RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Cole writes: "French foreign minister Laurent Fabius showed up and threw cold water on the whole process."

Juan Cole. (photo: Informed Comment)
Juan Cole. (photo: Informed Comment)

France Crashes the Geneva Party, Scuttles Iran Deal

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

11 November 13


he Iranian newspaper Tabnak printed a minute-by-minute account of Saturday's dramatic on-again off-again push toward a diplomatic agreement on Iran's nuclear enrichment program. It contains little editorializing but by the key placement of news items, it tells a story about French and Israeli bad faith.

Catherine Ashton of the European Union and Secretary of State John Kerry had worked for months with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on a text, which put forward a set confidence-building steps. They were careful to have no details leak, but apparently Iran would freeze its nuclear enrichment program for six months in return for very slight, and "reversible" reductions of international sanctions. Further steps would then be pursued.

Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu denounced this step as a fool's bargain, maintaining that Iran was getting something for nothing. Tabnak says that the Israeli Finance Minister warned that even a slight reduction in Iran sanctions would lead to a gold rush on the part of Western corporations seeking business in Tehran (Iran is an oil and gas state with a population of 77 million, so there are trillions to be made there if it is opened up). Apparently the Israelis feel that any chink in the sanctions armor would lead inexorably to their collapse, impelled in part by world capitalism hungry for a major new market and for Iran's enormous resources. They fear that once the international momentum moves in that direction, Iran would dig in its heels and keep its most significant enrichment capabilities and its breakout capacity whereby it could construct a bomb at will if it wanted to.

There was no sign that any of the diplomats in Geneva were willing to pay the slightest attention to the squawking from Tel Aviv. Indeed, the momentum was toward an inking of the confidence-building measure on Saturday itself. Russian and Chinese representatives were abruptly summoned to Geneva.

Tabnak doesn't instance the Saudis, but their refusal to take up their seat on the UN Security Council is in part a protest against American diplomacy with Iran, which they fear will leave the kingdom in a weak position vis-a-vis their Persian Shiite rival for power in the Gulf (which they call the Arabian Gulf and Iran calls the Persian Gulf). Some 22% of proven world oil reserves are in that region.

Then French foreign minister Laurent Fabius showed up and threw cold water on the whole process. He clearly was attempting to torpedo the agreement, rejecting the whole notion of a six-month confidence-building period without substantial Iranian concessions. In the French system, the foreign minister doesn't typically have a lot of autonomy, so Fabius was almost certainly acting at the orders of Socialist President Francois Hollande, who is way down in the polls and may feel the need to seem strong internationally, asserting himself against the US and Iran. The arrogance of the US and the perfidy of the far right religious government in Tehran are two things that both center-right and center-left French can agree upon. Hollande, having intervened in Mali, seems to want to throw his weight around in the Middle East. He may see an opportunity for France to come up in the world now that much of the Arab world and Israel is angry at Washington for its opening toward Iran. The US for decades has pulled off a balancing act of allying both with Israel and Saudi Arabia, in part by pointing to the danger of Iran to both. Since Obama seems to be abandoning that ploy, Paris may think there is a vacuum that it can fill.

Because Iranian president Hasan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif were deeply concerned that their opening toward negotiations with the West would be sabotaged by hard liners in the Revolutionary Guards and around theocrat-in-chief Ali Khamenei, they had stipulated that no details of any agreement be leaked during the negotiations.

Fabius blatantly disregarded this rule. Le Monde reports that he said openly that he had three concerns: Iran would have to mothball its heavy-water, plutonium-producing reactor at Arak, due to go hot in summer 2014 (with a reprocessing plant, which Iran does not have, it would be fairly easy to construct a nuclear weapon from the plutonium). Then, Iran would have to export from the country its stock of uranium enriched to 19.75%, which, Fabius maintained, could much more easily be made into a bomb than the uranium enriched to 3.5% for reactor fuel. A third concern was that Iran is bringing on line a new generation of gas centrifuges, which can enrich five times as fast.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) greeted Fabius's stunt with "Thank God for France!" on CNN. Unlike Israel and South Carolina, however, Fabius doesn't seem to have been demanding an end to enrichment altogether, which in the aftermath President Rouhani underlined was a red line for Tehran.

By revealing what was not in the initial confidence-building agreement and by making clear the minimum France would accept, Fabius completely threw away the whole negotiating strategy crafted by Zarif, Kerry and Ashton. The other diplomatic delegations were furious.

Agence France Presse reported the reaction to Fabius's turn as the bull in the China shop:

One anonymous diplomat told journalists, "The Americans, the European Union and the Iranians have worked intensively for months on this proposal, and this is nothing more than an attempt by Fabius to give himself belated importance."

Someone in the French delegation retorted, "We want to avoid the euphoria of the glass half full." He recalled that in 2003-2004 Rouhani had engineered a similar suspension of uranium enrichment, which had led to nothing.

Another anonymous diplomat told AFP, "Different points posed a problem for different countries, not just France."

It is possible that Fabius actually did the negotiations a favor in insisting that they be more serious. An enrichment freeze doesn't amount to much, and slightly reduced sanctions don't, either. Maybe that deal would have just given hard liners on both sides time to undermine further progress.

The Arak reactor really is the most sinister thing the Iranians are doing. Critics of Fabius are saying that it is an issue that could be dealt with down the road. Perhaps, but by putting it on the table he is signalling that if the Iranians are serious this time, for France it is not negotiable that Iran have a heavy water reactor. If Rouhani and Zarif can't get that objection past the Revolutionary Guards now, maybe they never can.

Back in the 1970s when France built the Osirak reactor for Iraq, they were absolutely insistent that it be a light water reactor. While it isn't absolutely impossible to use a light water reactor to make a bomb, it is very, very difficult, and this form of reactor is the only responsible one with regard to proliferation concerns. (That is why Israel's bombing of Osirak in 1981 was so outrageous and unwise- it wasn't a proliferation threat. Bombing it pushed the Baath regime in Iraq to ramp up a nuclear weapons program and in some indirect ways led to the Iraq War).

Anyway, diplomacy doesn't have to have a tight window. If there was no breakthrough this weekend, there could be one when the diplomats reassemble in a couple of weeks. France can't possibly want no agreement (unlike Israel), and presumably there must be a way to satisfy Hollande in a confidence-building initial proposal. It may also be that Paris will feel so much heat from everyone else in Europe that they will moderate their hard line.

One thing France must keep in mind is that hawks in Washington actively want a war with Iran, and that if there is no agreement now, that war will be on the front burner if a Republican comes to power in 2017. Since the French opposed the Iraq War and have been traumatized by their participation in Afghanistan, presumably they don't want to give the American Right such a luscious opportunity, which won't in the end benefit French interests in the Middle East. Hollande may think he is standing up for France, but he might actually just be making himself subordinate to South Carolina and American arms dealers. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+23 # Dale 2013-11-11 11:48
Since the 1979 revolution in Iran, the U.S. has engineered serious sanctions on Iran and with Israel threatened war. This has given the Iranians every incentive to build a defensive deterrent in the form of nuculear weapons, although they have not done so and there is no evidence, on the contrary, that they intend to. The answer is to normalize relations, end sanctions, stop the threats, then Iran has no incentive whatsover and can be re-integrated into the international community. Simple sense, no more nonsens.

Dale Johnson
+20 # Farafalla 2013-11-11 14:00
Sounds sane except for the fact that Israel has an undisclosed stockpile of nuclear weapons that it can target to any regional neighbor. Israel reserves the right to use its nukes first if it feels existentially threatened. Therein lies the madness in the conversation over Iran's reactors. Why are there no sanctions against Israel for refusing to sign the international non-proliferati on treaty? Where does Israel get its weapons grade plutonium?
-5 # Rick Levy 2013-11-11 20:41
France is the one that crashed the party and threw cold water on Iranian deal? Hm. I guess Israel manipulates France as it does the U.S.? But wait, there's no equivalent of AIPAC in the former. No matter, it's always Israel's fault anyway.
+5 # Activista 2013-11-11 22:46
There are NO facts that Iran is developing or plans to develop nuclear weapons. All this war propaganda Made in Tel Aviv.
Iran is the last excuse for USA and Israel to spend billions on military crap in the Middle East. Peace is the existential threat for USA and Israel Military Industrial Complex ...
+6 # geraldom 2013-11-12 00:22
I believe that the main player here is the United States with France and Israel simply being support actors in this whole scheme of coming up with some justification to ultimately attempt to do with Iran what we did in Iraq.

It's my contention that the real target here is not so much Iran's nuclear program, although the United States would not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons in any case. It would make it almost impossible for the United States to achieve its main goal of gaining control over Iran's government and its energy resources, its oil and natural gas reserves, which was the U.S. goal in Iraq.

The whole idea behind these negotiations is to make the U.S. look like it's making every effort to be fair in its dealings with Iran so that when everything else does fail in the end, which it will, either because France or Israel or any one of the other U.S. puppet countries in Europe throw a monkey wrench into the process as France has just done, the U.S. will come out smelling like a rose when it finally feels that it has some justified phony excuse to illegally attack Iran as it did to Iraq.
+1 # geraldom 2013-11-12 12:01
Addendum to my initial posting. The following article came out today in response to what I stated above:
+3 # Activista 2013-11-12 17:23
excellent factual article - written by Buchanan - do not kill messenger - read the facts:
"ran today has no atom bomb. Has never tested a bomb. Has never exploded a nuclear device. Possesses not a single known ounce of 90 percent enriched uranium, which is essential for a uranium bomb."
+3 # geraldom 2013-11-12 23:21
Quoting Activista:
excellent factual article - written by Buchanan - do not kill messenger - read the facts:
"ran today has no atom bomb. Has never tested a bomb. Has never exploded a nuclear device. Possesses not a single known ounce of 90 percent enriched uranium, which is essential for a uranium bomb."

Activista, you can tell the world over and over again until you are blue in the face that Iran does not have any nuclear device and is not in anyway developing a nuclear device. It will not change any plans that the U.S. has for regime change in Iran.

As I've indicated in my initial comment above, the U.S. plans on doing to Iran what it did to Iraq, and if it wasn't for Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which, like you, I do not believe exists, the U.S. would find some other phony excuse for overthrowing Iran's government.

The U.S. wants complete and absolute control over Iran's government and its energy resources, its oil and natural gas reserves.

The irony of this whole stupid mess is that as long as Iran does not have any nuclear weapons to defend itself with, they will be under constant threat of covert and overt military action either directly by the United States, or through its puppet allies like Israel.
+1 # geraldom 2013-11-13 09:03
A new ominous sounding article came out today which refers to a possible threat of war with Iran:

When are people going to wake up to what's really going on?

Last evening, I watched the Stephen Colbert program. One of the things that I do not like about Mr. Colbert besides his attempt at proselytization and his huge ego about winning awards, his distinct lack of humbleness and humility, is that he takes very strong political positions when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. In last evening's program, he interviewed an Iranian pundit, one whom I am extremely familiar with, and, as is typical of Mr. Colbert, he would rarely let the gentleman get a word edgewise in. Mr. Colbert didn't hide his disdain for Iran and his support of what the U.S. is putting the country through. The gentleman being interviewed is an extremely reasonable person, but Colbert just tore into him and would hardly allow him to complete a sentence without interjecting and attacking Iran.

This does not help the situation any since Colbert has a lot of influence and a lot of followers.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.