Washington has continued to increase sanctions in the hope of forcing Tehran to become more conciliatory. Yet there are few signs that this approach is succeeding.

To be sure, Iran's economy is under significant stress, with inflation reaching anywhere from 27 to 110 percent (according to widely varying estimates) and the value of the rial dropping sharply. The regime has also reportedly experienced severe difficulties conducting international financial and trade transactions due to sanctions first imposed by Washington in the mid-2000s. Oil exports -- Tehran's main source of revenue and foreign exchange -- have also dropped significantly, from 2.2 million barrels per day before 2012 to around 1.3 million today. These exports will likely be constrained even further by recently imposed U.S. sanctions aimed at blocking oil importers from repatriating revenue to Iran.

Yet not all economic signs are negative for the regime. Although oil exports are depressed, they have been trending upward from their September low point of 900,000 bpd, and average global oil prices hit an all-time high in 2012. Furthermore, Tehran -- like other regimes targeted with sanctions -- has proven adept at developing workarounds. Washington has been commendably quick at closing such loopholes when they arise, but economic pressure has yet to engender visible signs of mass unrest or fissures within the regime, and therefore has not produced the desired strategic shift among Iran's leaders.

This failure is due in part to the single-mindedness of U.S. policy -- while sanctions have been strengthened, other forms of pressure have diminished or gone unused. For example, Washington has made few efforts to support the Iranian opposition or highlight the regime's human rights abuses. And while U.S. officials continue to insist that the military option remains "on the table," the credibility of that option has been weakened with the removal of an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf, Washington's reluctance to become more involved in Syria, and the nomination of a new defense secretary who reputedly opposes military pressure on Iran. The United States has also declined to give even general redlines for Iran's nuclear program, instead offering vague and shifting definitions of what might cause it to consider military action.

Washington has paired this set of policies -- economic pressure that the regime appears to deem manageable, decreasing military pressure, and a reluctance to support the Iranian opposition -- with incrementally more generous offers via the P5+1. Such a combination reinforces the notion that the United States is heading for the exits in the Middle East, a view common in Iran and among U.S. allies in its neighborhood. This in turn gives rise to two risks: first, that Iran will feel little urgency to revise its policies and will try to wait Washington out; and second, that states such as China and India will reverse their reduction of oil imports from Iran, hedging their bets by balancing cooperation with Washington and good relations with Tehran. This scenario is especially likely if states believe the United States will continue to offer sanctions waivers and refrain from military action.

IRANIAN STRATEGY

For its part, Tehran appears to be hewing to a long-held strategy of expanding its nuclear program slowly while preserving the P5+1 talks as a pressure valve to prevent the United States or Israel from adopting a more aggressive approach. Although its recent nuclear activities may seem contradictory on the surface, they actually suggest a deliberate strategy.

Currently, Iran is expanding and enhancing its nuclear infrastructure, installing more centrifuges at the main enrichment facility in Natanz while completing the installation of centrifuge cascades at Fordow. The regime is also expanding its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, beginning the installation of advanced centrifuges that could enable higher enrichment, and maintaining progress on a possible plutonium route to a weapon using the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and the IR-40 reactor at Arak. At the same time, Tehran is limiting its stockpile of its most worrisome nuclear material -- 19.75 percent enriched uranium -- to less than one potential weapon's worth by converting some of it into oxide form for ostensible use in the TRR.

Taken together, these activities do not constitute "mixed signals"; rather, they are consistent with the strategy noted above. The regime is preserving the option to make a nuclear weapon -- and reducing the time required to do so through improvements in its enrichment infrastructure -- while taking care not to cross the redline set by Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his 2012 UN speech, where he warned that Iran accumulating one bomb's worth of 19.75 percent uranium would be cause for military action. In addition to significantly reducing Iran's breakout time, this strategy also decreases Washington's reaction time if the regime goes that route.

On the diplomatic front, Iran has maintained a relatively steady course, insisting that its "right" to enrichment be acknowledged and that all sanctions be lifted as part of any nuclear deal. It has also sought to put regional issues such as Syria and Bahrain on the agenda for talks. Even if the regime is truly interested in nuclear compromise, it will likely try to postpone any serious discussions until after the June presidential election in order to minimize political turbulence.

THE ROAD AHEAD

As frustrations with the P5+1 process mount, calls for direct U.S.-Iran talks have increased. Although the Obama administration has long been open to such talks, Tehran has resisted them. Iran's leaders likely fear that rapprochement with Washington would weaken the raison d'etre of a regime founded on hostility to the United States, as well as open the door to political and economic changes that could hasten the country's transformation. Even under normal circumstances, this prospect would be alarming to a regime facing a crisis of legitimacy at home, but it is particularly unwelcome with the presidential election looming and the possibility of renewed unrest similar that seen in June 2009.

Rather than seek alternative approaches, the United States and its allies should bring greater focus and coherence to their current strategy. Particular care should be taken to ensure that this approach is sustainable over time, since long-term delay in Iran's nuclear progress may be achievable even if an agreement remains elusive. Specifically, a revitalized strategy should have four components:

* Economic sanctions: Washington and its allies should strengthen the sanctions, but also aim them at the regime and its supporters to minimize the effects on the broader population. This includes more-robust measures to constrain Iran's oil revenues, as well as more-aggressive efforts to limit the movement and target the assets of regime figures.

* Military pressure: Washington should bolster the credibility of its military threats in several ways: through better discipline in its public messaging regarding U.S. and Israeli military options, increased military cooperation with regional allies, a more active approach to Syria, and the articulation of clearer redlines for Iran's nuclear program.

* Support for the opposition: The United States should significantly step up its efforts to aid the Iranian opposition and boost the international profile of Iranian dissidents. This could take both traditional forms (e.g., U.S. officials meeting with opposition figures and bringing attention to their cause) and nontraditional forms (e.g., helping dissidents defeat regime efforts to interfere with their communications).

* Negotiations: Washington should leave the door open for direct U.S.-Iran talks in order to demonstrate good faith to allies and the Iranian people. Yet it should not allow the prospect of such discussions to distract from the P5+1 negotiations, which remain the best forum to marshal international pressure on Tehran.

******************************

Michael Singh is managing director of The Washington Institute.

******************************

Tweet this article:
http://twitter.com/home?status=http://washin.st/ZEySZA

Share this article on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://washin.st/ZEySZA

Follow us on Twitter: @washinstitute

******************************

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20036
PHONE 202-452-0650
FAX 202-223-5364
www.washingtoninstitute.org
Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk