William O. Beeman--The US election has created a lot of ambiguity--Interview with Iranian Mehr News Agency

 

https://www.mehrnews.com/news/5066542/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA

The University of Minnesota professor said in an interview with Mehr;

The US election has created a lot of ambiguity

A professor at the University of Minnesota believes that the 2020 US presidential election has created a lot of ambiguity in the country and there is a possibility that post-election unrest will spread.

Mehr News Agency , International Group - Amir Mohammad Ismaili: The recent US election has been marked by many ups and downs, and while both candidates consider themselves the winners of the presidency, the media is reporting on Joe Biden's victory. This is despite the fact that Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed election fraud and theft of popular votes.

On the other hand, tensions, conflicts and unrest have occurred in the United States following the escalation, which has further increased the likelihood of internal riots. We spoke with Professor William Beiman to investigate the scale and nature of the unrest.

Professor William Bayman is Professor and Head of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, USA. He is a well-known international researcher on the Middle East and the Islamic world, especially Iran, the Persian Gulf region and Central Asia. Bimen also chaired the Middle East Division of the American Anthropological Society from 2005 to 2008. The text of the conversation is as follows:

How do you assess the current turbulent situation in the United States?

Joe Biden has already won enough electoral votes (in the complex process of our election) and can be called President. Trump is trying to challenge the election in court, but it can almost be said that he will not win. This weekend we will see if there is a strong public reaction from Trump supporters or not, but for now we have seen some reactions.

Joe Biden won the most popular votes in history and received more than 74 million votes. This removes many ambiguities about the future of the United States, but leaves many ambiguities unanswered.

* Some experts believe that the United States is on the verge of internal unrest and insurgency. what is your opinion?

Riots can still happen, but no real riots have taken place since Tuesday's election. Trump supporters have tried to protest the vote count. They are protesting against the millions of votes sent by mail instead of in person.

How long does it usually take for challenged votes to be approved?

It takes about two weeks or more to approve these votes. During this time, Trump supporters may be trying to create unrest, so we have to wait and see how things go.

Q: How do you think the political and security structure of the United States will react to any possible unrest?

The United States has unusual restrictions on the use of the military. The National Army (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard) is legally barred from interfering in internal affairs unless requested to do so by state governments. Each state has a section of the National Guard that can be mobilized by state governors; Therefore, any military intervention is in the hands of the state governors, not the president. There are also local police, police stations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that can only intervene in federal crimes. Trump may try to enlist in the military, but he will not succeed.

News ID 5066542

 

Professor William Beeman: Biden could lift Trump's sanctions on Iran immediately

 

https://www.tahlilbazaar.com/news/52777/Professor-William-Beeman-Biden-could-lift-Trump-s-sanctions

Professor William Beeman: Biden could lift Trump's sanctions on Iran immediately

TEHRAN(Bazaar) – William O. Beeman, Professor Emeritus of University of Minnesota, says If the United States returns to the JCPOA they will have to also lift the sanctions relief specified in the JCPOA.

In an interview with the Bazaar, Beeman also says, “There must be talks about whether the U.S. will return to the JCPOA or not in advance of this.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Bazaar: Joe Biden, in an article published on CNN, presented a three-stage policy against Iran. Accordingly, he presented the three phases of nuclear talks, regional issues, the missile issue and human rights under one package. The important issue here is timing. That is, whether Biden considers the nuclear issue independent or links it to missile and regional issues. If such a connection is made, the probability of reaching an agreement with Iran is close to zero. On this basis, it is argued that he may seek to consider each issue separately and independently in possible negotiations with Iran. What is your assessment of Biden's policy toward Iran?

Beeman: We can't know exactly what Joe Biden will do. But it will have to be a political calculation. He can't just reverse Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA without creating an issue that Republicans will use against him. Therefore if he does anything with regard to Iran, he must show that he has “improved” on the agreement. If I were advising him, I would suggest that he condition returning to the JCPOA and eliminating sanctions on Iran firmly agreeing to additional talks on the other two issues. But he hasn't asked me. Nevertheless that would be, I believe, the safest course for him politically.

Bazaar: Biden has repeatedly spoken of returning to the JCPOA during his election campaigns. But there has been no talk of lifting sanctions on Iran. What is the reason for this, and will it lift nuclear sanctions in return for Iran's return from reducing its JCPOA commitments?

Beeman: If the United States returns to the JCPOA they will have to also lift the sanctions relief specified in the JCPOA. So there must be talks about whether the U.S. will return to the JCPOA or not in advance of this. There were additional sanctions imposed by Trump after the U.S. withdrawal. Biden could lift those immediately. If I were in his position, I would claim that the additional sanctions were not achieving anything, and that they created a humanitarian crisis in Iran and in the region, so lifting them would be a wise move.

Bazaar: The Democratic Party announced in a statement during the presidential election campaign that it would no longer pursue a policy of regime change in Iran. Is this policy still pursued when Biden came to power or was it just a propaganda issue?

Beeman: Yes. The policy of regime change has been a part of the Republican Party platform since George W. Bush. I believe the Democratic Party should stick to their promise and specifically abandon this policy. 

Bazaar: In general, what changes will Biden's Middle East policy have compared to Trump?

Beeman: There may be more pressure on Israel to abandon the settlements. There will be a movement away from MBS and the Saudi Arabian regime. The United States has military facilities in Qatar and Bahrain, and there will be continued efforts to protect them. The United States will also likely continue withdrawal from Iraq.

۱۹ آبان ۱۳۹۹ - ۰۹:۴۳

 

William O. Beeman: Europeans have to deal with U.S if Trump re-elected

 

William Beeman <wbeeman@umn.edu>	9:34 AM (3 hours ago)
to bcc: Anthropology, bcc: Erica, bcc: Kamran, bcc: Alizadeh, bcc: Amanat, bcc: Babayan, bcc: Betteridge, bcc: Canby, bcc: Carter, bcc: Chehabi, bcc: Clark, bcc: Daryaee, bcc: Ekhtiar, bcc: Ernst, bcc: Esfahani, bcc: Farhad, bcc: Garrison, bcc: Gocheleishvili, bcc: Gruber, bcc: Harper, bcc: Hashemi, bcc: Khafipour, bcc: Komaroff, bcc: Kurzman, bcc: Lerner, bcc: Lewis, bcc: Lob, bcc: Losensky, bcc: Manz, bcc: Marashi, bcc: Matthee, bcc: Payne, bcc: Potts, bcc: Shakhsari, bcc: Shayegan, bcc: Sheffield, bcc: Spooner, bcc: Sternfeld, bcc: Stolper, bcc: Just, bcc: Landau, bcc: Steve, bcc: Jamal, bcc: NIAC, bcc: PhD, bcc: Mike, bcc: Cyrus, bcc: Behrad, bcc: Women, bcc: Jim, bcc: to:, bcc: skipauld@gmail.com, bcc: barkerpaul987@gmail.com, bcc: barrotgail@gmail.com, bcc: me, bcc: Marybruceking6@gmail.com, bcc: patcathcart@gmail.com, bcc: Alisonwclement@yahoo.com, bcc: hooblercurtis@comcast.net, bcc: kdahl@npca.org, bcc: jdarznik@cca.edu, bcc: charlieq22@yahoo.com, bcc: hekbia@indiana.edu, bcc: oakopening@gmail.com, bcc: jffox77777@aol.com, bcc: idahowriter@aol.com, bcc: ray@frieden.org, bcc: allgaughan@yahoo.com, bcc: rabeahjan@gmail.com, bcc: jeanettegny@earthlink.net, bcc: jygritzner@yahoo.com, bcc: hansbrad@gmail.com, bcc: mhegland@scu.edu, bcc: rpcvw488@gmail.com, bcc: jmholehan@gmail.com, bcc: thomas_huf@yahoo.com, bcc: persiskarim@sfsu.edu, bcc: reakeech@hotmail.com, bcc: klobetm@hawaii.edu, bcc: jkrauskopf7@comcast.net, bcc: jklmk@comcast.net, bcc: larimerr@gmail.com, bcc: limbertjw@hotmail.com, bcc: jlorentz@shawnee.edu, bcc: kmacleod1@cox.net, bcc: marydmarks9c@gmail.com, bcc: dan.mcconochie@gmail.com, bcc: femoskol@wisc.edu, bcc: andymott@communitylearningpartnership.org, bcc: ken.opin@gmail.com, bcc: alexpatico@aol.com, bcc: orickp@gmail.com, bcc: ecposey@aol.com, bcc: kpransky48@comcast.net, bcc: mrahbar@utk.edu, bcc: tomricks28@yahoo.com, bcc: brosen1500@gmail.com, bcc: jjsalamack@aol.com, bcc: wsawyer@thecalebgroup.org, bcc: dschermer@farmtel.net, bcc: seiderse@asme.org, bcc: mshannon@ehc.edu, bcc: cspeake@mcn.org, bcc: wm.spielberger@sbcglobal.net, bcc: spurlock6@comcast.net, bcc: spurlock8@gmail.com, bcc: aht1964@yahoo.com, bcc: gerard.torma@nordson.com, bcc: globalmaddy@gmail.com, bcc: robb.walt@outlook.com, bcc: rwangsness@cfl.rr.com, bcc: wangsneg@yahoo.com, bcc: yalebush@gmail.com, bcc: urbana.kristin@gmail.com, bcc: art@artfox.us, bcc: Nasrin.rahimieh@uci.edu, bcc: Barbara, bcc: Barbara, bcc: Cyrus, bcc: cyrus, bcc: John, bcc: Amir, bcc: Damon, bcc: Catharine, bcc: Roxanne, bcc: RI-ME

https://www.ilna.news/Section-politics-3/976770-europeans-have-to-deal-with-if-trump-re-elected-expert  

Europeans have to deal with U.S if Trump re-elected; Expert

The United States has threatened to punish any nation that uses dollars or dollar transfers to aid Iran," an American scholar whose specialty is the Middle East told ILNA.

William Beeman who is professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota talked about the U.S Presidential election and the results of that election to the international community. He says “Everyone is waiting for the U.S. presidential elections before taking definitive action.” Adding that if Trump wins, European has to find some way to deal with him. Right now the JCPOA is in stasis, and it could stay that way, but it would be rendered useless.

 

Below is Beeman's interview with ILNA news agency:

Q: Can US diplomacy head off conflict between the US and Iran?

A: There are many things that can lead to war, but not these futile "Snapback actions" on the part of the United States. These have been completely rejected by every other nation, and the UN has ruled that the United States cannot make them incumbent on other nations, because Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA. So the United State has failed in trying to enact these actions. Additionally, the United States had already sanctioned everything possible in Iran, so there was no room for Trump to do more.

 

Q: Europe has not fulfilled its obligations of JCPOA. Why did this happen?

A: The Europeans would like to fulfill their obligations, but they are hamstrung by the United States because of the dominance of the U.S. Dollar in international trade. The United States has threatened to punish any nation that uses dollars or dollar transfers to aid Iran. The Europeans tried to create another financial transfer system to bypass the U.S. restrictions, and it was implemented, but it was so minuscule that it had no effect. Russia and China are also trying to develop alternative transfer systems that would bypass the dollar.

 

Q: EU Chief reaffirms commitment to keep JCPOA alive. Will the EU Keep the JCPOA Alive?

A: It is still alive, and if Biden is elected, it will be available to be renewed. Everyone is waiting for the U.S. presidential elections before taking definitive action. The United States has done all it can, and has been rebuffed by the International Community. 

 

Q: Some believe that with Trump's victory, we will see Europe turn to the United States and destroy JCPOA. What is your opinion?

A: If Trump wins, this might happen, but only because four more years of intransigence on the JCPOA will render it effectively ineffective. If Trump wins, Europeans will have to find some way to deal with him. Right now the JCPOA is in stasis, and it could stay that way, but it would be rendered useless.

What people continually forget is that Iran and all other nations (except Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea and South Sudan) are bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which is a real treaty, not just an "agreement" like the JCPOA. Iran is in full compliance with the NPT, and so Iran cannot proceed to any kind of nuclear weapons development without withdrawing from the NPT. This has been talked about in Iran, but I don't see it happening.

Foreign Minister Zarif has just laid out a set of conditions for Iran to return to discussions with the U.S. over the JCPOA. If Biden wins he will have a similar set, and discussions could begin again. If Trump wins, nothing will happen. 

 

Q: Is Donald Trump going to win the US election?

A: At present he is losing. The question remains whether he would leave office if he lost, or would try to retain power through some kind of coup. We are worried about this in the United States. Our strange election system makes it possible for Trump to win the election even if he loses the popular vote. So the calculus of voting is very complex, usually coming down to the vote in a very few selected states where the vote will be close. Those are the states to watch.

Trump's utter and complete incompetence

Trump is incompetent. Period. We elect presidents to lead our nation, to protect us, and to solve national dilemmas. It is perhaps bad luck that presidents encounter disasters, wars, economic collapse, disease and other dangers to the nation. But presidents are supposed to have the skill and experience to extricate the nation from these terrible events. Trump is simply incapable of managing this task. The nation chose badly. We chose someone who was a bomb-thrower, a huckster, and first and foremost, someone who put his own personal interests above the needs and concerns of the nation. What is worse, Trump dithers and shuck-and-jives his way through this terrible mess by claiming that no one could do better, asserting loudly that he is superior to any alternative, present or past, as if these empty proclamations actually solve our national dilemma. It is such a juvenile strategy, it defies imagination, and drives me and others to weep in rage that such a ridiculous person holds our fate in his hands. I'm certain that anyone else could have done a better job in the current crisis. I am certain that Hillary Clinton would have put all chicanery and personal interests aside to do what was effective. I even believe that Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or John Kaisich to name a few competent Republicans would have had better control. We will be generations trying to clean up Trump's complete mess. He has blown his presidency, and God help us if he is given four more years of chaos

https://nyti.ms/2VL0nS1#permid=106612171

William O. Beeman response to Iranian Journalist on Persian Gulf Military Operations

1. The United States has spoken about new military coalition in the Persian Gulf. What is the purpose of this coalition? The United States has no plausible reason for engaging with Iran. The only piece of American military equipment that was damaged by Iran was the drone shot down in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. claimed that it was in international waters, Iran claimed that it was in Iranian territory. The Russians eventually confirmed the Iranian claim, and the United States went quiet.  I mention this, because people like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo desperately want some pretext for attacking Iran. So they form this "coalition" in order to find some way to defend "American interests" even if the ships or other equipment that might be involved with the Iranian navy or other military are NOT American, the United States can claim that "the United States is being attacked." It is a phony pretext, but this is one more way for war-mongering politicians to create a pretext for military action against Iran.   2. Another plan for Persian Gulf security order in recent days suggested by England. France announced that will join to this coalition and Germany is not clear until now. Why England suggest this plan without participation of U.S.? Because the United Kingdom is not interested in war with Iran, and they know that the United States is itching to attack Iran. They don't want UK ships or other military equipment to be used as a pretext for American war-mongering.   3-Another Plan for Persian Gulf security order is Russian plan that is close to Iranian plan for Persian Gulf. In Russian plan the trans- regional powers just have the supervisory role in the security of the Persian Gulf instead of interferer role. How much this plan is practical at this time? Of course the Russians would like this. FINALLY they would get access to the Persian Gulf (something they have been trying to do since the time of Peter the Great).. Iran may agree to this, but my personal opinion is that they should not. This would be a sacrifice of Iranian sovereignty to Russia, and it is a sneaky back-door ploy to increase Russian influence in the region. Don't let the Russians establish military outposts in the Gulf. It would be a big mistake.   4-The Iranian plan for the Persian Gulf is based on making security by intra states. How much this plan is feasible now? It doesn;t look very possible right now, but my feeling is that the states of the Persian Gulf should form a defense organization to police and protect the Gulf. I am in favor of local control, and absolutely against allowing the big international powers control over the Gulf. This would be a big mistake. Clearly they all want to do this.   5. After 16 years, American troops returned to Saudi Arabia.   What does this issue effect on the security situation in the region? You may be too young to remember, but Saudi Arabia refused to have American troops on its soil for religious reasons since the founding of the Kingdom in the 1930s. The idea that "infidel troops" would be on the sacred soil of the nation that protected Mecca and Medina was unacceptable to the Wahhabis and Salafis. However, the United States desperately wanted to have U.S. troops based in Saudi Arabia. For a long time they did this by claiming to be "advisers" and not active troops. This occurred during the first Gulf War when Iraq tried to invade Kuwait. George H.W. Bush told the Saudis that Saddam Hussein would attack Saudi Arabia after he conquered Kuwait, and the United States needed to be in Saudi Arabia to "protect them."   Now the United States wants to attack Iran. Saudi Arabia has enormous stockpiles of equipment, but virtually no fighting troops. So if there is to be a military action in the Gulf, the United States wants to direct it and take the main initiative under the cover of "aiding" Saudi Arabia. This is, of course, enormously hypocritical. The United States criticizes Iran for its activity in Syria, and here is the  United States gearing up for a phantom conflict with Iran hiding behind the Saudis.  ______________ In all of this activity, what your readers need to know is that many in the United States criticize Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo for advocating for U.S. activity in the Persian Gulf because they don't see that there are really any American interests to be defended, so the Trump administration is trying to create a set of artificial American interests through these phony alliances. ReplyForward