What's Driving the Iranian Nuclear Crisis?

This article presents a thorough and persuasive analysis of the Iran crisis with a focus on Europe's actions.

http://www.counterpunch.org/brand04072006.html

Weekend Edition
April 7 / 9, 2006

The US / EU Connection

What's Driving the Iranian Nuclear Crisis?

By MICHELE BRAND
.............................................
"For, again, why would France and Germany, in an about-face from their stance on the Iraq war, do the bidding of the US in the Middle East?

The answer is simple: they didn't. The current "western" consensus in the security council covers over significant faultlines whose existence goes a long way toward explaining the current situation. It's Europe who raised the current Iranian nuclear "problem," not the US, in order to force a reason for its own presence in the region. It hoped to subdue Iran via diplomacy, that weapon that is not illegal, and establish a privileged economic and political relationship between the EU and Iran, to the exclusion of the US."
...............................................

"The EU had cynically hoped it could wield "diplomatic" force to secure a privileged access to Iran's resources and market (and thus a position in the Middle East), a bet it lost ­ since they are unable militarily (and Iran knows it) either to force Iran into the deal or to protect such a vassal state."
................................................
"Iran knows this. As a Middle Eastern country with a relatively independent foreign and domestic policy, thus naturally sitting in the west's line of fire, Iran seems to know that its best hope of success is to take advantage of the current situation (as no one is in a better position to see the contradictions under this surface multilateralism) and continue with its aggressively independent line. It will soon have a pay-out for having navigated the crisis so far without losing its autonomy: a chance to confront its enemy directly over the question of Iraq. In that meeting, it may extract the "security" promises it needs from the US, in exchange for promises not to interfere in Iraq. The upper hand in the meeting may be Iran's."
.................................................
"The US is willing to go to quite irrational lengths in order to maintain its faltering hold on hegemony. An ("unauthorized") air attack on Iran would also well serve its purposes of making things difficult for its rivals, Europe and China. Since its only real strength, without equal, is military and not economic or diplomatic, it acts like a pyromaniac fireman, setting fire in order to create a reason for its presence and to prevent that of others. The more unstable the Middle East, the more difficult it is for Europe and China to maintain their hold. As a desperate and stumbling empire, but still the strongest one by far, its relative power can be maintained by simply throwing burning roadblocks in the way of its rivals."

Peace in the Middle East and a successful European Union is not in the best interests of the United States.

180

which would never have gone along with such a "plot", not under Blair anyway.

besides European forces have sufficient military options (specially the UK and France) to put pressure on Iran.
Both countries can do the job than the US can do (not invade) but take out facilities with planes, cruise-missiles or even threatening to nuke (which Chirac did).

And if the Europeans wanted to buy Iranian oil, the Iranians had gladly said yes, maybe even paid in Euros. They don't need to seize it. Besides the oil demand of Europe isn't on the US scale.

In reality what the European fear is that a military nuclear Iran forces Saudi arabia and Egypt to go nuclear.
And they share that fear with the US.

Why dont you think think the UK would have gone along with such a plan? And why else would Europe have pressured Iran?

besides European forces have sufficient military options (specially the UK and France) to put pressure on Iran.
Both countries can do the job than the US can do (not invade) but take out facilities with planes, cruise-missiles or even threatening to nuke (which Chirac did).

The more important point is that Europe cannot protect Iran from the United States, and therefore cannot satisfy Iran's demands for any deal. And because of the US posture, Europe is in no position to threaten Iran independently.

And if the Europeans wanted to buy Iranian oil, the Iranians had gladly said yes, maybe even paid in Euros. They don't need to seize it. Besides the oil demand of Europe isn't on the US scale.

The oil demand in Europe while significantly less than the US is certainly on the US scale, they have modern industries, developed cities, etc. They need plenty of oil. Regardless this isnt about buying oil today, this is about which country is going to control and profit from the remains of the vast wealth of oil in the middle east.

It is obvious that Europe was interested in more than just buying Iran's oil, or else why did it offer Iran economic agreements? Why didnt it just keep buying oil from Iran as you suggest and try keep Iran's nukes from ever becoming an issue?

In reality what the European fear is that a military nuclear Iran forces Saudi arabia and Egypt to go nuclear.
And they share that fear with the US.

Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon and is in compliance with the NPT and both European and US intelligence agencies know this. The WMD thing is a lie, not suprisingly. The real reason Europe and the US (and Russia and China etc) are interested in Iran is because of the gooey black stuff in the sand and who will control it and which companies corporations will get to extract and sell it to who.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East.html

1) one the key points in the article is that Europe needs the US to pressure Iran. My point is that they don't. Why should Europe protect Iran from the US ? Europe has no illusions about Iran, but only wants to avoid another conflict, the Iraq lesson is sufficient. And the Iranians need EU-technology more than the EU needs its oil.

2) Europe doesn't see the Irani oil as a key to its development. China/India does.

3) Iranis are Shiites, the others Sunnis. The Saudi and the Egyptians are already queuing in Pakistan for nukes. Imagine two new nuclear powers in the region ! BTW I never said that the issue is for next year. But those guys are planning for the future... ALL of them.

Of course oil plays a role. But it's not the central factor...

the article reminds of the neocon spin :"the EU need Iraq to plot against the US, oil for food etc...". I tried to track the author of the article but didn't find anything conclusive.

and I have still hard to believe that Blair, Chirac and Merckel have a secret common anti-US agenda. Specially the two last ones have been very keen of mending ties these last years.

"It's Europe who raised the current Iranian nuclear "problem," not the US, in order to force a reason for its own presence in the region. It hoped to subdue Iran via diplomacy, that weapon that is not illegal, and establish a privileged economic and political relationship between the EU and Iran, to the exclusion of the US."

no, no of course it was the EU that started the "axis of evil" etc...I call BS. In the end of the 90s EU started a diplomatic charm offensive towards the moderates in Iran. After 9/11 it wasn't possible.

1) one the key points in the article is that Europe needs the US to pressure Iran. My point is that they don't.

Im not sure what you mean. The article suggests that Europe took advantage of the pressure the US was already applying to try and cut a deal with Iran. It suggests this deal failed because Europe could not garuntee that the US would cooperate with the deal and not attack Iran.

Why should Europe protect Iran from the US ?

Because of what Iran might be willing to give up in return.

Europe has no illusions about Iran, but only wants to avoid another conflict, the Iraq lesson is sufficient. And the Iranians need EU-technology more than the EU needs its oil.

But that isnt how Europe has acted. It has not acted to prevent another Iraq. That is one of the main points in this article. It is answering the question of why Europe is fueling the nuke crisis rather than opposing it.

2) Europe doesn't see the Irani oil as a key to its development. China/India does.

That simply isnt the issue. This article does not suggest Europe had a longterm policy that relied on securing Iranian oil, it suggests that Europe saw an opportunity to get control over Iranian resources and markets and went for it. Iran's resources would be of great strategic value to any country that could control it.

3) Iranis are Shiites, the others Sunnis. The Saudi and the Egyptians are already queuing in Pakistan for nukes. Imagine two new nuclear powers in the region ! BTW I never said that the issue is for next year. But those guys are planning for the future... ALL of them.

Except that the nuke crisis is fake. Iran does not have nukes or nuke capability and isnt particularly close to gaining it.

Of course oil plays a role. But it's not the central factor...

I would disagree, but thats a subjective judgement really.

the article reminds of the neocon spin :"the EU need Iraq to plot against the US, oil for food etc...". I tried to track the author of the article but didn't find anything conclusive.

Its odd that it would remind you of something that was completely different. Or are we to think that anyone who thinks Europe persues policies in the middle east is a neocon?

and I have still hard to believe that Blair, Chirac and Merckel have a secret common anti-US agenda. Specially the two last ones have been very keen of mending ties these last years.

This article does not mention any secret anti-US agenda, so I have no idea what you are talking about. All this article suggets is that like all global powers, Europe is interested in gaining access to valuable/strategic resources and markets and persued a diplomatic policy to do so.

1) the article says explicitly that the EU countries have no military possibilities

again : "The EU had cynically hoped it could wield "diplomatic" force to secure a privileged access to Iran's resources and market (and thus a position in the Middle East), a bet it lost ­ since they are unable militarily (and Iran knows it) either to force Iran into the deal or to protect such a vassal state. During the negotiations, though, the EU stated clearly that it could not do the deal without the US on board-which reveals both its necessary diplomacy toward the US and the actual military weakness of Europe."

I say wrong. The Europeans cannot project (without a tremendous effort and leaving Kosovo) 100 of thousands of troops for a regular warfare against Iran. But, even if it would be politically very difficult, they could deal significant blows to Iran with airplanes, cruise-missiles and submarines. Besides Chirac explicitely warned Iran that any major terrorist bombing on French territory would result in nuclear retaliation. The person that wrote that article knows nothing about European military capabilities, because the common myth in the US is that Europeans are armed with spears and relying on US backup.

2) the Europeans don't have to "protect" Iran to make deals with it. It would be in both intrerests but piss off the US. If they had an agenda of their own they could have pursued it specially in the aftermath of the Iraqi debacle. It's the uS which is in a weak position in the ME, not the contrary.

3) the Europeans "started the nuclear issue" : it's preposterous.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC30Ak01.html

in reality the US did everything they could to stop the negotiations :

"Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a "secret cabal" of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service (IPS).
The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address US concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs.

Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism".

4) Nobody says that the Iranians have nukes or will have them next year. But the fact that they have a secret program concerns highly other local powers. If they see that nothing is done, they'll start their programs too. It's a fact that both the Saudis and the Egyptians are aiming in that direction.

5) the article IMPLIES an agenda to keep the US of Iran for own imperialistic purposes : "For, again, why would France and Germany, in an about-face from their stance on the Iraq war, do the bidding of the US in the Middle East? The answer is simple: they didn't. The current "western" consensus in the security council covers over significant faultlines whose existence goes a long way toward explaining the current situation. It's Europe who raised the current Iranian nuclear "problem," not the US, in order to force a reason for its own presence in the region."

Again this is ridiculous. France and Germany didn't go along with the Iraq adventure because they knew it wouldn't work, nothing else. It's not because they were "anti-us" in general, though pissed at the neocons arrogant attitude. When the storm was over, they did everything to mend fences. After all, the US is the n°1 economical partner, not Iran.

6) I stand by my comparison : one of the most comptembable spin from the neocons during the Iraq crisis was that the EU-UN oil-for-food cabal was against the invasion because they had vested interests in Iraqi oil. Figures could show that the oil import from Iraq was about 4-8% and 70% for the US. If the EU had wanted the oil they had cut a deal withe the US. Remember Condi's talk after the war of punishing "the unwilling" or rewarding "the willing"...

The article above implies the same thing :

"So,on the practical level, the European overture to the Iranians (and "overture" is the correct word) has developped in the face of the American failure to secure Iraq and the US pre-crisis economic situation. As opposed to the US's overtly aggressive imperialism in southwest and central Asia, the Europeans have maintained a slower, economic ("soft") imperialism toward countries of the east, starting with those of eastern Europe and extending toward the Ukraine and the Middle East. Europe desperately needs to secure access to a reliable, friendly and longterm supply of oil, and powerhouse Germany needs markets, resources and cheap labor to sustain its economic expansion. Most importantly, Europe now needs a rampart or firewall against the "proliferation" of the American fiasco. With the US in a weakened position both economically and militarily, the EU seems to have attempted to take advantage of this faltering hegemony to begin a process to claim Iran for its own. It wanted neither "regime change," a military attack, nor economic sanctions-the last thing it wants is more instability in the Middle East. Rather it wanted a "partner," or a pasture, to which it would have priority of access."

this stuff stinks neocon-trotskyism long way. And in case of failure of a Irani adventure, you can always blame... France....

the truth is that teh US/EU are playing good cop/bad cop, because their interests CONVERGE on that point.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE18Ak01.html

Now, personally, I'm not sure I buy this analysis, but your criticims are off base.

1) the article says explicitly that the EU countries have no military possibilities

again : "The EU had cynically hoped it could wield "diplomatic" force to secure a privileged access to Iran's resources and market (and thus a position in the Middle East), a bet it lost ­ since they are unable militarily (and Iran knows it) either to force Iran into the deal or to protect such a vassal state. During the negotiations, though, the EU stated clearly that it could not do the deal without the US on board-which reveals both its necessary diplomacy toward the US and the actual military weakness of Europe."

I say wrong. The Europeans cannot project (without a tremendous effort and leaving Kosovo) 100 of thousands of troops for a regular warfare against Iran. But, even if it would be politically very difficult, they could deal significant blows to Iran with airplanes, cruise-missiles and submarines. Besides Chirac explicitely warned Iran that any major terrorist bombing on French territory would result in nuclear retaliation. The person that wrote that article knows nothing about European military capabilities, because the common myth in the US is that Europeans are armed with spears and relying on US backup.

Except that the article deosnt say that.

The article doesnt say that Europe has no military, it says that Europe is in no position to force Iran to follow an EU plan(at the exclusion of the US) with thier military. Not because they have spears or some other rediculous straw man youve concocted in your head, but because while Europe can bomb Iran, the US is already planning to bomb Iran. Yes Europe has a military, and perhaps if the US didnt exist Iran would be worrying about it. But since the US does exist, does occupy countries on Iran's border, has demonstrated its willingess to attack nations illegally and with little support and is far more threatning than Europe(who would find it hard to act without the US anyway), Europe is inddeed in no position to force Iran into any aggreements independently of the US.

You are still, by the way, focusing on a rather minor statement in this article. The much more important point is that Europe could not garuntee that the US would not attack Iran. That was the crux of the issue. That Europe isnt in a position to threaten Iran independently of the US is a sidenote really.

2) the Europeans don't have to "protect" Iran to make deals with it. It would be in both intrerests but piss off the US. If they had an agenda of their own they could have pursued it specially in the aftermath of the Iraqi debacle. It's the uS which is in a weak position in the ME, not the contrary.

Except of course that Europe did make offers lacking protection and Iran turned them down proving you completely wrong.

Also, nobody is interested in pissing the US off. These nations are acting in thier percieved self-interest.

And yes, the US is in a weak position in the middle east and nobody suggested the contrary, in fact this article makes several points based upon that weakness.

3) the Europeans "started the nuclear issue" : it's preposterous.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC30Ak01.html

in reality the US did everything they could to stop the negotiations :

"Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a "secret cabal" of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service (IPS).
The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address US concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs.

Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism".

Nothing in this artice youve posted disagrees with the counterpunch article. In fact it seems to support it rather well. I struggle to understand what it is you are trying to prove here.

4) Nobody says that the Iranians have nukes or will have them next year. But the fact that they have a secret program concerns highly other local powers. If they see that nothing is done, they'll start their programs too. It's a fact that both the Saudis and the Egyptians are aiming in that direction.

If you want to believe WMD lies thats your business, but the facts clearly show that Iran is not in violation of the NPT, does not have nukes, and is not close to attaining them. Any party in the ME that claims it is acting out of fear of Iranian nukes, be that the US/Europe or the US's allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia is LYING.

5) the article IMPLIES an agenda to keep the US of Iran for own imperialistic purposes : "For, again, why would France and Germany, in an about-face from their stance on the Iraq war, do the bidding of the US in the Middle East? The answer is simple: they didn't. The current "western" consensus in the security council covers over significant faultlines whose existence goes a long way toward explaining the current situation. It's Europe who raised the current Iranian nuclear "problem," not the US, in order to force a reason for its own presence in the region."

Again this is ridiculous. France and Germany didn't go along with the Iraq adventure because they knew it wouldn't work, nothing else. It's not because they were "anti-us" in general, though pissed at the neocons arrogant attitude. When the storm was over, they did everything to mend fences. After all, the US is the n°1 economical partner, not Iran.

Again you have not actually argued against anything said in the article, youve just dismissed it, called it rediculous and made some unrelated points. Nobody suggested France and Germany are 'anti-us'. That has nothing to do with anything.

6) I stand by my comparison : one of the most comptembable spin from the neocons during the Iraq crisis was that the EU-UN oil-for-food cabal was against the invasion because they had vested interests in Iraqi oil. Figures could show that the oil import from Iraq was about 4-8% and 70% for the US. If the EU had wanted the oil they had cut a deal withe the US. Remember Condi's talk after the war of punishing "the unwilling" or rewarding "the willing"...

The article above implies the same thing :

If by same thing you mean completely different but having some of the same names...

"So,on the practical level, the European overture to the Iranians (and "overture" is the correct word) has developped in the face of the American failure to secure Iraq and the US pre-crisis economic situation. As opposed to the US's overtly aggressive imperialism in southwest and central Asia, the Europeans have maintained a slower, economic ("soft") imperialism toward countries of the east, starting with those of eastern Europe and extending toward the Ukraine and the Middle East. Europe desperately needs to secure access to a reliable, friendly and longterm supply of oil, and powerhouse Germany needs markets, resources and cheap labor to sustain its economic expansion. Most importantly, Europe now needs a rampart or firewall against the "proliferation" of the American fiasco. With the US in a weakened position both economically and militarily, the EU seems to have attempted to take advantage of this faltering hegemony to begin a process to claim Iran for its own. It wanted neither "regime change," a military attack, nor economic sanctions-the last thing it wants is more instability in the Middle East. Rather it wanted a "partner," or a pasture, to which it would have priority of access."

The only thing this has in common with the neocon line on Iraq is that it suggests Europe has a self-interested foriegn policy in the middle east and that Europe is interested in maintaining and gaining access to resources and markets. These things are obviously true and have nothing in particular to do with neoconservatives.

You cant present arguments against this article, so you are resorting to absurd lazy smears.

this stuff stinks neocon-trotskyism long way.

If you smell neocon-trotskyism, you must have gotten some on your nose, because there is none in this article. Suggesting that Europe has a foriegn policy in the Middle East independent of the US deosnt make one a neocon.

And in case of failure of a Irani adventure, you can always blame... France....

Except that the article says nothing of the sort.

the truth is that teh US/EU are playing good cop/bad cop, because their interests CONVERGE on that point.

I dont know why you want to ignore the very real competition between industrial powers over access to markets and resources, but it exists just the same.

I read that Iran was going to change to Euros instead of greenbacks for petrodollars, it was to have happened on March 28th, but something happened and now it's been put off till June 2006.

Sorry no link, i had this info but lost it when my computer crashed. But i believe i'm correct on the dates. Of course i believe we went into Iraq because Saddam had plans to switch to Euros, and the US couldn't let that happen to the greenback.

This analysis makes sense. The new world order is not quite working out as the Western elite planned. Iran doesn't need what Europe has to offer. Europe is desperate for what Iran has to offer.

This makes it all clear to me.
Europe may have started it but we are mucking it up.