Obama's wish for dialogue with Iran would face many obstacles in DC
Israel's stance on Iran, upheld by pro-Israeli lobby groups and some US Congressmen, presents President Obama with many obstacles if he wishes to rebuild relations with Tehran, political commentator and Iran expert Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich told RT.
Two-day negotiations between Iran and the six world powers -
Britain, France, Russia, China, and the US – ended on Wednesday,
with Washington calling the talks “useful,” but with an
“expected” outcome.
However, a senior US official told Reuters on condition of
anonymity that the talks were the most “intense, detailed,
straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian
delegation.”
RT:With all the secrecy surrounding the P5+1 talks,
how do you think the meeting went?
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich: As you say, it’s very secret, and
it’s hard to judge, so one can only gauge what is happening from
the past experiences and follow a pattern from thereon. The fact
that we hear that Iran has been very serious and very forthcoming
really is not new. Perhaps it’s being acknowledged for the first
time, but it’s not new. Iran has been very serious about these
negotiations, and the EU and [other] powers have applauded the
fact that Iran may have signed on the additional protocol and
allow for spot inspections. Again, this is not something new.
This happened in 2003 when Iran did sign the additional protocol
but it wasn’t ratified by the parliament. And it even allowed
some inspections into Iran, although it hadn’t been ratified. But
all the time, the US convinced its allies, the EU, to push around
further and further, and really not uphold its part of the
bargain. So nothing has changed much from the way I see it. I see
a display of optimism and less hope that it can translate into
something substantial. But at this point, again, from what we
hear, there’s nothing much out there yet.
RT:Iran has already opened the door, in principle, to
immediate inspections. Yet pressure is still being put on Tehran.
How long can that be maintained before the talks collapse?
SSU: Inspectors are already due to go to Iran, [thanks to]
the additional protocol for on-the-spot inspections. I think
that’s the card that Iran played, and it didn’t accomplish
anything, so at this point, it’s not going to be putting it on
the table straightaway - it does want some concessions. The
easiest concession would be to take the threat of force away, to
acknowledge Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and then to lift the
sanctions. I think Iran would be more than happy to cooperate
under the right circumstances. I don’t believe that it would
allow itself to be bullied into taking actions that are, frankly,
not acknowledged. And that’s what we see at the moment.
RT:Tehran is not the only one under pressure. The
White House has been called on to stand up to Iran - not only by
some US Senators, but also by Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu
had some strong words to say. How big of an obstacle will that
prove to be?
SSU: I think most of your viewers would know very well
that the decisions made in Washington are influenced by Israel
and the pro-Israel lobby groups. So, even if Mr. Obama did want
to have a dialogue with Iran and re-establish relations, he’s got
many obstacles in his way. In fact, Israeli objections to peace
talks - not only Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, but also talks
with Iran - are being reinforced in Washington by not only the
lobby groups...maybe the congressional members are more loyal to
Israel than to the US. I think one thing that Mr. Netanyahu is
insisting on is for Iran to have zero enrichment. And Wendy
Sherman who headed these talks on behalf of the US on October 3,
she had a US senate meeting, and she did in fact say that the US
doesn’t recognize Iran’s right to enrichment, which is very
interesting, because first of all, it’s not up to the US to make
that decision. Maybe it can interpret it that way, but if you go
back to 1975, there was a National Security Study Memorandum, and
this memorandum said that the US permits – and the word “permit”
is very interesting here – the use of mitral to make its own fuel
for nuclear reactors, and also to share this with countries that
the US has an agreement with. So, in 1975, the US gave permission
to a sovereign nation to enrich uranium. But now, as that regime
is no longer in place - the Pahlavi regime, the shah’s regime -
the US has unilaterally decided that Iran may not process or
enrich its own indigenous uranium. So we have the US as the
executor of international law. Frankly, I can see Iran’s
frustration at this, and it’s beyond my apprehension how the rest
of the countries - especially UN Security Council countries -
tolerate this decision by the US, which really is in violation of
the law itself.
RT:Is it possible that the West will respond with
concessions as well, maybe by lifting some of the sanctions?
SSU: Hopefully the Europeans would wisen up and do that,
but in America, it’s very difficult for these sanctions to be
lifted - except for the ones that Mr. Obama has signed. He has
[limited] power with those, but basically, he has to go through
Congress. And you know that the US Congress can’t work together
right now. The only thing that they do seem to come to terms with
is actually against Iran. I don’t see how this can go past
Congress. I don’t see them lifting the sanctions anytime soon,
unless they see Iran completely give up its rights and all the
demands it has, and basically subjugate itself. I don’t see that
happening either. The Iranian prime minister does talk about a
win-win situation. One would hope for that, but one has to be
cautious not to get too optimistic.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.