|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Welcome to The Geopolity’s What We’re Watching (3W), our daily look at the interconnected worlds of Geopolitics, Economics and Energy. Curated from the world’s leading sources of information, our analysis and commentary is designed to help you make sense of the events driving the major developments in the world.
Last Sunday, 3W reviewed the US narrative that an agreement with Iran was imminent. We said at the time that a breakthrough deal was highly unlikely, since the offer put on the table by the US continues to be based on the US – Israel Alliance demands, that do not recognize Iran’s interests, nor the practical reality on the ground in the Persian Gulf following the Alliance’s failed 40-day war on Iran over March and April.
On Monday, Iran confirmed our assessment, pouring cold water on suggestions that a deal with the US is imminent, The Guardian writes. Esmail Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran’s negotiating team, said: “It is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion. But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent – no one can make such a claim.” Reuters writes that senior Iranian diplomat Hossein Nooshabadi told ISNA news agency that the Iranian demands for a possible framework deal continue to include an end of the war on all fronts including Lebanon, the release of blocked Iranian assets, the lifting of the US naval blockade and the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the withdrawal of US forces from the vicinity of Iran and freedom to sell Iranian oil.
Also last Sunday at 3W we said that Israel would remain the main obstacle to the US and Iran reaching a true compromise deal solution. We noted that US Republican senator Lindsey Graham usually articulates the Israeli position in momentS such as these, and he said: “If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution.” Tom Cotton, who chairs the Senate intelligence committee reposted Graham’s comments, writes The Guardian. In addition, Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate armed services committee, said the “rumoured 60-day ceasefire” would be a “disaster”; while Mike Pompeo, who served as secretary of state and CIA director under the first Trump administration, sharply criticized the deal being floated as “not remotely America First”. “It’s straightforward,” Pompeo claimed. “Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies in the region. Overdue. Let’s go.”
Iranian demands for a possible framework deal continue to include an end of the war on all fronts including Lebanon, the release of blocked Iranian assets, the lifting of the US naval blockade and the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the withdrawal of US forces from the vicinity of Iran and freedom to sell Iranian oil
In addition to calling its agents in elite US political circles into action, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu also ordered the Israeli military to step up its attacks on Hizbollah, writes The Financial Times. This, 3W notes, can only be understood as a deliberate attempt to prevent progress in the negotiations, since a key Iranian demand is that any peace deal includes Lebanon.
In an attempt to rescue the situation, Trump then “fled forward”. Trump said on Monday it would be “mandatory” for countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to join the Abraham Accords normalising ties with Israel as part of any agreement to end the war with Iran, writes France 24. He wrote that “after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords.” In the 3W view this move is clearly designed to appease the Zionist lobby in the US, and to get them to support a deal that reopens the Strait of Hormuz and thereby prevents global economic armageddon. But we also note that in difficult negotiations, the right course of action is to zoom in on a limited number of subjects. Broadening the scope of negotiations, such as incorporating the Abraham Accords, is of course the opposite – and therefore makes an actual deal less likely.
we also note that in difficult negotiations, the right course of action is to zoom in on a limited number of subjects. Broadening the scope of negotiations, such as incorporating the Abraham Accords, is of course the opposite – and therefore makes an actual deal less likely
In this complex situation, the US military further increased tensions by attacking Iranian mine-laying vessels and missile launch sites, writes Al Jazeera. Iranian sources told Al Jazeera that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had targeted a vessel at sea before the latest US strikes.
As to where things will go from here, the situation is clear. A return to active hostilities is not a realistic option for the US. Short of launching a nuclear war, it does not have the military capabilities to seriously damage Iran’s ability to counter-strike. This leaves the US with two options: do nothing, which means accept that the global economy experiences a meltdown sometime in June, or compromise.
The latter option is the preferred option for the entire world, except Israel. Even Israel’s opposition leader Yair Lapid is against this, writes The Associated Press. Lapid said details of the emerging deal are “disturbing”. “The deal is bad for Israel, bad for the region, bad for the citizens of Iran,” Lapid told reporters in Jerusalem. In other words, as long as the US allows Israel to determine its foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East, there will be no breakthrough in the US – Iran negotiations. The problem is not Netanyahu, as president Biden thought when he came to power, and for which reason he then sidelined Netanyahu, preferring to talk to Lapid instead. Israeli society more broadly has adopted the genocidal worldview espoused by Netanyahu.
In our 3W view, one of the most important eventual outcomes of October 7 will therefore be a reassessment of the US – Israel relationship. To any rational person it is clear this situation does not serve US interests. Only Israel’s interests. It is unavoidable that people in the US will start to realize this. John Mearsheimer wrote a book about this exact subject in 2007, to bring it people’s attention, (We will be publishing a review of this book soon). Tucker Carlson has turned to using his platform for arguing against this. And now the first signs are appearing that elite US politicians are beginning to understand how damaging AIPAC’s control over them has been to the US. Writing for the New York Times, US senator Chris Van Hollen says the he and his colleagues have “failed to use our leverage” vis-à-vis Israel, and that now it is “past time that we use that leverage”. “We have not yet fully confronted the fact that Israel has used its strength … to bury the two-state solution and advance the far right’s vision of a ‘Greater Israel’.” Van Hollen notes. The failures of US policy which allowed this to happen “worked against US interests”, Van Hollen says. The tide has therefore come for a new policy towards Israel, Van Hollen writes. “In addition to ending taxpayer-funded support, the president should enforce the same terms and conditions for Israel that we apply to other countries when they purchase arms. Israel must also comply with international law and US policy.”