TEHRAN (FNA)-- Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, an independent US analyst, believes that the US is present in nuclear talks with Iran because it knows that it cannot use military force against the country.
"It is perhaps important to understand why the West has shown an appetite for negotiating (again), and what it hopes to gain. I believe there are several reasons. Primarily, studies have concluded that engaging Iran is far more beneficial to the US than accepting the consequences of an attack against the Islamic Republic," Sepahpour-Ulrich told FNA on Sunday.
"I don’t believe Washington’s designs toward Iran will change unless there is a Washington-friendly government in Iran. It would be naïve to trust Washington. Even as it is engaged in striking a deal with Iran, it is violating a bilateral treaty it signed with Iran – the Algiers Accords," she added.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication. She is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy. Her articles and writings on Iran’s nuclear program, the Middle-East developments and the US foreign policy have been published by several print and online publications.
What follows is the text of FNA’s interview with Ms. Sepahpour-Ulrich:
Q: The Iranian side says that the Americans' shift of positions led to the failure in striking the deal Thursday night. What is your viewpoint on this issue? What are they seeking to gain by changing position?
A: I believe that the view from Moscow – and to some degree, China, is very different from the American and Europeans (England, France, Germany which follow America’s lead) perspective.
It is perhaps important to understand why the West has shown an appetite for negotiating (again), and what it hopes to gain. I believe there are several reasons.
Primarily, studies have concluded that engaging Iran is far more beneficial to the US than accepting the consequences of an attack against the Islamic Republic (The Iran Project). This report was signed off by many high ranking former and current US officials and it was made clear that the military option would have too many repercussions and it would not stop Iran's nuclear program. They thought bombing Iran would set back the program, but troops would be needed to occupy Iran as “even with a regime change, Iranians would be hostile if attacked”. There were also fears of an Islamic reaction to a military attack. It was also emphasized that Iran should “respect” Washington’s interests in the region.
So after every effort was made not only to undermine the IRI, but also to disrupt its progress in the field of nuclear energy and related peaceful activities including banning Iranian students from study in related sciences, introducing the very dangerous Stuxnet virus, killing of Iranian nuclear scientists, and so forth - not to mention terrorism by way of sanctions. Defeated, Washington is giving what it dubs ‘diplomacy’ another go.
So after every effort was made not only to undermine the IRI, but also to disrupt its progress in the field of nuclear energy and related peaceful activities including banning Iranian students from study in related sciences, introducing the very dangerous Stuxnet virus, killing of Iranian nuclear scientists, and so forth - not to mention terrorism by way of sanctions. Defeated, Washington is giving what it dubs ‘diplomacy’ another go.
But from Washington’s perspective, there options for moving forward with Iran are limited Given that Washington has never given up the idea of total global domination, reiterated in its 2015 US National Military Strategy which points to Iran, Russia, and North Korea as its foremost threats.
The real danger emanating from Iran, from Washington’s perspective, is its defiance. Iran has challenged the world’s only superpower - successfully. An acceptance of the IRI and a peaceful coexistence with Iran would send a message that Iran has won the ‘war’ without a military confrontation. For an expansionist country with global hegemonic ambitions, this is just as unacceptable as a military confrontation with Iran would be impractical.
Washington has not abandoned the notion of creating mischief in Iran, which it hopes would possibly lead to a system change – one Washington can dominate and therefore work with.
Poll after poll as well as experts (even those hostile to the IRI) have indicated that the single most powerful uniting factor in Iran and in support of the IRI is the nuclear program. The current talks have centered on the removal of sanctions. While there is a global financial depression, many Iranians believe that the financial depression in Iran is due to sanctions (while sanctions have effected the economy, they are not the cause of it nor will the removal of sanctions turn the economy around without other measures being taken in Tehran). Mr. Obama has made a point of engaging Iran in these talks not only to raise the hopes of the Iranian people, but as the talks progress and more unreasonable demands are placed on Iran, if rejected, the US would point the finger at Iran not only to rally others in taking harsher action against Iran, but to cause mayhem in Iran by – from its perspective – indicating that the government in Iran is responsible for the hardships the Iranian people are facing. The hope is to turn the Iranians against their government and to create disunity. A nation divided is easy to exploit.
Q: Are they trying to put more pressure on Iran? Are they trying to put the blame on Iran for any future project? Can they be trusted if any deal is reached?
A: If by some miracle a deal is struck, then Washington would move onto other subjects such as imposing more sanctions for terrorism, human rights, etc. I don’t believe Washington’s designs toward Iran will change unless there is a Washington-friendly government in Iran. It would be naïve to trust Washington. Even as it is engaged in striking a deal with Iran, it is violating a bilateral treaty it signed with Iran – the Algiers Accords.
Q: Will the Congress vote for the removal of sanctions?
A: Congress is loyal to Israel and will do its utmost to carry out Israel’s plans. It is very unlikely that they would remove the sanctions. Mr. Obama can resort to some creativity, if one were to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wants a deal (which I don’t). For example, sanctions bills passed by Congress allow the suspension of measure by four months. Also, Obama can rescind or amend any executive order. Obama can also indicate that it would turn a blind eye to the EU defying sanctions and buying oil and gas as well as allowing Iranian banks back in to the SWIFT system.
But even the Obama administration continues to label Iran as a sponsor of terrorism and a threat. But even if these measures do take place and sanctions are relaxed, it would be temporary. The next president would be able to reverse it.
Will the Congress probably change its own position even after voting for sanction removal? I doubt that any reversal or any future sanctions would be related to Iran’s nuclear program. I think they would be under the guise of Iran supporting “terrorism” and violating “human rights”.
Will the Congress probably change its own position even after voting for sanction removal? I doubt that any reversal or any future sanctions would be related to Iran’s nuclear program. I think they would be under the guise of Iran supporting “terrorism” and violating “human rights”.
Q: Russia wants termination of all sanctions? Will the American side accept it? Is there any guarantee that the UNSC's sanctions in addition to all unilateral financial, economic and banking sanctions will be terminated?
A: The UNSC sanctions cannot be removed without all UNSC members agreeing to it/signing it.
Interview by Zahra Karimi
Uprooted Palestinian 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment