{"id":2530,"date":"2013-09-27T09:11:50","date_gmt":"2013-09-27T09:11:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hopoi.org\/?p=2530"},"modified":"2013-09-27T09:11:50","modified_gmt":"2013-09-27T09:11:50","slug":"iran-edging-towards-a-settlement-us-sanctions-appear-to-have-produced-results-for-imperialism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hopoi.org\/?p=2530","title":{"rendered":"Edging towards a settlement: US sanctions appear to have produced results for imperialism"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\t\"kerry-zarif\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As Iranian president Hassan Rowhani addressed the UN general assembly on September 25, there seemed to be no end to the charm offensive unleashed by the new government in Tehran. Following a number of conciliatory articles in US papers1<\/sup><\/a> and a TV interview during which he emphasised Iran\u2019s commitment to \u201cpeaceful nuclear development\u201d, the Iranian president arrived in New York, accompanied by Iran\u2019s only Jewish MP – apparently a supporter of the new government.<\/p>\n

Two days into the UN\u2019s 68th general assembly, Iran\u2019s foreign minister had already met William Hague, Rowhani had shaken hands with French president Fran\u00e7ois Hollande and it was announced that Iran will take part in negotiations with the \u2018five plus one\u2019 countries on September 26, along with US foreign secretary John Kerry. The proposed meeting between Kerry and Iran\u2019s new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, will be the highest-level US-Iran contact for more than 30 years and, according to media reports,2<\/sup><\/a> the UN was buzzing with rumours that there might be a Rowhani-Obama handshake in the corridors of the United Nations.<\/p>\n

The \u2018accidental\u2019 meeting would not have been the first time the US administration had used the general assembly for communicating with moderate Iranians. According to Bruce Riedel, who was a senior director at the National Security Council and adviser to Bill Clinton on Iran, in September 2000 Clinton instructed aides to arrange a face-to-face encounter with Iran\u2019s president, Mohammad Khatami. At the secretary general\u2019s lunch, the two presidents were supposed to be seated not too far from each other so that an \u2018accidental\u2019 meeting could be arranged. Thirteen years later, the Americans apparently made very similar efforts.<\/p>\n

However, there was no handshake. According to the New York Times<\/em>, \u201cAfter two days of discussions between American and Iranian officials about a potential meeting of the leaders, a senior administration official said the Iranian delegation indicated that it would be \u2018too complicated\u2019 for Mr Rowhani and Mr Obama to bump into each other.\u201d Rowhani decided he could not attend the lunch organised for heads of states \u201cbecause alcohol was being served\u201d. The truth is Rowhani can only test supreme leader Ali Khamenei\u2019s tolerance of his \u2018diplomacy\u2019 so far and clearly a handshake with Obama would have been too much. However Rowhani did manage a meeting that was just as important – with an unveiled woman, International Monetary Fund director Christine Lagarde, to discuss \u201chow the partnership with the IMF might be deepened\u201d. At the end of the day, after all the hype, Obama and Rowhani both spoke of improved relations and backed the resumption of nuclear talks.<\/p>\n

Of course, we have been here before during the Khatami presidency, when similar gestures were hailed as signs of a thaw in US-Iran relations, yet little came out of it. In fact in an editorial The Guardian<\/em> drew attention to this, warning that this time the west must not turn its back on diplomacy: \u201cFailure now to create an atmosphere of trust and meaningful dialogue will only boost extremist forces on all sides. The consequences of such a failure will be not only regional, but global.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

As I wrote last week, Rowhani has less than six months to bring about a resolution of the nuclear issue and an end to sanctions.4<\/sup><\/a> After that he will surely lose the supreme leader\u2019s support for negotiations. Before Rowhani left Tehran, Khamenei gave his blessing to his president\u2019s efforts, speaking of Iran\u2019s \u201cheroic flexibility\u201d and \u201ctactical diplomacy\u201d. Revolutionary Guard leaders echoed the supreme leader\u2019s message.<\/p>\n

Clearly sanctions are taking their toll and forcing the Iranian regime to compromise. Ironically, the super-rich clerics who run the country, as well as their immediate families and allies, have been relatively immune from the disastrous consequences of sanctions. However, the majority of Iranians are facing severe hardship caused by food and medical shortages, spiralling prices and the destruction of Iran\u2019s economy – no wonder the country\u2019s religious leaders fear losing power. So Khamenei and his obedient servants in the Revolutionary Guards have been forced to make a U-turn, be it for a limited period – in the words of former supreme leader Ruhollah Khomeini, they have accepted that they must \u201cdrink the poison\u201d of negotiations.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Defeat<\/h4>\n

No-one should be under any illusion: the reality is that a superpower, the US, has defeated a \u2018third world\u2019 religious dictatorship by using its economic power. It has stopped Iran\u2019s oil exports, paralysed its banking and financial systems, destroyed an important part of its manufacturing and petrochemical industries. Indeed Iran\u2019s economy is in a worse situation now than during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. So, before anyone starts celebrating the prospects of peace, let me remind you that these negotiations, like the conflict that preceded them, are part of a reactionary process. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, the current hype about a rapprochement in US-Iran relations should be recognised for what it is: tortuous negotiations on the nuclear issue while long-term tensions persist.<\/p>\n

In their respective speeches to the UN both Obama and Rowhani made clear references to the history of the last three decades. Obama spoke of Iran\u2019s hostage-taking, of its labelling of the US as the main enemy and of its threats against Israel. Rowhani gave what could be described as a \u2018third-worldist nationalist\u2019 speech, complaining about inequality amongst states, and the misconceptions about the \u2018civilised\u2019 west and \u2018uncivilised\u2019 countries like Iran. So even if nuclear negotiations progress – and that is a big \u2018if\u2019 – the conflict will continue.<\/p>\n

Throughout the last three decades both sides have fuelled this confrontation: in the case of Iran for internal reasons; and in the case of the US for global reasons – to prove the power of the hegemon. Now, in desperation, a wrecked Iran and a weakened US are looking for a settlement. It will not lead to \u2018peace\u2019 in the region. Far from it – it might fuel further conflicts between an enraged Israel and an empowered Iran; or between a Sunni alliance and the Shia\/Alawi axis of Iran, Syria and Lebanon.<\/p>\n

Of course, all this also shows a level of incoherence in the US approach to the Middle East in general. The ousting of Saddam Hussein\u2019s Ba\u2019athist regime and the coming to power of a Shia government in Baghdad had the inevitable consequence of increasing Iran\u2019s influence in the region. The US\u2019s immediate reaction was to strengthen its allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, supporting their interventions in Syria, where Iranian Revolutionary Guards were taking part in the civil war on the side of the Assad regime.<\/p>\n

But the Israeli lobby and hawks amongst US Republicans, as well as some Democrats, are very concerned. The joke in Tehran is that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu is the only person on earth who wishes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still Iranian president. According to Benny Avni, writing in the New York Post<\/em>, \u201cIranian president Hassan Rowhani will undoubtedly play the well-dressed matinee idol in this year\u2019s UN annual gabfest, which begins Tuesday. But will Israel\u2019s Benjamin Netanyahu be the only one to note that this emperor has no clothes?\u201d6<\/sup><\/a> Only hours after Rowhani\u2019s UN appearance, Netanyahu described him as making \u201ca cynical speech full of hypocrisy\u201d.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Some have argued that the current situation proves \u2018sanctions\u2019 have forced Iran to \u2018engage in nuclear negotiations\u2019. Nothing could be further from the truth. For all the talk of peace and moderation, Iran\u2019s Islamic regime maintains a commitment to pursue nuclear development – so as far as the nuclear issue is concerned, not much has changed. What is different is the new government\u2019s willingness to negotiate with the US.<\/p>\n

Sanctions against Iran date back to 1979 and, contrary to Obama\u2019s claims, they have always been about regime change. In this respect the US has succeeded, in that sanctions forced all candidates in this year\u2019s presidential elections in Iran to take a \u2018moderate\u2019 line vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> US relations. This was as true of the more conservative candidates as it was of the centrist, Rowhani. No wonder Iranian royalists, the Mujahedin and others who hoped to be the main beneficiaries of US regime-change policy are furious with the Obama administration. However, as we in Hands Off the People of Iran have said, the US plan A was always about regime change – and that meant a change in policy, not necessarily a change in personnel.<\/p>\n

Clearly Iran hopes that improved relations with the US will result in the lifting of some of the harshest sanctions, allowing the sale of Iranian oil, a gradual reacceptance of Iran\u2019s banks and financial institutions into the world economy, and that in turn these measures will improve the rate of exchange for the Iranian currency. Will this improve life for the Iranian working class? Not very likely.<\/p>\n

Working class<\/h4>\n

As the world media pontificates about the significance of this week\u2019s events in New York, it is worthwhile listening to the words of Labour activist Ali Nejati, a member of the Haft Tapeh sugar workers\u2019 union: \u201cWorkers should not be under any illusion that change in the management of the state, within the confines of the existing order and for the purpose of maintaining this order in power, will bring about any change in the economic, political and social situation of the working class, nor does this change represent any move in that direction. It is no secret that our class, despite encompassing the overwhelming majority of the population, plays no role in the country\u2019s politics – as far as the government is concerned, our only role is to produce more, accept lower wages and become cannon fodder.\u201d8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

By contrast, Iranian reformists, even when the most radical among them address working class issues (and that in itself is a rare event), consider the class as a minority and they talk of \u201cthe necessity of raising the demands of all minorities: women, national minorities and workers\u201d.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

What they fail to realise is that:<\/p>\n