Iran and the West are participating in a new round of talks this week in Kazakhstan over Iran’s nuclear program. The odds of a breakthrough? Close to zero, for reasons that Iranian-American scholar Hussein Banai ably explains in this Los Angeles Times op-ed. He writes of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that
he is increasingly paranoid about the implications of a “grand bargain” with the United States for his privileged position as the chief interpreter of the ideals of the Islamic Republic.
Simply put, normalization of relations between Iran and the United States would deprive Khamenei and the deeply invested cohort of radical ideologues around him of a powerful justification for their arbitrary rule.
Continued enmity with the United States has time and again proved to be a convenient excuse for silencing the reformist opposition (as in the case of the 2009 Iranian presidential election, which has simply become known as “the sedition”) and managing the increasingly fragmented conservative establishment.
There it is in a nutshell: The current Iranian regime can’t afford to bargain away its nuclear program because it fears that if it does so it will not last long. Whereas if Iran does acquire a nuclear weapon, Khamenei expects that this will act as a guarantor of his survival–much in the way that North Korea’s rulers, Iran’s partner in missile and (probably) nuclear research, have managed to cling to power in no small part because of their possession of WMD. For Khamenei, this is quite literally an existential, life or death issue.
Under such circumstances, it is the height of naiveté to expect that more talks will produce any meaningful result beyond buying Iran more time to put more centrifuges online.
"Close to zero". Disagree. Absolute ZERO. (In fact -273).
this is especially troubling in light of our new Secretary of Defense, who is so proud of not being an "Israeli senator" but probably would have been a good "Iranian senator." n n
I respectfully disagree. Obama isn't all that interested in Iran. He's after bigger fish: the elimination of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. n nHe means to strike a grand bargain: In return for Iran's "promise" not to continue enriching uranium, Israel will be required to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and allow IAEA inspectors in on a regular schedule. Israel will risk total isolation unless it goes along with the Obama plan. Further, the world community will find its prior estimates of Israel were justified, as headlines blare: "Israel lone impediment to peace in the Middle East!" n nObama doesn't play "win-win." He only plays "win," a game where he is always a big winner, and his opponents always lose big! All or nothing. Zero-sum. That's what Obama seeks re: Israel and the Arabs. He means to reduce Israel to a frightened, defenseless entity dependent on either the US or the UN, with all that level of cynicism implies. n nIsrael must first of all stand firm against this president, and deny him everything he seeks. But Israel must also cease its "good boy" behavior. The only way to deal with neighbors who lob rockets into your territory is to wage war on them. Contrary to the nonsensical analyses (still in vogue) of what Ariel Sharon had in mind when he evacuated Gaza, what he had in mind was always grounded in what he knew the Arabs would do once the Jews were gone—they would use that territory as a base for launching rockets and other forms of terror against Israel. His response would have been what it should be now—war, until the matter is resolved once and for all. How do I know this was what Sharon had in mind? I popped the question at a meeting with his principal advisers, in 2004. n nBut the Left and Right alike could not stand Ariel Sharon. He wasn't "good" enough to suit them. They want an "ethical IDF." Sharon only wanted to beat the Arabs in war, "ethically" or not! Sharon was the lone PM capable of standing up to the bullying world community, even to George W. Bush himself. His only constituency: Israel's Jews. But, there is no convincing folks of what they are unwilling to believe, regardless of both the logic and evidence. "Ariel Sharon, Israel's greatest Arab- fighter, suddenly goes soft!" That's the narrative they prefer. Hard to get past that level of hysteria. n nIn any case, do not apply the rules of the past to Barack Obama. He intends to make a "different" kind of agreement from the one sought by past presidents. Call it a Devil's Bargain.