When Secretary of State John Kerry hobbles into the meeting room on June 30th with his colleagues from Great Britain, Germany, France, China and Russia for the latest of their "negotiations" with the Iranians, which have now stretched on for a year and a half, he will be facing a situation that has become even more complex and confusing than ever
Since the last round of talks, labeled "historic" by President Obama before it appeared that there was in fact no agreement, nor for that matter any agreement even on what was discussed, the Iranian authorities have been making one belligerent and aggressive declaration after another, denying any intention of compromising on any of the points on the agenda.
At the same time, the French prime minister and foreign minister have articulated with impeccable Cartesian logic how the talks appear to be going nowhere, and German Chancellor Merkel has also expressed her disagreement with the direction of the talks. A series of high-level former government officials and military officers in the US have weighed in publicly on the dangers of what a deal is likely to contain, while it is an open secret that the current military hierarchy is fervently opposed to any such deal.
If some sort of "agreement" or "deal" or whatever the participants decide to call it is signed, if Germany doesn't add its signature it doesn't really matter, but if France refuses to sign there is in effect no deal, because the French can veto any elimination or reduction of the UN sanctions on Iran. The French have been viewing the whole exercise with suspicion dating all the way back to its beginning in November of 2013, when the French foreign minister walked out. Nevertheless since then France, while continuing to carp on the sidelines, has always eventually come around. Speculation is rife that the quid-pro-quo offered the French by the US Administration for their cooperation is a promise not to veto the French initiative on the Israel-Palestine dispute in the Security Council.
As if all this were not enough, under the new legislation passed by large bi-partisan majorities in both houses of Congress, any deal would have to be submitted to Congress, which would have thirty days to approve or disapprove it. If it is disapproved, which is likely, Obama could veto the disapproval. The House would certainly pass it over his veto, but the Senate might not. Nevertheless, the whole episode would hardly represent a resounding endorsement of whatever is signed.
It is almost a sure thing that either there will be no deal or a bad deal, unless the soap opera is continued yet again for another meeting in two or three or four months. More luxury hotels to be bugged and more opportunities for Mr. Kerry to get into trouble. In the meantime the lid has been blown off the entire sorry record of US-Israeli relations since the Obama Administration began in January of 2009 by Michael Oren in his new book ALLY, summarized in his article in the Wall Street Journal of June 15th. No longer can anyone credibly claim that the anti-Israeli measures taken by Obama were inadvertent or due to incompetence. Until January 2017 Israel will be unable to count on diplomatic or political support from Washington. Thank Heaven relations between the defense establishments of the two countries continue to be excellent.
Norman A. Bailey, Ph.D., is Adjunct Professor of Economic Statecraft at The Institute of World Politics, Washington, DC, and teaches at the Center for National Security Studies and Geostrategy, University of Haifa.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on June 11, 2015
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2015