My Interview With the Islamic Republic News Agency

After I wrote an article on the Obama administration’s policy towards Iran, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) emailed me for an interview. They posted the edited version yesterday. Here’s the English version:

http://www.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=468523&IdLanguage=3

US editor not optimistic about Obama’s Iran overture

New York, May 4, IRNA — Jeremy R. Hammond, the editor of Foreign Policy Journal online publication said that the purpose of US administration’s announcement that it would be willing to engage in talks with Iran is not to come to some understanding with the Iranians.

He told IRNA that the tendency towards having dialogue with Iran is a new attitude that has started developing after almost 8 years of unilateralism as a policy trend in Bush era.

“It’s just an effort to get other nations fully on board with implementing harsh sanctions against Iran. The basic policy is indistinguishable from Bush’s, since even if U.S. delegates sit down with their Iranian counterparts, the demand will still be that Iran halt its enrichment activities.

“The Obama administration is seeking to heal the US image in the international community and strengthen ties with allies. The basic problem is that European allies, like Britain, France, and Germany, don’t feel as though they can get on board with “crippling sanctions”, as Secretary of State Clinton described the intended goal this week, without first trying a diplomatic approach. So the Obama administration is being more sensitive towards this requirement.

“There’s been some talk about that possibly changing, but so far it hasn’t, and I don’t give much credence to the rumors. The only shift in policy so far is not towards Iran, but towards our allies, and being more sensitive of their interests and perceived requirements. It’s necessary to go through the motions in order to be able to say, “We tried diplomacy, but it failed.”

“It’s really not different from what we saw prior to the invasion of Iraq. There’s a campaign of deception, and the media willingly play the role of propagandists, just as they did in the run-up to Iraq invasion. 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 9/11. The campaign was so successful.

“And the same is true for Iran. Americans are generally buying into it. That’s probably less true among the public and among our allies. But the point is that even though they believe Iran is a threat, most Americans also believe at the same time that their government should engage Iran with diplomacy.

“So the Obama administration is going through the motions. It’s a charade. But it’s calculated to convince the public that diplomacy doesn’t work. The failure of the talks will simply be blamed on Iran, and the U.S. will have its support for “crippling sanctions”.

Asked what position Iran can have in the region and how cooperation between the two countries can help solve some of the problems in the region? he said that if the U.S. was willing to cooperate with Iran, it would be enormously beneficial.

“Iran has great influence among the large Shia population in Iraq and could assist the mutual goal of a stable Iraq that has a strong and credible democratic government. Iran has already played a helpful role in restoring order and mitigating violence.

“The U.S. could also use all the help it could get in Afghanistan, in supporting a stable, credible, and effective government, in combating the drug trade that is affecting Iran as opium and heroin is smuggled across its borders, and more. There’s been some positive moves in this regard, but it is being hampered by the nuclear issue.

“Of course, if we get really idealistic, we might even say Iran could be very helpful in establishing a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East. Iran has already offered to work together with the West to make this happen. But that would require the U.S. to get serious about non-proliferation. Since the only nation in the region with nuclear weapons is Israel, that’s not going to happen.

Q. Many political analysts believe that the world is moving towards a multi polar system. If you share this view, within this world system what position the US is going to have with regards to Iran? And again what level of feasibility, if any, the use of military power is going to have in such world?

A. This is a difficult question because I think a lot of what the world will look like will depend upon the global economy, which in turn depends a lot upon how we’re going to meet global energy demands. …I’m skeptical of that view. China’s growth is completely unsustainable, and creating its own set of problems that will hinder growth down the road. Talk of a new Cold War even became popular after Russia intervened to stop the Georgian assault on South Ossetia, which of course was presented in the U.S. as Russian aggression.

“Suddenly Russia was up to its old tricks, and we were supposed to start fearing a return of the “evil empire” or something. I think the U.S. will remain, if not the world’s only superpower, the world’s primary superpower for some time to come.

“All three major powers have been positioning to be in control of energy resources. Iran is important in that great game as a major oil producer. The U.S. would like to see regime change and a government in place that would allow U.S. corporations in to exploit the energy resources, but I think that’s recognized as a pipe dream in Washington, no pun intended. So the U.S. will opt to squeeze and pressure Iran in an attempt to change its behavior. Iran’s insistence on producing nuclear energy is dangerous because it sets the country on a path towards greater independence. The U.S. can’t have that. The U.S. insists on two things: One, you must be dependent upon the U.S. and the Western power and economic structure. Two, you must take orders from Washington. Nations that stray too far down the path towards political and economic independence or show too much defiance to the world order are by definition “rogue states”, and must be stopped.

The U.S. policy towards Iran really has little to do with fears about nuclear proliferation, just as the war on Iraq had absolutely nothing at all to do with WMD or terrorism.

So the U.S. will try to get stricter sanctions against Iran, and continue to insist that it give up its nuclear program. Iran will continue to insist upon its rights, guaranteed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to enrich uranium to fuel-grade for energy. This might lead eventually to Iran learning the lesson being taught to it, that being a member of the NPT has no benefits, but is rather a curse, and withdraw, kicking out the IAEA inspectors. Although this wouldn’t be an incorrect conclusion to draw, it’s imperative that Iran not do so. It’s crucial that Iran continue to accept the NPT safeguards, and provide full and complete cooperation with the IAEA and its efforts to verify the civilian nature of its nuclear program. Iran could do a lot to help itself by accepting the additional protocol and opening its doors completely, and give the IAEA everything it needs to finally put outstanding issues to rest and leave it no room to be able to say that they aren’t entirely confident there isn’t a military purpose for the program.

“There is a real threat of military aggression against Iran, if not from the U.S. then from Israel. Israeli leaders have repeatedly declared their intention to bomb Iran. This is largely seen as posturing to commentators and analysts in the U.S., but I disagree with that view. Israel is not bluffing. Even if they are bluffing, hoping to get Iran to acquiesce to U.S. demands, if Iran calls their bluff, they will not tolerate having been humiliated. At that point, it will simply be a matter of restoring credibility. And by that I mean the same way the U.S. restored its credibility, after more than a decade of failed policy, by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who taunted Washington and made the U.S. look weak and powerless; “credibility” in the sense that the world must respect and fear one’s military power.

“I’d like to say that the use of military force will become archaic, seen as the barbarism it is, in the emerging new world. But I think that’s naïve optimism. Force will continue to play its usual role.

President Ahmadinejad outlined one very important step towards a more peaceful and democratic world order in his speech at the U.N. Durban Review Conference, in which he proposed reformation of the U.N. and its inherently discriminatory practice of allowing the five permanent members of the Security Council the veto power.

Such talk is dangerous, though, evidence of Iran’s disobedience to the present world order.

Q. Washington, particularly during Obama’s administration has frequently claimed that it respects Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Is the objection to the enrichment not in contradiction with such claims?

A. It’s an absolute contradiction. The declarations of the Obama administration that it respects Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy are completely meaningless. If that was true, they would respect Iran’s choice to continue to enrich low-grade uranium. There was a lot of hype in the media in February about Iran having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. Some of the media, the New York Times, for example, actually pointed out that Iran had only low-enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium necessary to make a bomb, but this was typically buried towards the end of the article under an alarming headline, if it was mentioned at all.

In every single report of the IAEA, they repeat that they have been able to verify Iran is enriching only low-grade uranium, which is less than 5% U-235 compared with uranium that is composed of 90% or more of the U-235 isotope as required for nuclear weapons, and that no diversion of nuclear materials has been detected that could be used to build a bomb.

The demand of US policy isn’t that Iran stop enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon, it’s that it stop enriching uranium for nuclear fuel for civilian purposes.