May the Vienna Talks Push Iran to Seek Completely Independent Directions? (William O. Beeman)

https://icdt.ir/en/may-the-vienna-talks-push-iran-to-seek-completely-independent-directions/

May the Vienna Talks Push Iran to Seek Completely Independent Directions?

William O. Beeman

I am pessimistic about the outcome of the new round of Vienna talks. Both sides are completely intransigent, and have been for a long time. Both sides want the other party to back down and make concessions before they will move. Iran insists on all sanctions being lifted. The United States insists on Iran returning to the status before Trump withdrew from the JCPOA–both reduced enrichment of uranium, and return to full IAEA inspections. With neither side giving an inch, there can be no progress. The key to success is to agree to have action simultaneously. This will require a brokered solution with a third party operating in good faith with both Iran and the United States.

I do not believe all parties are serious about returning to the JCPOA. President Biden is suffering from a drop in popularity. He cannot make concessions to Iran without suffering politically. The slightest concession will result in vicious attacks from Republicans, led by former President Trump. The Republicans are just waiting for this, waiting to pounce on President Biden. Iran’s new government does not want to appear weak vis-a-vis the United States, and so they are also not making any concessions. They also fear, quite correctly, that they will make concessions, and then the United States will not respond. This is what happened many times in the past. The United States always wants to blame Iran, but it is a simple fact that President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA. It is not Iran’s fault. So, I think Iran is making a correct assumption about the unreliability of the United States when it comes to guarantees.

According to some reports, the current impasse is not due to an Iranian sense of immunity to pressure; rather it is largely because President Biden is refusing to commit his administration to lift sanctions on Iran during the remaining years of his presidency, even if Iran fully complies with the nuclear deal. If President Biden’s popularity recovers and the Democratic Party shows strength in the next year, he will be in a stronger position to negotiate with Iran. For now being “tough” on Iran is a much better political position for him domestically.

The United States has been demonizing Iran since the time of the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79. There is absolutely no political value for either Democrats or Republicans in making concessions to Iran. No American politician ever lost a vote by attacking Iran. American politicians of either party who seem to be “soft” on Iran are attacked immediately. It is political suicide to agree to Iran’s terms without obtaining something substantial in return.

Some critics say the nuclear dispute is not resolvable through technical discussions. This is a political issue that is rooted in distrust between the U.S. and Iran. So, they need mutual trust. The JCPOA took nearly two years to negotiate with a great deal of yelling and shouting. The United States is not a trustworthy treaty or agreement partner. Iran has also used the lever of uranium enrichment to increase or decrease pressure on the United States and its European partners in the JCPOA. So both sides can be accused of acting in bad faith. Trust can only be built when people actually adhere to their promises.

Europe could be a much stronger, much more effective mediator in these talks. Thus far the European partners in the JCPOA have been very weak–almost non-existent in these talks. I would love to see France, the UK, or Germany step up and become a forceful mediator in these talks. Thus far they have been completely cowardly–mostly because they fear that they will suffer sanctions from the United States if they show the slightest favoritism to Iran.

Iran is already moving toward leaving the economic sphere of the United States and Europe. The move toward China, India, and Russia is a very clear direction for Iran’s future now. Without any cooperation from the United States in negotiations, and without any positive action toward mediation from Europe, we may see Iran seeking completely independent directions to solve its economic difficulties. The United States will regret this if it happens.

U.S. and Iran are Playing for Time--Interview with Professor William O. Beeman (Bazaar)

Professor Beeman: U.S. and Iran are playing for time

TEHRAN(Bazaar) – William O. Beeman, Professor Emeritus of University of Minnesota, says Both the United States and Iran are playing for time. President Biden has suffered a dramatic drop in popularity in the United States.

Following is the text of the Bazaar interview with Professor William O. Beeman.

Bazaar: Axios has stated that the United States is seeking an interim agreement with Iran in order to gain the necessary time to negotiate a better agreement. What is your assessment of the solution?

Beeman: Both the United States and Iran are playing for time. President Biden has suffered a dramatic drop in popularity in the United States. With mid-term elections coming up next year, his administration is very cautious about negotiating an agreement with Iran that will be attacked by Republicans as showing "weakness" on the part of the United States. The first person to launch that attack will be former president Trump, who still has a large number of followers. On Iran's part, Iran is seeking to avoid a negative censure on the part of the IAEA, and so is playing for time until the next IAEA report. Iranian leaders are feeling more confident about their bargaining position with increased diplomatic and trade ties with China and Russia. They are increasingly sending signals that they may not need the United States or Western economies to survive the current economic crisis in Iran.

Bazaar: Three American and Israeli sources told Axios that US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, in a meeting with his Israeli counterpart, came up with the idea of reaching an interim agreement with Iran to allow time for nuclear talks. Why is this idea put forward by a European country currently being considered by the United States?

Beeman: It is a stalling tactic made to look like progress is being made. The United States wants to continue to appear to be moving forward with these agreements while not making any concessions to Iran. The idea of an "interim agreement" will not be accepted by Iran unless there are significant reductions in sanctions.

Bazaar: According to US sources, such an idea means that in the face of a halt to 60 percent enrichment in Iran, the United States and its allies would release some of Iran's blocked funds to provide sanctions exemptions for humanitarian goods. Given that nuclear progress is Iran's bargaining chip to lift all sanctions, will Iran accept the offer?

Beeman: Sanctions exemptions for humanitarian goods are already in place. They simply are not being implemented. The amount of Iranian blocked funds is insignificant. On the other hand, Iran is not actually engaging in a nuclear weapons program, so increase or decrease in enrichment activity is being used as a mechanism to increase or decrease pressure on the United States with no actual meaningful consequence. So we see that both sides are playing a kind of Kabuki theater game with the other side promising some kind of action, but actually delivering nothing of any consequence.

Bazaar: This is still an immature idea, and the Biden administration continues to insist that the 2015 nuclear deal be fully revived, but given the plan to resume nuclear talks on November 29, the proposal would at least provide an opportunity for U.S. government work on it. What is the benefit of this interim agreement for the United States and will it satisfy its allies as well?

Beeman: Yes, the Biden administration wants to show that it is strong diplomatically--Biden has made diplomacy a hallmark of his foreign relations policy--and so it has come up with this interim agreement device to demonstrate progress. It is unlikely, however, that Iranian officials will be willing to do anything at all without reduction in sanctions. As I stated above, humanitarian exemptions to the sanctions already exist, so the United States is really promising nothing except a willingness to actually implement the exemptions. Iranian officials will accept nothing short of meaningful action, and the "interim agreement" as leaked to the press is much to limited and weak to be effective.

Bazaar: What is your assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency's new report about Iran before the start of the nuclear talks?

Beeman: The IAEA Report is similar to previous ones, expressing mild concern about restrictions on monitoring activity. But the current report could have been much, much harsher. The fact that Iran agreed to resume talks on renewing the JCPOA in November has blunted the IAEA criticism, which seems to have been the main purpose of the Iranian agreement to continue negotiations. It should be noted that the IAEA report emphasizes that communication between Iranian officials and the IAEA have continued and have been characterized by words such as "cooperative" and "constructive." This shows that the IAEA is interested in creating a positive atmosphere for continued engagement with Iran.

https://www.tahlilbazaar.com/news/118654/Professor-Beeman-U-S-and-Iran-are-playing-for-time

William O. Beeman

American Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Historical Lessons--William O. Beeman

9/26/21, 10:46 AM American Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Historical Lessons | ICDT
https://icdt.ir/en/american-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-historical-lessons/

William O. Beeman

21 September 2021

The result of the war on Afghanistan was ineffective because the United States was not prepared to do anything that would really foster social change. Rather than actually working to understand Afghan culture and society, the United States under Republican administrations installed “plumbers” (Afghan “leaders” like Karzai and American contractors) to do the work for it , backed up by a U.S. military presence with soldiers who never learned the language, never understood the culture, and who were ineffective. The trillions of dollars spent in Afghanistan were siphoned off to contractors such as Haliburton who made billions of dollars. Afghan politicians were also corrupt and stole enormous amounts of money. In the end it was a botched effort. President Biden was right to end it .

Afghanistan is in effect a federation of tribal and ethnic groups. If the United States had started with that premise, it might have been effective, but American efforts in Afghanistan were always top-down. They never penetrated to the local level where the real power lay.

In addition, American decision-makers are blamed for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, especially Iraq which posed no direct threat to U.S. national interests and the war was waged based on false claims. The invasion of Iraq was a pretext that was concocted by the neoconservatives who wanted to completely remake the Middle East, toppling existing rulers and creating regime change where the new rulers would be friendly toward Israel and the United States. One can recognize this as a continuation of Cold War mentality where nations are either on the side of the U.S. and its allies (like Israel) or against them. The 9/11 events fed into this narrative.

The invasion of Afghanistan and the 20 year war was really a war against Islamic forces. To be sure the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (as well as ISIS/ISIL/DAESH) are extremist Islamic groups rejected by mainstream Islam, but in the naive American view, they are “all just Muslims.” President Biden has courageously withdrawn the United States from this ineffective “war on Islam.” It is not clear what will happen in the future. If another Republican becomes President and Republicans dominate in Congress, the United States could return to this ineffective policy. The justifications they will use are “protection of Israel,” and “nuclear weapons danger ”–the same themes they have used to justify U.S. military action in the past 70 years.

The Afghan army had no one to be loyal to. They certainly were not loyal to the Afghan central government , which was massively corrupt and made no attempt to reach out to, or support anyone on the local level. The United States was a source of huge financial resources, much of which was stolen through corruption. When the United States withdrew the Army naturally saw that the only effective power that was left was the Taliban, and they, quite logically, surrendered.

President Donald J. Trump is absolutely responsible for the debacle that was the American withdrawal from Afghanistan. He capitulated to the Taliban, made weak and vague agreements with them with no guarantees. He bragged that no one would be able to stop the withdrawal.

The faults of thewithdrawal are completely attributable to Trump. If he had continued as president, the same events would have occurred as took place under Biden.

The United States is indeed an unreliable partner, and has been since World War II. Alliances with the United States never last in the face of American domestic interests, and they change with eachpresidential administration. The nations of the world would be wise not to rely on the UnitedStates for anything. Most nations already know this, so they make no long-term plans with the United States.

However, I believe the Taliban will fail at governing Afghanistan through some kind of central control. As I mentioned above, Afghanistan is a federation of conflicting tribal and ethnic groups. It always has been. The Taliban are Pushtun–a minority ethnic group in their own country. A minority ruling a majority is a formula for failure of any government, and Afghanistan is no exception.

The federated governing principle of the Loya Jirga (council of regional powers) as the only effective body of national agreement shows this. The Taliban are naive and inexperienced at governing, and their extreme brand of Islam will not be an adequate basis for government. In the short term they are going to fail, and the country for a period will devolve into semi-independent regions.

Additionally, the one thing that has emerged from the American occupation is the empowerment ofwomen. The Taliban are already having difficulty dealing with this reality, which will continue–aided by international pressure. As long as women are repressed in Afghanistan the Taliban will have extreme difficulty forming any kind of effective government.

Return to the JCPOA--"Iran Deal"--Iran's Conventional Arms are Completely Legal--Interview with William O. Beeman

 

Return to the JCPOA ("Iran Deal"_--Iran's Conventional Arms are Completely Legal--Interview with William O. Beeman
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/457474/Iran-s-conventional-arms-are-completely-legal-American-scholar       Iran's conventional arms are completely legal: American scholar By Mohammad Mazhari <https://www.tehrantimes.com/archive>   Politics <https://www.tehrantimes.com/service/politics> January 29, 2021 - 10:29 TEHRAN – Describing that depriving Iran from its defensive capabilities is a “fantasy”, an American academic says “Iran's conventional weapons are completely legal.” “The objection to them is the fantasy that Iran could at some future date use conventional weapons to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel,” William O. Beeman tells the Tehran Times. Professor emeritus of the University of Minnesota emphasizes that “Iranian leaders will never agree to limit conventional defense in order to return to the JCPOA.” The following is the text of the interview: *Q: What is the significance of the JCPOA in these circumstances while some Arab regimes and Israel argue that the region does not need revitalizing such a deal?* A: There is a bit of a charade going on here. What Israel objects to is not the restoration of the JCPOA. Even Israel knows that the JCPOA was never necessary since Iran was already prohibited from developing nuclear weapons through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) dating back to 1970. It was the false claims that Iran was violating the NPT in 2003 and the sanctions imposed on Iran that created the need for the JCPOA. Iran has no nuclear weapons program and is not going to develop one as long as Iran remains a signatory to the NPT. No, what Israel and the Arab states are worried about is the normalization of relations between the United States and Iran. Iran is the most powerful nation in the region. As long as Iran remains estranged from the United States, and economically weakened through sanctions, these other States believe that their own power and influence is aided. They do not want any improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations, and they don't want Iran to be strengthened economically, and that is why they oppose the JCPOA. *Q: Some advisers close to Biden like Robert Malley believe that discussing Iran's missiles won't help reach an understanding over the nuclear dispute. Do you think the U.S. will return to JCPOA without pre-condition?* A: Robert Malley is a very seasoned foreign relations expert, who has had long dealings with Iran. He is Egyptian/Syrian in family origin and knows the region very well.  Malley is right. Imposing pre-conditions on the United States return to the JCPOA is going to muddle, and perhaps totally frustrate the process. *“The objection to them is the fantasy that Iran could at some future date use conventional weapons to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel,” Professor Beeman notes.* Iran's conventional weapons are completely legal. The objection to them is the fantasy that Iran could at some future date use conventional weapons to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel. This is the most far-fetched scenario possible, but Netanyahu and Republican hawks in the United States have convinced low-information citizens of their countries that Iran is a month, two months, six months, from producing a bomb and attacking Israel. They have been saying this since 1990, so one would think that by now people would understand that this is a totally ridiculous accusation. So, this is going to be a non-starter in dealing with Iran. Iranian leaders will never agree to limit conventional defense in order to return to the JCPOA. But what Iran may be willing to do as a kind of precondition is to scale back its enrichment of uranium. Of course, I believe that Iran increased enrichment, not for any functional purpose, but rather to have precisely this bargaining chip when it came time to discuss returning to the JCPOA. This will be a bargaining situation, however. And this is a situation where both the United States and Iran cannot afford to lose face in these negotiations. This is not personal for Biden. If he gives up too much or gives in too easily, he will be attacked by Republicans immediately, and a good part of the American public who voted for Trump will believe these Republican attacks. Iran also has an election coming up this spring, and the success in dealing with the United States will be important in this election as well. *Q: What do we learn from Trump's presidency and his “maximum pressure” policy? Why did Trump fail to dictate his administration’s 12 terms on Iran?* A: Trump was committed to regime change in Iran, or at least to forcing Iran to come to the United States with concessions on support for external actors, reduction of its conventional weapons programs, and whatever else Trump could imagine. He wanted Iran to come begging to him, and he thought that the maximum pressure strategy would work. He was returning to the George W. Bush administration policies toward Iran. The Bush administration believed mistakenly that if enough economic pressure could be exerted on Iran, the Iranian people would rise up and overthrow their own government. A ridiculous idea, but it was very seriously promulgated by Bush, and also by Trump. People like John Bolton actively encouraged this. I should mention that royalists and other Iranians living in the United States who are opposed to the current Iranian government were actively supporting Trump in this last election because they had been told by Trump's officials that if he were re-elected he would launch a military attack on Iran and overthrow the government. Trump's policy was designed to be a strong departure from the Obama administration. If Obama was trying to improve relations with Iran, in the hopes of making progress in areas of mutual interest, then Trump definitely wanted to go in the opposite direction and show extreme hostility toward Iran to pressure Iran into doing what his administration wanted. But it didn't work. Trump knew nothing about Iran. In fact, Iran has a very robust internal economy. Iran is self-sufficient in just about everything except for specialized pharmaceuticals and specialized technical equipment. In fact, the poverty level in Iran is less than that in the United States. Iran's economy actually expanded during the two years of the Trump administration. Iran survived these Maximum Pressure sanctions. It created some very difficult economic situations for some people, but for the most part, life continued rather normally.   *Q: Is there any obvious mechanism to return to the JCPOA? Some observers suggest "compliance-compliance". What is your comment?* A: No. Too much time has passed, and although President Biden is committed to returning to the JCPOA he cannot do it without negotiations. For one thing, the sanctions against Iran are so incredibly complicated, they will take a long time to be untangled. See the Wikipedia page below. You will see that there are layers and layers of sanctions that need to be dealt with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_against_Iran#:~:text=U.S.%20economic%20sanctions%20are%20administered,parts%20to%20Iranian%20aviation%20companies <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_against_Iran#:~:text=U.S.%20economic%20sanctions%20are%20administered,parts%20to%20Iranian%20aviation%20companies>. But more importantly, as I mentioned above, there is a political reality involved. If Biden just declared that the JCPOA sanctions were lifted without any concessions from Iran, he would be pilloried by Republicans, and the Democratic party would lose power in the next elections in 2022.  So, there must be negotiations. Both sides will have to make some concessions, and the other signatories to the JCOPA must also be involved.  With goodwill, this will be possible, but it will be an involved process. *Q: What are the main challenges of Biden in the future? Is America concerned about Trump's return?* A: For President Biden the massive effort in unifying the nation. The United States is very badly divided. He also has to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic which is worse in the United States than practically anywhere else. He has had a few good days thus far, and people are feeling optimistic, but it will be a difficult four years for him. And in this context, the U.S. Iranian relationship has a much lower priority than many other things. It is important, but if negotiations over the JCPOA and sanctions.are prolonged, other priorities may take precedence.