To fix Iran crisis, Trump must change course

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian*

US President Donald Trump has put the West on a collision course with Iran.

Since he was elected to the White House in 2016, Trump has consistently pursued an ill-advised policy of "maximum pressure" against Tehran, on the assumption the high levels of economic and political pressure will bring Iran back to the negotiating tables on its knees.

It has been unsuccessful, to say the least.

Not only has Trump's approach increased hostility between the two countries, it has also provoked both sides into pursuing unprecedented belligerent policies and actions. It's no wonder the international community is seriously concerned about the possibility of military confrontation.

If Trump continues to pursue his current course of action, he is doomed to failure. There will be no room for diplomatic negotiations between the two countries — even if he is reelected in next year's presidential election. And the implications for the region could be disastrous.

If there's any hope of a constructive resolution, the US president must abandon his bullying tactics and his sanctions policy.

Only a fundamental change of approach can yield a resolution to the escalating tensions. And yet there are a number of key obstacles to a positive diplomatic solution.

The first, and perhaps the greatest, challenge to any real dialogue between the two countries is that the US does not appear to have a coherent position. The views of several key US policymakers directly contradict the president's own views and course of action. National security adviser John Bolton, for example, has advocated over the past 40 years for a military confrontation and regime change in Iran. In Tehran, a majority of state officials believe that Trump, by contrast, simply wanted to destroy the legacy of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and create his own.

The second challenge to an agreement is the unprecedented influence that Israel and Saudi Arabia, both US allies, have in shaping the Trump administration's foreign policy. Iranian officials blame both for intensifying hostilities between Tehran and Washington.

Thirdly, no one believes the Trump administration can come up with a "better deal" in the next year and a half of its term, given the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action brokered in 2015 was the product of 12 years of intensive negotiations. After all, the deal is an international agreement whose inspection system the late director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, branded the world's most robust nuclear inspection effort.

And then, even if Iran and the United States were indeed to sit down at the negotiating table in the next year and half, there are no guarantees the Trump administration, or its successor, would end up holding up its part of the bargain.

The fourth obstacle to a successful negotiation is Trump's insistence on following self-defeating strategies and going against the diplomatic grain. His decision to sanction Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif essentially sank any chances of constructive diplomacy with Iran.

And finally, perhaps the most obvious impediment is that the Trump administration is deeply unfamiliar with the dynamics of Iran's politics, culture and society. Iran is a proud country that cherishes its history as a civilization stretching back millennia. It is allergic to any policy it perceives as undermining its achievements and will refuse to succumb to bullying or attempts to bring its administration to its knees.

Instead, in the face of Trump's hostility, Iran has adopted a policy of "resistance" and "reciprocation of hostilities" toward the United States. It is becoming increasingly convinced that a policy of "constructive engagement" with the West — which was President Hassan Rouhani's platform when he campaigned for the election in 2013 — does not yield positive outcomes for the country. Tensions with Washington have also become an incentive to boost its alliance with its Eastern allies, namely China and Russia, whose governments appear committed to combating US dominance in the global order.

If there's any hope of a constructive resolution, the US president must abandon his bullying tactics and his sanctions policy in order to provide space for diplomacy. The most urgent task for the US administration is now to establish credible communication channels and to appoint a new team that has a better understanding of the political realities in Iran and across the region.

* Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University. The above article was first published on politico.eu on August 12, 2019.

UAE’s ambitions backfire as it finds itself on front line of US-Iran tensions

The skyline of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates (Christopher Pike/Bloomberg News)

By Liz Sly

One of America’s staunchest allies in the Middle East and a driving force behind President Trump’s hardline approach to Iran is breaking ranks with Washington, calling into question how reliable an ally it would be in the event of a war between the United States and Iran.

In the weeks since the United States dispatched naval reinforcements to the Persian Gulf, the government of the United Arab Emirates has sent a coast guard delegation to Tehran to discuss maritime security, putting it at odds with Washington’s goal of isolating Iran. After limpet mines exploded on tankers off the UAE’s coast in June, the UAE stood apart from the United States and Saudi Arabia and declined to blame Iran.

It also announced a drawdown of troops from Yemen, where, alongside Saudi Arabia, it has been battling Iranian-backed Houthis for control of the country. That opened the door this past weekend to a takeover by UAE-backed separatist militias of the US-supported government in the city of Aden, a further divergence from US policy.

Former US defense secretary Jim Mattis once nicknamed the UAE “Little Sparta” because of its stalwart support for US military ventures around the world, including in Somalia and Afghanistan. Much of the recent war against the ISIS was launched from the US airbase located at Al-Dhafra in the UAE, an integral part of America’s security footprint in the Middle East.

But as its relationship with Washington puts the UAE on the front line of a potential war, the Emiratis are shifting gears, calling for de-escalation with Iran and distancing themselves from the Trump administration’s bellicose rhetoric.

“The UAE does not want war. The most important thing is security and stability and bringing peace to this part of the world,” said an Emirati official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive foreign policy issues.

Whether the United States could count on Emirati support should the current tensions lead to war with Iran may now be in doubt, diplomats and analysts say.

“The UAE is increasingly tilting away from US objectives,” said Theodore Karasik, a Washington-based analyst. “Is it the weak link in the Trump policy of maximum pressure? It may be.”

This is not the first time UAE policies have diverged from those of Washington. The small but fabulously wealthy country has over the past decade steadily expanded its reach across the Middle East in pursuit of an agenda driven largely by the staunch opposition of its powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed, to all forms of political Islam.  

The UAE sponsored the 2013 coup in Egypt that overthrew country’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood government was supported by the United States. It has backed the renegade warlord Khalifa Haftar against the US – and UN-backed government in Libya, which is aligned with Islamist militias. It spearheaded a blockade alongside Saudi Arabia against Qatar, an ally of the United States that has promoted Islamist movements in the region.

Abu Dhabi has also embarked on an influence campaign in Washington that has given the UAE a potent voice in the White House, helping shape Middle East policy at the highest levels. The UAE was a vocal critic of the 2015 nuclear pact signed by the United States and other world powers with Iran, and it supported Trump’s decision to walk away from the deal last year.

The UAE never intended the US withdrawal from the deal to lead to confrontations such as those that have taken place in the Persian Gulf, Emirati officials say. Rather, they say, the UAE continues to hope, in line with Washington’s declared policy, that the tough sanctions imposed on Iran by the Trump administration will bring Iran back to the negotiating table. [Iran never left the negotiation table; it was Trump who unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal].

Instead, Iran has pushed back….and appears to have caught the UAE off guard.

The UAE’s location, economy and reputation as a safe haven for foreigners make it uniquely susceptible to the fallout from even a low-level confrontation, perhaps more than any other country in the region, analysts say. The Strait of Hormuz, where war is most likely to break out, envelops the Emirati coastline and the UAE depends on the waterway for the trade on which its economy has soared.

To build the skyscrapers and service the hotels that have attracted tourists and business executives less welcome in many other parts of the Middle East, the country has recruited foreigners from around the world. Expatriates account for about 90 percent of the UAE’s population, and they sustain almost all of its vital infrastructure, including hospitals, the police and the armed forces.

The entire country could be brought to a halt if foreigners were to become frightened and leave, said Elizabeth Dickinson of the International Crisis Group.

“The stakes for the UAE are stupendously high. An attack that hit Emirati soil or damaged their critical infrastructure would be devastating,” she said. “It would symbolically compromise the reputation of one of the region’s most economically dynamic countries.”

That the UAE would be considered a target should war break out was underscored by Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shia Hezbollah and Iran’s closest regional ally, in an interview in July. “What will be left of the UAE’s glass towers if a war breaks out?” he asked, in a barely veiled threat. “If the UAE was destroyed . . . would that be in the interests of the Emirati rulers and people?”

Emirati officials dispute that they are switching course and say they intend to remain engaged in the wider region.

The troop drawdown in Yemen had been signaled by senior officials for months, they say, and came about because peace talks sponsored by the United Nations are underway, a goal of the military intervention.

The UAE delegation’s visit to Tehran came in the context of negotiations over fishing rights in the Strait of Hormuz and was not linked to the current crisis, they add. The appeals for de-escalation don’t change the Emiratis’ position on Iran: that its regional expansionism is dangerous and its program to develop an advanced ballistic-missile capability must be curtailed, according to the officials.

But there have been whispered recriminations among Emiratis that the UAE has overreached, that the regional ambitions of Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto leader, have strayed too far from the country’s vision of itself as a beacon of prosperity and stability, according to residents and diplomats.

“It looks like it was overreach, and they didn’t calculate the consequences,” said a Dubai businessman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the UAE’s authoritarian system of government prescribes harsh punishments for those who criticize the leadership.

“Their military expansion destroyed the idea of the UAE being a safe haven, and now they’re feeling the danger of going along with the Americans.”

The UAE’s support for Trump’s retreat from the Iran deal is only the latest in a string of ventures that haven’t worked out quite as the Emiratis intended.

The Yemen war bogged down, dragged on and drew international criticism for the high civilian death toll, even though it was Saudi Arabia that carried out most of the airstrikes that caused the casualties. The two-year-old blockade of Qatar has failed to isolate Qatar from the international community but helped drag down the UAE’s economy. The UAE’s military support for the Libyan warlord Haftar contributed to his stalled offensive on the capital, Tripoli, that has caused bloodshed but no shift in the balance of power in Libya.

In Washington, an apparent attempt by the crown prince to forge ties between Russia and the Trump administration backfired, drawing the UAE into Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 US election. Mohammed is the only foreign leader aside from Russian President Vladi­mir Putin to feature in the report, mostly in connection with a 2017 meeting he arranged at his Four Seasons hotel in the Seychelles between Trump associate Eric Prince and Russian financier Kirill Dmitriev.

Investigations into the actions of some of the crown prince’s associates are continuing, including those of Republican fundraiser Thomas J. Barrack Jr., who last week was accused by congressional Democrats of seeking to influence a Trump campaign speech by running parts of it by Emirati officials.

If the UAE made any mistake, it was to align itself too closely with Trump, who has proved highly unpredictable, said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an Emirati political scientist who is based in Dubai. The Emirates welcomed Trump as an alternative to President Barack Obama, whose pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran ignored the concerns of the UAE. Trump has proved an equally unreliable ally, he said.

“Do you really want to have all your eggs in Trump’s basket?” he said. When Trump threatened in June to retaliate against Iran for shooting down an American drone and then changed his mind, “it was a big moment for the UAE and for the region, too. Everyone assumed Trump is someone who carries through with his word, and when the moment came, he just pulled back.”

UAE officials appeared, however, to have been more dismayed by the fact that Trump claimed he was 10 minutes away from striking Iran but did not inform his Emirati allies, diplomats say.

Emirati officials won’t comment on whether they will allow the United States to launch attacks on Iran in the event of a war. They have not yet committed to support a quest by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to form a global maritime security force under US command to secure the safety of shipping.

That has fed speculation about where the UAE stands in the dispute, said Karasik, the analyst. “It’s the big question. Is the UAE breaking away from the US?” he said. “There are domestic economic problems and divisions over what do about Iran.”

* Liz Sly is The Washington Post’s Beirut bureau chief. The above article was published on washingtonpost.com on August 11, 2019.

Iranian oil tanker row has left everyone with a win – except bungling Bolton and US hawks

The Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 at anchor after it was seized by
British Royal Marines in the strait of Gibraltar in July.
Photograph: Jon Nazca/Reuters

By Ahmed Aboudouh*

When Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was wagging his finger at the UK earlier this month shouting “peace for peace, war for war and oil for oil”, he clearly knew very well the vulnerabilities of his British counterparts. He was talking to a rusty political class wearied by Brexit, and decided to play them like a fiddle.

The Gibraltar high court decided on Thursday to release the supertanker Grace 1 [carrying Iranian oil] after a fierce legal battle, in which President Trump’s administration wanted to nudge the UK further into its pocket, but came out with a bruising humiliation.

Theresa May’s government helped seize the tanker at the beginning of July at the apparent behest of the US. It looked amateurish at first glance, and there is little surprise that it backfired. The claim was that the ship was taken to prevent a breach of EU sanctions on selling oil into Syria, but there was much speculation that the UK wanted to block Iran’s right to sell its oil to other nations simply to appease Trump.

It appears this week that Iran has ended up in a better position. Now it can sell oil with the legal power of a court ruling in an EU member state.

Meanwhile in London, Boris Johnson has focused his so-called “war cabinet” on one single target: Getting the UK out of the EU by October 31. Brexit sweeps everything else from its path. There seems to be little thought given to foreign policy: Over Iran, Hong Kong, Russia or Kashmir.

The tanker squabble must seem like a needless distraction in this context: A can ripe for kicking down the road. And so by distancing itself from this protracted standoff, and throwing the ball in the hands of the Gibraltar court, the government in London has sought to avoid a diplomatic backlash from Washington.

In the background, the UK is under tremendous pressure from the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. During his visit to London this week, Trump’s arch-hawk national security adviser John Bolton encouraged the government to harden its position on Iran and the Chinese communications giant Huawei.

The UK can perhaps use its relationship with Huawei as leverage in future trade deal negotiations with the US, but the release of the Grace 1 will be a painful blow to Bolton.

And more might follow. Iran is incrementally scaling back its compliance with the nuclear deal, but Britain and other European signatories want to step in. There has been a smaller row over European plans to pursue a solution with Iran during the forthcoming G7 summit in Biarritz, which would represent a second major blow to the United States’ Iran policy in one month.

The release of the Grace 1 is expected to set the course for the release of the Stena Empero, the British-flagged tanker which was impounded by Iran’s [Islamic] Revolution Guards [Corps] in the Strait of Hormuz as a retaliatory measure. Its release now would give weight to Rouhani’s new “oil-for-oil” doctrine.

At the same time a message has been sent that Europe will not tolerate the harassment of ships in its waters. The new rules play in Iran’s hands, reflecting a desire in Europe to dent the Trump administration’s credibility in this area. From here, after all, who will take Trump’s policy on Iran with any degree of seriousness? 

The UK was cannier. By stepping aside in the legal dispute, it convinced the Iranians that, unlike the US, it seized their tanker on concerns about the destination (Syria) not the oil source (Iran).

This offers a perfect exit for Iran, which might have worried it was trapped in a vicious cycle. The Europeans too have some leverage to push Iran to restore security norms in Persian Gulf waters.

And slap bang in the middle of the tug-of-war between the US and Iran, the UK will remain. For now, it will grant marginal advantage to whichever side it appears to favor, but in the long run, the UK might be doomed to slip into the US orbit.

In the midst of national desperation around Brexit, it is hard to see the UK wrestling giants. The need for a trade deal with the US may send the country scurrying into Trump’s embrace, and maybe forced to take on his values too.

The tanker row showed that the UK still has some cards to play. By ignoring John Bolton, London proved to be central to maintaining peace in the Persian Gulf.

Now, the UK needs to stop being the fiddle others play.

* Ahmed Aboudouh is a consultant editor and columnist on Middle East affairs at The Independent.

Iran’s English dailies on British tanker’s legitimate detention

The prudent step taken by Iran’s coastal guard in the Strait of Hormuz in detaining a British-flagged tanker that was violating international navigational rules has been hailed by the nation, including the three leading English language dailies published from Tehran – Kayhan International, Tehran Times, and Iran Daily.

We present you excerpts of the editorials of the said three newspapers.

Kayhan International in its Viewpoint Column, titled “Detention of ‘Steno Impero’ Unconnected to British Buccaneering”, wrote: “Piracy never goes unpunished, even if the British buccaneers or corsairs or whatever you call those who continue to hide in the occupied Spanish territory of Gibraltar with the stolen super tanker “Grace I” and its cargo of two million-plus barrels of Iranian crude oil, think they are safe from justice.

“No, Friday’s detention of the British tanker ‘Stena Impero’ in the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian coastal guards was not a form of punishment for the regime in London or a reprisal for its act of maritime terrorism on the high seas in the hijacking of ‘Grace I’.

“It is merely the case of a vessel violating international navigation rules and causing insecurity in the vital waterway through which a third of the world’s oil supplies flow, after it rammed into a fishing trawler and tried to flee by ignoring warnings from the Iranian navy which is responsible for ensuring the safety of sea traffic in this part of the Persian Gulf.

“‘Steno Impero’, however, couldn’t escape the ever-alert law-enforcement authorities of the area, and when it tried to call the British frigate ‘Montrose’ for help, the Iranian coastal guards warned the intruding warship of the dire consequences of meddling, and after boarding the lawless tanker (as confirmed by the footage released) steered it to the port of Bandar Abbas, where the judicial officials are investigating the case.”

As pointed out by Kayhan International: “Iran’s judiciary is known for its fairness, as was evident by its prompt release of another British tanker ‘Mesdar’ that had been guided to Bandar Abbas for due inspection, which means whatever verdict it will announce in the case of ‘Steno Impero’ after thorough investigation, will be just and deserving.

“It is unlike the kangaroo court of the British occupiers of Gibraltar which extended the illegal detention of ‘Grace I’ by a month after expiry of the initial fortnight forcible berthing order on the absurd charge that the Iranian crude was destined for Syria – a country under European Union sanctions for thwarting the terrorist bid to overthrow the legal government of President Bashar al-Assad.

“As Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, has said by pinpointing the ambiguities of the British action in Gibraltar: “The legality of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”

“In view of these facts, the British regime, whose days of colonial terrorism are long past, is advised to stop its squealing and the rubbish talk of retaliation against the Islamic Republic of Iran, when the whole world knows that London cannot do anything except to drop its lip service of support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and overtly side with the thuggish US administration of Donald Trump in its vain bid to browbeat Iran into submission.

“Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has correctly summed up the situation in his Saturday’s tweet from Caracas, Venezuela, where he is attending a meeting of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM):

“Unlike the piracy in the Strait of Gibraltar, our action in the Persian Gulf is to uphold international maritime rules. As I said in New York (at the UN HQ), it is IRAN that guarantees the security of the Persian Gulf & the Strait of Hormuz. The UK must cease being an accessory to the Economic Terrorism of the US.”

Kayhan International concluded: “As for the case of ‘Grace I’ and the punishment for the British terrorists who hijacked it and continue to illegally hold it, justice will reach them sooner or later, irrespective of the ruling of the Iranian judiciary for the law-breaking British tanker ‘Steno Impero’”.

Tehran Times in its Op-Ed column by Hamid Bayati, titled “Britain confused on policies toward Tehran: easing the tension or increasing them”, said: “Britain has had a rough week after Iran detained a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. It seems that the British are confused what policy to adopt; first, British Secretary of State for Defense described the capture “hostile” and then, the British Foreign Secretary announced that they want to ease the tensions with Iran. 

“The British officials made the remarks after their second emergency meeting on Saturday. After the meeting, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt tweeted that they want to reduce the tensions. According to Hunt, the British government emergency meeting has discussed the safety of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz – but he didn’t say anything of the violation of international maritime rules by the British tanker.

“Tension between Iran and Britain escalated after Britain illegally seized a Panama-flagged super tanker ‘Grace I’ in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4th, carrying 2-million-plus barrels of Iranian oil to customers in the Mediterranean Sea.

“Britain claimed that the supertanker was carrying oil to Syria, but the Iranian government announced that the tanker was heading another destination.

“After the illegal seizure of Grace 1 oil tanker, Iranian officials decided to resolve the issue through diplomacy and they had a meeting with Gibraltar officials but some other entities interfered in the matter and Gibraltar announced that the oil tanker will not be released.”

Tehran Times further said: “Hardliners in Britain are now saying that more pressure must be placed on Iran and some are even proposing the renewal of sanctions; however, this is a poor strategy that has been already tested by their closest ally, the United States, and has never come to any success.

“Britain is proposing that the European Union puts more pressure on Iran; however, London and Brussels are not at their best relationship right now as they have disagreements over a variety of subjects including Brexit.

Britain which seized ‘Grace I’ for satisfying the US, is now in a conundrum. Washington, who first encouraged Britain to seize the oil tanker. 

“Now, London has resorted to the United Nations Security Council to release its ship. Obviously, if the western countries take on a hostile stand toward Iran in this situation, it will only exacerbate the security of the Persian Gulf region and will be to the benefit of no one.

“The only strategy that can take Britain out of this crisis is to stay away from US and try to resolve the issues with Iran directly.
“Anyway, right now, Britain’s internal situation is also unsteady as the country will have a new Prime Minister in few days, so whatever the British officials say now cannot be trusted, because the country’s cabinet is changing and the new cabinet may have new members who have other opinions. 

What is, however, interesting now is that some countries like Bahrain are now acting like the seized ship belonged to them! Taking such an aggressive stance is very strange because the Arab countries around the Persian Gulf don’t have a steady situation themselves and are in constant conflict with one another, each trying to topple the others.”

Another Iranian English language newspaper ‘Iran Daily’, in its perspective column titled: “Britain should not become Trump’s ‘messengers’ over Iran” wrote: “Iran’s envoy to Britain warned against escalating tensions on Sunday as a UK official declined to rule out sanctions in response to Tehran’s detention of a British-flagged oil tanker.

“Britain needs to contain “those domestic political forces who want to escalate existing tension between Iran and the UK well beyond the issue of ships,” Iran’s Ambassador to Britain Hamid Baeidinejad said on Twitter.

“This is quite dangerous and unwise at a sensitive time in the region,” he said, adding that Iran “is firm and ready for different scenarios.”

“Britain’s Defence Secretary Tobias Ellwood reiterated calls for de-escalation on Sunday in an interview with Sky News. He said: “Well, firstly we need to try and de-escalate this. There has been a ratcheting-up of tensions in West Asia.”

“Ellwood also noted that the British Navy “is too small to manage our interests across the globe.”
“London has warned its ships to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for about a third of the world’s seaborne oil.

“Iran said the detained tanker “risked maritime safety.”

“Allahmorad Afifipour, head of Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization in Hormuzgan Province, said: “We are required by regulations to investigate the issue ... the duration of the investigation depends on the level of cooperation by the involved parties.”

“He added: All 23 crew members aboard the ship are “safe and in good health in Bandar Abbas port.

“The vessel’s Sweden-based owner, Stena Bulk, said it hoped to visit the crew, who are from India, Latvia, the Philippines and Russia. India has called on Iran to release the ship’s 18 Indian crew members.”

Bad time to nuclearize Saudis: US Senators warn Trump

US President Donald Trump (R), Brazil's President Michel Temer (L) and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman take their places for a family photo, during the G20 Leaders' Summit in Buenos Aires, on November 30, 2018. AFP

A bipartisan group of American lawmakers have raised concerns about Washington’s nuclear dealings with Saudi Arabia despite Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s “deeply troubling actions” and his not-so-secret penchant for acquiring nuclear weapons.

In a letter drafted to US Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Tuesday, Senators Robert Menendez, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Republican committee member Marco Rubio questioned the recent approvals for American companies to share nuclear energy information with Saudi Arabia, Press TV reported.

The senators specifically pointed to Riyadh’s insistence on forgoing Washington’s so-called 123 agreement, a set of nonproliferation standards required by Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

The 123 agreement, often referred to as Washington’s “gold standard” for foreign civil nuclear cooperation, prevents the foreign entity from enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium made in reactors - two routes to making nuclear weapons.

“As has been reported, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly asked during nuclear cooperation negotiations that no limitations in a 123 agreement be placed on its ability to enrich uranium and reprocess its spent nuclear fuel,” the senators write.

“Many in Congress therefore worry that Saudi Arabia’s interest in someday producing its own stocks of nuclear fuel—despite the fact the Kingdom could purchase fuel on the international market more cheaply—could lead to it to divert fuel to a covert nuclear weapons program.”

Negotiations between the US and Saudi Arabia for nuclear cooperation came to a halt under the administration of former President Barack Obama, after Riyadh refused to accept Washington’s proposed standards.

In its never ending quest for more money, the Trump administration resumed the talks and is reportedly considering a deal that would allow Riyadh to enrich and reprocess uranium and pave the way for American companies to build nuclear reactors in the kingdom.

Financially, the deal is assumed to be lucrative enough to match the money-driven politics of Trump, a businessman-turned-politician who is not afraid of overstepping boundaries for more dollars.

In 2017, Trump flew to Saudi Arabia and secured a $110 billion deal to provide the kingdom with advanced weapons. Last year, he famously said that the deal would help America keep “a million jobs.”

Rubio and Menendez warned in their letter that it was not a good idea to provide Saudis with nuclear technology or know-how amid Congress’ attempts to reevaluate ties with the kingdom in the wake of its “many deeply troubling actions.”

“The Kingdom has engaged in many deeply troubling actions and statements that have provoked alarm in Congress and led lawmakers to begin the process of reevaluating the US-Saudi relationship and our long-term stability and interests in the region,” read the letter.

“We therefore believe the United States should not be providing nuclear technology or information to them at this time,” it added.

The senators also raised questions about the process that led to Washington’s decision to push ahead with nuclear talks despite many tell-tale signs that provided a glimpse into Riyadh’s real intentions.

“What are the nonproliferation risks associated with these authorizations? What negotiations has the department engaged in with Saudi Arabia? How did these negotiations lead to the development of the authorizations? What was the interagency process behind the authorizations? How were the approvals coordinated?” Rubio and Menendez asked Perry.

Trump, Kushner’s possible gains from Saudi dealings

The Trump administration has so far ignored calls at home and abroad for it to confront bin Salman over the kingdom’s murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October, which experts and members of both parties believe bin Salman had a hand in.

In fact, Trump has gone as far as suggesting that punishing Riyadh for a crime that it has openly admitted to would endanger Israel and hurt Washington’s own interests.

"I don't want to lose all of that investment being made into our country. I don't want to lose a million jobs, I don't want to lose $110 billion dollars in terms of investment," Trump told reporters in late October. "But it's really $450 billion if you include other than military. So that's very important."

Trump’s critics associate his reluctance to come face to face with Riyadh to his possible financial interests in the kingdom, a hot topic that is set to undergo an investigation by the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives later this year.

“There are a whole set of potential financial conflicts of interest and emoluments problems that Congress will need to get to the bottom of,” Democratic California Representative Adam Schiff said in late November, before being elected as the head of the House intelligence committee. “If foreign investment in the Trump businesses is guiding US policy in a way that’s antithetical to the country’s interests, we need to find out.”

There are also questions about the possible interests of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is believed to be the driving force behind many financial deals between the US administration and the Riyadh regime, including the $110 billion arms deal.

The Washington Post reported February last year that officials from at least three countries -- Mexico, China and the United Arab Emirates – and Israel had discussed ways they could use Kushner's complicated business arrangements, lack of experience and financial woes to manipulate him and affect US policies.

US concerned about Iran, Venezuela’s independence: Analyst

An analyst says the US is concerned about Iran and Venezuela’s independence because of the fact that they pursue an independent policy that "sets a bad example" for other nations.

“Well both countries pursue an independent policy, foreign policy. They look after the interest of their own people as opposed to the United States, as to find by American multi-national corporations and other special interest groups there. So it is really their independence that the United States is concerned about,” Edward Corrigan, international lawyer told Press TV in an interview on Friday, Press TV reported.

“Iran is not a threat to the United States, Venezuela is not a threat to the United States but they are example of them pursuing an independent policy in terms of using their resources to help the people as opposed to a narrow economic elite in Europe and the United States… It sets a bad example,” he added.   

The comments came after a top US official said Washington is waging a maximum and intense pressure campaign on Iran and Venezuela.

Under the administration of President Donald Trump, the US has taken an increasingly hawkish posture toward Iran. That hostile approach intensified last year, when Trump unilaterally withdrew America from a 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Iran. He also re-imposed nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. More sanctions have since been introduced.

The United States has also imposed a series of sanctions against the Venezuelan government. Caracas has slammed the sanctions as “illegal,” and an attempt to interfere in country’s internal affairs.

US assesses its Iran policy not working

By Laura Rozen*

The Donald Trump administration conducted a preliminary internal assessment of its Iran “maximum pressure” policy this month and determined that it is not working, according to a new report. Such an assessment could drive administration efforts to try to provoke Iran to leave the nuclear deal, possibly by urging a potential inspections crisis at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by politicizing the international body, some experts said.

“So far, there is little evidence that the administration is meeting any of its possible goals,” the International Crisis Group writes in the new report, “On Thin Ice,” on the third anniversary of the Iran nuclear deal.

“A preliminary internal assessment by the administration described to Crisis Group purportedly concludes that the US approach has yet to curb Iran’s behavior or entice Tehran back to the negotiating table,” the ICG report says, citing in a footnote an interview conducted by the group with a senior US administration official this month.

A National Security Council spokesman, asked about the reported US assessment, declined to comment on internal deliberations. The State Department neither confirmed nor denied the purported assessment.

The reported Trump administration assessment that Iran may be able to wait out its maximum pressure campaign may convince administration officials that they need more European buy-in to the policy to succeed, said Ali Vaez, director of the ICG Iran Project and co-author of the report. But Europe is currently trying to entice Iran to stick with the nuclear deal after the US exit last year and reimposition of harsh sanctions on Iran's oil and banking sectors.

“If you look at the range of ultimate objectives different people [in the administration] have in mind, from protests that pose an existential threat to the system, to change of behavior, to the Iranians coming back to the negotiating table, none of that is happening,” Vaez told Al-Monitor in an interview.

“The Iranian economy is in dire straits but not a downward spiral,” Vaez said. “While the number of protests was higher in 2018 compared to previous years, their scale and scope remain limited.”

With Trump announcing the withdrawal of US forces from Syria, the Trump administration may seek to try to placate regional allies such as Israel by ramping up pressure on Iran at the IAEA, which has consistently reported Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal in 13 reports since implementation day three years ago.

One sign the administration may try to pursue that track was a tweet this week by hawkish national security adviser John Bolton, and comments he made in Israel last week.

“Report: Iran's secret nuclear archive ‘provides substantial evidence that Iran's declarations to IAEA are incomplete & deliberately false,’” Bolton tweeted Jan. 14. “The President was right to end horrible Iran deal. Pressure on Iran to abandon nuclear ambitions will increase.”

During a visit to Israel on Jan. 6 to discuss the US withdrawal from Syria, Bolton said, “We have little doubt that Iran’s leadership is still strategically committed to achieving deliverable nuclear weapons.” 

“I have no idea where Bolton is getting the intelligence to support this claim,” Joe Circincione, head of the Ploughshares Fund, which supported the Iran nuclear deal, wrote at Defense One. “Even the much-ballyhooed documents stolen from the so-called Atomic Warehouse by Israeli agents only show that Iran had the framework for a nuclear weapons program in place by 2003, but not that they ever did much beyond vague plans. The [US] intelligence community stands by its assessment that Iran abandoned the program in 2003.”

Some members of the Trump administration may be trying to provoke some kind of crisis between the IAEA and Iran in order to get Iran to leave the deal, said former US Iran nuclear negotiator Richard Nephew.

“Everyone [in the Trump administration] is upset that the Iranians keep being able to cite that the IAEA has said once again they are in full compliance,” Nephew, now with Columbia University, told Al-Monitor.

“The worst case scenario for them, honestly, is if the pressure campaign … does some damage but doesn’t overthrow the regime, and the Iranians don’t withdraw from the JCPOA, and so they are then left with Iranian compliance, insubstantial sanctions pressure, and then they have got to answer the question: Now what?”

Some members of the Trump administration such as Bolton very much want the Iranians to withdraw, Nephew added. “Part of this crew truly wants the crisis.”

“So probably the objective here, … especially with what Bolton is allegedly doing to prompt an inspection crisis, is to try to put the burden of blame around Iran’s neck,” Vaez said. “Basically, if you can't convince others that the JCPOA is dead, try to persuade them that the deal is already defunct as Iran is violating it by denying access to ‘suspect’ sites.”

Any effort by the Trump administration to try to politicize the IAEA inspections process would be deeply troubling, said Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association.

“The IAEA clearly states that inspectors have had access to all the sites in Iran they have requested to visit,” Davenport told Al-Monitor. “The IAEA has a process for evaluating information from member states and the agency should examine information provided by Israel, and if it wants inspectors visiting a site, it is important the IAEA take that step.”

“Maintaining the IAEA’s independence is critical for the integrity of the agency,” she said. “The US and Israel must respect the IAEA’s processes for evaluating information and deciding whether or not to act on it. Politicizing the inspections process only damages the IAEA’s credibility.”

* Excerpts from an article written by Laura Rozen and published by Al-Monitor.

Trump seeks to split EU as fight intensifies over Iran nuclear deal

By David M. Herszenhorn

It's Warsaw and Washington against the big EU powers, as US President Donald Trump's administration pushes to kill the Iran nuclear deal — and to exploit European divisions on foreign policy in the process.

Of all the damage Trump has done to transatlantic relations, no issue has divided the US from its European allies as starkly as the dispute over the Iran accord, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The fight is about to heat up.

EU officials this month plan to approve and register in France a "special purpose vehicle" aimed at helping European companies to continue doing business with Iran and circumvent the sanctions Trump unilaterally reimposed on Tehran last year.

Final preparations for the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) will be discussed by EU foreign affairs ministers in Brussels on Monday, where they are also working to develop broader conclusions on Iran to be adopted at an EU leaders' summit in March.

The refusal of the EU, and the three European guarantors of the JCPOA — France, Germany and the UK — to fall in line behind Trump's pullout from the deal has enraged the president and his administration.

Escalating the dispute, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has railed recently against the EU and other multilateral organizations, will hold a conference in Poland next month on Middle East peace that will put a spotlight on tensions between Warsaw and Brussels, including on foreign policy.

The European Commission has initiated so-called Article 7 disciplinary proceedings against Poland over alleged rule-of-law violations.

The EU's high representative for foreign affairs, Federica Mogherini, has already said that she will not attend the conference in Warsaw, citing a scheduling conflict. And EU officials said they have not yet decided if lower-level officials would be sent in her place.

Asked about the conference, a spokeswoman for the European External Action Service, the bloc's foreign policy arm, was noticeably unenthused. "As far as we understand this is a conference on the Middle East, the exact title says it's the ministerial to promote a future of peace and security in the Middle East," said the spokeswoman. "So I don't have a particular further comment on it."

While Warsaw seems an unlikely location for such a gathering, the conference scheduled for February 13-14 will give Pompeo a platform to press the Trump administration's Middle East policies ahead of the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany. Pompeo toured the Middle East in recent days, including a stop in Cairo, where he gave a speech bashing Iran and former US President Barack Obama as two of the main causes of instability in the region.

Poland is expected to describe plans for the conference during Monday's meeting of foreign affairs ministers. EU diplomats declined to comment publicly on the event, referring questions instead to their Polish counterparts. But privately diplomats and officials expressed annoyance at what they described as a transparent effort by Warsaw to cozy up to Trump — at the evident expense of EU unity.

Iran has also reacted furiously to the conference, with its foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, deriding the event as a "desperate anti-Iran circus."

In Poland, some analysts said the government was largely caught off-guard by the Trump administration's plans and is unwisely being drawn into a feud with little upside for Warsaw.

“We are in the position of being America’s foreign policy subcontractor,” said Marcin Zaborowski, of the Warsaw-based Visegrad Insight foreign policy think tank. He said that Pompeo’s announcement, which was first made during a Fox News television interview, had prompted a scramble by Polish officials to catch up with the American initiative.

“It was done and communicated in a terrible fashion," Zaborowski said.

Polish diplomats were also called to account in Tehran, endangering ties that have warmed in recent years.

“Iran is a potential source of diversifying our energy away from Russia,” Zaborowski said. “That’s all been damaged now.”

After its top diplomat in Tehran was summoned to a meeting at the foreign ministry, the Polish government issued a statement defending its decision to host the conference. "In our view, the international community has the right to discuss various regional and global issues, and Poland [has the right] to co-organize a conference, whose goal is to develop a platform for actions promoting stability and prosperity in the Middle East region."

The Polish government has offered Trump perhaps the most support of any EU country. And Polish officials have even pitched to Trump the idea of establishing a permanent US military base in the country that they said might be named Fort Trump.

Trump has said he is "strongly considering" the idea.

The EU's ability to push back on the US sanctions is limited given that many companies are already complying for fear of losing access to the bigger and more lucrative US market.

But the special purpose vehicle will preserve at least some economic activity, officials said, and it is viewed as an extremely important symbolic step for the Iranian government — allowing it to answer domestic critics who say that Iran should retaliate by abandoning the deal.

Some US diplomats have mocked the EU's efforts to preserve the Iran deal, saying it is only a matter of time before the agreement collapses. But European officials insist that the deal is serving its intended purpose and cite more than a dozen inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency that have found Iran in compliance.

Chinese researcher terms Persian music as fascinating, creative

A Chinese musician and researcher believes that Iranian music has many elements of grandeur from charm to creativity, tolerance and popularity.

Speaking to IRNA on Saturday, Zhao Zhuoqun, who is considered the first Chinese female scholar to study Iranian music, said that due to the poor knowledge of Chinese musicians about the Iranian music, she has tried to conduct profound studies about Iranian music in principle by not confining herself to just European and American writings.

Referring to the fact that most of the writings on Iranian music are related to other countries, she underlined, "By traveling to Iran, I realized that Persian music, like the land itself, has many secrets."

She said it was very interesting for her to enter this fascinating world.

She further pointed to her extensive work on Iranian music where she found that Iranian scholars have great skill and mastery over their work.

Zhao stressed that she has done an analytical 20,000-word research work in both audiovisual and Iranian music, adding that the results of this research on music, as well as other fields of Iranian culture, were published in Nan Jing University's journal as the first research on Iranian music published in a prestigious academic journal of China.

Persian carpets captivate collectors worldwide

By Elizabeth Birdthistle

In 2013, a collective sigh from the attendees of a Sotheby's auction in New York echoed throughout the room. A 17th-century Kerman carpet achieved $33.8 million — more than double its pre-sale estimate.

Persian rugs, handwoven from silks, cotton and wool for centuries have captivated collectors due to their antiquity and exoticism. These unique works of art were the preserve of kings, religious orders and rulers throughout history.

The most famous is the Ardabil carpet — on display London's Victoria and Albert Museum. Endless replicas of this rug dating from 1539 exist, most notably at 10 Downing Street, and even Adolf Hitler had a copy at his Berlin office, irishtimes.com reported.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, had a Persian rug covering his famous couch, which is on display at the Freud Museum in London, as he believed that these treasures held the secrets to mysteries and hidden thoughts.

Created with natural dyes from berries, insects, minerals and seeds, the weaving techniques and dye recipes were guarded as precious secrets by tribal weavers. The word 'heirloom' is said to have evolved from the looms left to family members, and historically the carpet was the most valuable dowry currency in the East.

Every Persian carpet tells a story, unique to the weaver who created it, and the symbolism associated with the colors and motifs is a subject of anthropology in itself. For centuries painters have featured these items in their works, and indeed many musicians — including Leonard Cohen — crooned away on stage standing on these antiquities.

Edgar Allen Poe, writer of mystery and the macabre, said that "the carpet is the soul of an apartment", and the complexity of its design meant that "while a judge on common law may be an ordinary man, a judge of a carpet may be a genius".

Peter Linden, one of Ireland's experts and a regular lecturer on Persian carpets, began his carpet education at the age of 12 while living in Sweden — through his father, who was an avid collector. "He showed me the secrets to the knots and dyes, and I ended up as childhood friends with the sons of Scandinavia's expert on Persian rugs. I supposed it was the best free education on the subject," he said.

Having traded in rugs and carpets from his gallery in Blackrock since 1979, he closed the gallery in 2006; its contents were auctioned by Adam's that year. "Good standard pieces are very good value at the moment," said James O'Halloran of Adam's. "They are as individual as a painting, and, being organic with a life of their own, add a unique element to interior design."

Linden now works as a private consultant to a worldwide list of clients, advising on technical information, weavers' history and location where the work was created.

"What makes these valuable are their numbers are decreasing — hence values are rising, and designers, artists and collectors really covet these pieces — the past two years have been incredibly busy," said Linden.

In terms of age, carpets over 100 years old are considered antiques. The youngest Linden will deal with are from 1935 to 1940, as mass production began after the Second World War.

When searching for a carpet, Linden suggests to find a neutral expert to purchase from. "In countries such as Turkey, dealers will tell you what you want to hear. There is severe shortage of good pieces, in a sense their stocks have sold out, having been long since exported to the West. A good dealer will let you try out the carpet at home, and will offer to exchange or trade in your rug at purchase price levels."

Dyes are another indicator. "If you separate the pile and look at the dye — if there is a darker color at the root, the dye is either of inferior quality or more than likely — as is the case with 99 percent of carpets in Turkey — it has been given what is termed an antique wash."

This is where carpets have been given a chemical bath and are left to age artificially in the sun to make them look 200 years old. Also, if patterns have an identical sequence, this has been done by machine and not by hand.

Knots per square inch (KPI) plays a tremendous role in their overall value. By examining the back of a piece you can work out the KPI, by selecting a square inch, then by counting the number of knots going upwards, then sideways, and multiplying the two numbers. The more valuable items have a KPI closer to 1,000, lesser-grade rugs will be closer to 100.

After energy products, handmade rugs are Iran's most important export, accounting for €412 million in exports in 2017.