U.S. Iran Policy Gives Me Vertigo

Shutterstock

by Gary Sick

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the entire U.S. government insist that the United States has authorization to strike Iran at will since, among other things, it temporarily sheltered some al-Qaeda leaders when the United States invaded Afghanistan. By this logic, Iran is subject to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that permits attacks on those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

At the same time, the United States is engaged in the final stages of diplomacy with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now, the Taliban did not plan or conduct the 9/11 attacks, but they provided shelter and sovereign protection for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who did. Reports indicate that Washington will ask the Taliban to give solemn assurances that they will not do that again in return for the removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

To add to the confusion, Afghanistan has a government that the United States originally installed—with the active assistance of Iran—to replace the Taliban. However, that government is not included in the negotiations, although it is the sovereign state and will have to deal with the Taliban on its soil once the deal is struck. Why? Well, because the Taliban (the terrorist opposition to the ruling government) won’t talk to them. And the United States acquiesces in the interests of negotiation.

Washington insists that the fatal flaw of the Iran nuclear deal (officially the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) was that it permitted Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil. Contrary to the rest of the world, the United States insists that Iran should not have a single centrifuge spinning. And the Trump administration enforces that minority opinion by imposing crushing sanctions not only on Iran but on every other country in the world that might be prepared to carry out the decisions agreed unanimously in 2015 and ratified by a vote in the UN Security Council.

But President Trump, in his negotiations with the ruler of North Korea, may be prepared to let the government of Kim Jong Un keep the bulk of its nuclear weapons, if they promise not to increase them. National Security Advisor John Bolton has made it clear that he does not approve, but it remains to be seen what will happen in the end. At a minimum, such a generous offer is at least on the table.

Iran, for those who have forgotten, has already given absolute assurances that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons.” And that commitment has been ratified by all the leading powers of the world and is now firmly enshrined in international law. It is in the preamble of the JCPOA, so despised by the Trump administration. And it is enforced by the most advanced monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In perpetuity.

That, if I understand it, is precisely the kind of denuclearization commitment that the Trump administration would like to get from North Korea.

According to official statements, the United States believes its security interests are threatened by the malign actions of Iran. Yet one of our principal allies in the region has launched a brutal war against its neighbor that has created the greatest humanitarian crisis of modern times. It has put a blockade around another neighboring state—an intimate military ally of the United States—in an attempt to coerce its government. This close U.S. ally has attempted to extort a resignation from the prime minister of a third state, and it has brutally murdered a dissident journalist in its own consulate in a fourth regional state. But these rulers are wealthy, and their behavior is breezily dismissed with a casual presidential suggestion to just “take the money.”

In the interest of confronting Iran, the U.S. government has sacrificed its credibility, has put at long-term risk U.S. primacy in global finance, and has infuriated virtually all of this country’s closest traditional allies. Washington is goading Tehran to renege on its nuclear promises, bringing both countries perilously close to another catastrophic war in the Middle East.

Trump administration policy toward Iran has been, in my view, mistaken from the start. Increasingly it appears to be at war with itself, contradicting even its own transactional principles in what may prove to be, in the famous phrase, worse than a crime: it’s a blunder.

Gary Sick served on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. He was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis and is the author of two books on U.S.-Iranian relations. Mr. Sick is a captain (ret.) in the U.S. Navy, with service in the Persian Gulf, North Africa and the Mediterranean. He was the deputy director for International Affairs at the Ford Foundation from 1982 to 1987, where he was responsible for programs relating to U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Sick has a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University, where he is Senior Research Scholar, adjunct professor of international affairs and former director of the Middle East Institute (2000-2003). He is a member (emeritus) of the board of Human Rights Watch in New York and chair of the advisory committee of Human Rights Watch/Middle East. He is the founder and executive director of the Gulf/2000 project.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
avatar

Gary Sick

Gary Sick served on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. He was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis and is the author of two books on U.S.-Iran relations, in addition to several other edited books and articles dealing with U.S. Middle East policy. Mr. Sick is a captain (ret.) in the U.S. Navy, with service in the Persian Gulf, North Africa and the Mediterranean. He was the deputy director for International Affairs at the Ford Foundation from 1982 to 1987, where he was responsible for programs relating to U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Sick has a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University, where he is Adjunct Senior Research Scholar and former director of the Middle East Institute (2000-2003). He taught for 30 years in the School of International and Public Affairs. He is a member (emeritus) of the board of Human Rights Watch in New York and founding chair of its advisory committee on the Middle East and North Africa. He is the executive director of Gulf/2000, an international online research project on political, economic and security developments in the Persian Gulf, being conducted at Columbia University since 1993.

SHOW 12 COMMENTS

12 Comments

  1. What Israel demands of the US in regards to Iran is only a WET DREAM! The American people, the non-deplorables, are tired of wars and giving protection to everyone for nothing. In fact, Iran is also trying to have the US to overcommit itself then will act accordingly and still rationally. Conclusions in Tehran are “if the bully likes or intends to push us around then let’s see how far it wants to push”. It’s an interesting chess match and we’ll know which side will call “you’re checked”
    Ambassador Sick, you’re right but vertigo is only for the US side. The other side is approaching the match very calmly and collectively and waiting for the US to make its first move!

  2. USA does not attack a country unless it is weak. US weakened Iraq with 13 years of sanctions and then destroyed it. I hope the Iranian leadership realizes that the best defense is offense. USA can wait. Iran may hunker down for a while but can’t wait too long. There is no reason a democrat president will go back to JCPOA either. As I have said before Iran should had become a threshold nuclear state back in 80’s. (Iran does not only faces existential threats from Israel and US but also Sunni powers.) Iran’s leadership did not have the foresight; it was long on rhetoric, short on strategy.

  3. Ali Mostofi, Israel is both a nuclear weapons rogue state and a militarist theocracy.

    Didn’t they teach you that in hasbara camp?

  4. A sane voice in the wilderness of American foreign policy.

  5. RIGHTOFRETURN

    I agree, certainly after 1998 nuclear tests of India and Pakistan Iran ought to have exited NPT.

All comments are moderated. Comments with links will not be published. Read our Comment Policy page for further information.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.