by Editor (Editorials, Crescent International Vol. 54, No. 12, Sha'ban, 1446)
With Donald Trump back in the White House, is it realistic to expect that there would be talks between the US and Iran? During his last term (2016 – 2020) as president, he exhibited unrelenting hostility toward the Islamic Republic.
Trump not only walked away from the nuclear deal—called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—in May 2018 but also imposed a raft of sanctions against Iran. The deal was hammered after years of discussions among the 5P+1 group of countries. He capped these hostile acts by ordering the assassination of General Qassem Solaimani outside Baghdad International Airport on January 3, 2020. This constituted a war crime as well as violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.
Given this background, can we expect that Trump would behave rationally? As a bully and thug, that would be uncharacteristic of him to do so but circumstances do change. Have we arrived at that moment?
Statements and actions by officials of both countries indicate something is afoot. Given Trump’s erratic behaviour, whether it will lead to any breakthrough is uncertain.
There is a possibility that Oman, or perhaps even Qatar, may be acting as go-between to facilitate back channel communications. Oman is the more likely option if only because it was through Doha that the last round of talks on Iran’s nuclear program were initiated that resulted in the JCPOA.
Let us consider what has been going on in recent weeks that leads to speculation about possible activity in the background. With Trump’s ‘election’ (selection) for a second term as president after a four-year hiatus, some interesting developments have occurred.
Mike Pompeo and John Bolton who had both served in Trump regime-I and who were hoping to be included in his second term, were pointedly excluded from any position. Instead, he even withdrew their security protection. Trump also dismissed Brian Hook, the state department pointman on Iran. The Iran file was handed over to Steve Witkoff, a trusted Trump loyalist who was praised for ‘arranging’ the Gaza ceasefire.
Exclusion of the three men from the Trump 2.0 regime is significant. All three are extremely hostile to Iran and pushed for a hardline against it. Pompeo and Bolton were also the ones who advocated the assassination of General Solaimani. Also assassinated in that drone strike was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy leader of Iraq’s Hashd al Shaabi.
On the other side, Iranian officials have made some interesting moves and statements in recent weeks. For instance, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian gave an interview to Lester Holt of NBC television. Holt admitted that there were no preconditions and he was free to ask whatever he wanted.
During the January 14 interview, Holt asked Dr Pezeshkian whether Iran was open to talks with the US. The Iranian president said, it was not the issue of talks but whether whatever is agreed upon will be upheld by the other side. He pointed to the JCPOA that Trump walked away from.
Dr Pezeshkian was also asked whether Iran had attempted to ‘kill’ Trump because of the latter’s order to assassinate General Solaimani. The Iranian president categorically denied involvement in any such plot.
Prior to elections, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crook had fired several shots at Trump while he was addressing a rally in Butler, PA last July. The FBI killed the shooter. Some elements in the US immediately tried to link it with Iran. There is absolutely no evidence of Iran’s involvement in the shooting.
The allegation against Iran, however, shows that there are elements in the US that would like to get the US further entangled with Iran for their own nefarious agenda. It is not difficult to identify these elements: the zionists and their Christian fundementalist allies of whom there is no shortage in the US.
More interesting information emerged during CNN Farid Zakaria’s interview of Javad Zarif on January 22. Zarif who now serves as Iran’s Vice President for Strategic Affairs, was attending the World Economic Forum in Davos. Among other points, two are particularly relevant in the context of the potential US-Iran talks.
First, that Iran recognizes that Bolton and Pompeo were primarily responsible for the ‘maximum pressure’ policy on Tehran and for the assassination of General Solaimani. In Zarif’s words, Tehran did not blame Trump for the crime.
Second, Zarif said that he hopes Trump would act more rationally in his second term based on the failure of his policies vis-à-vis Iran during his previous term. Rationality is not a strong point of Trump; bluster and bullying are.
While signing a raft of executive orders in the Oval Office on January 23, Trump had invited journalists to witness the event. When asked if he would support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, he said: “Hopefully that could be worked out without having to worry about it. It’d be nice. It would really be nice if that could be worked out without having to go that further step.”
The very idea of Israel striking Iran’s nuclear facilities is outrageous. It is illegal and if Trump had any sense—a big if—he should have categorically rejected the idea. Alas, legality is not something that the US or zionist Israel care about.
For years zionist Israel has tried to get the US to attack Iran. As cowards, the zionists always pick on weaker opponents but even that no longer assures success as we witnessed in their war on Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas/Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
The indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu has for years peddled the lie that Iran is close to making a bomb. He has parroted this lie since 1996 when he claimed that Tehran was only a year away from making a bomb. He has repeated it ever since. He even presented before the UN General Assembly a crude sketch of a bomb with a burning fuse. This crude propaganda ploy only evoked derision from the assembled delegates.
Has Trump learned anything from his failed policies vis-à-vis Iran? One must be cautious in drawing such a conclusion. The more likely explanation for his talk about a “diplomatic approach” instead of war is that he realizes the repercussions of attacking Iran.
Let us consider the worst case scenario. Suppose zionist Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities. Given that Iran’s nuclear facilities are widely dispersed and buried deep underground, it would be virtually impossible to damage all of them. Oil facilities are more vulnerable.
Iran’s retaliation would be swift and devastating. Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons facilities would be targeted. Not all missiles can be intercepted. Zionist Israel would be wiped out.
If Iran’s oil facilities are damaged or destroyed, oil production facilities in the Persian Gulf belonging to the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc will go up in smoke. Not a drop of oil will flow through the Strait of Hormuz. The global economy will collapse.
Despite his limited intelligence, Trump knows this. His primary focus is on making money. Destroyed oil fields and refineries do not produce money.
The real questions about US-Iran talks are what would Trump offer to Iran and what he would expect in return. Equally crucial is the question whether Trump can be trusted to uphold any agreement. America has a terrible record on this score. As Russian President Vladimir Putin said, the US is incapable of agreement compliance.
Under such circumstances, Iranian officials must approach the US with great caution. When supping with the devil, use a long spoon, goes an old saying.