The following Qs and As are from yesterday’s Daily
Press Briefing by the State Department’s spokesperson Victoria Nuland:
QUESTION: Yeah, and my second question: There are a group
of experts that are trying to tie the Iran nuclear issue with Syria as part of
a grand bargain. You oppose that kind of connection, do you?
MS.
NULAND:
I’m not sure which group of experts you’re talking about or what their plan is,
but obviously we deal with Iran on the Iran issues; we deal with Syria on the
Syria issues. I’m not sure that we --
QUESTION: Right. But you don’t favor – by tying – when
you talk to the Russians, because it all involves Russia, when you’re talking
to the Russians, you don’t favor combining let’s say the nuclear issue of Iran
with that of Syria or the departure of Bashar al-Assad?
MS.
NULAND:
I’m not even sure how one could package that except to say that we are concerned,
as we’ve said all along, about increasingly nefarious activity by Iran in
support of Assad inside Syria. But with regard to the nuclear file, that is a
separate and distinct issue, and you know how we’re working on that.
QUESTION: The reason I ask this is because Mr. Levitte,
the former French ambassador in this town [who last October joined the
Brookings Institution as a distinguished fellow], basically suggested that any
kind of deal with the Russians on Syria ought to include the issue of Iran. So
– and he has a lot of cohorts in this town.
MS.
NULAND: I
haven’t seen what he has in mind. I have a lot of respect for Jean-David
Levitte, but I haven’t seen his particular ideas.
Chances of a grand bargain
were raised last November 30 after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- speaking
at a gala dinner for American and Israeli officials, experts and diplomats at
the Saban Center for Middle East Policy -- said Washington was
ready for bilateral talks if Tehran is “ever ready.”
The grand bargain would for
instance put on the table:
Iran’s nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its leverage in
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and even Yemen, its ambition to resume the role of U.S.-backed
policeman of the Gulf, and its
hostility towards Israel.
In exchange, Iran would probably ask Washington for security guarantees, the
full recognition of its legitimate interests, influence and status in the
region, the lifting of investment,
financial and trade sanctions,
accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and a promise never to push for regime change.
Raghida
Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent in Washington and New York for the
pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, today revives rumors of a great bargain
in the making as President Barack
Obama lines up his second-term dream team ahead of his second inauguration.
The guessing game ahead of the January 20 inauguration includes hush-hush
discussions between the U.S. administration and Russia on a trade-off, she writes. “Tehran ‘freezes’ its nuclear program in exchange for giving Damascus a
green light to scorch the earth wherever Syrian opposition forces have a
foothold.”
Russia’s role, Dergham explains, is to “sponsor” the U.S. deal with the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
“Moscow would convince Tehran leaders to freeze their nuclear program in return
for the U.S. recognizing Iran’s regional role, not only in Iraq but in, and via,
Syria.
“The latest rumor says the Russians are trying to convince the Obama camp
that all the U.S. president needs to do is ‘turn a blind eye’ or ‘look the
other way’ until Damascus forces crush the armed opposition, eradicating the
Jihadists in the process.
“Execution of such a ‘scorched earth’ policy requires regime forces to regroup
and launch a qualitative blitzkrieg, using all their resources with the
exception of chemical weapons.
“Russia is only asking the U.S. to get ‘sidetracked’ pending execution of
the qualitative offensive. In Russia’s opinion it is a price the administration
would need to pay to win an Iranian freeze on its nuclear program…”
According to Dergham, Russia believes it can “hit two birds with one
stone: (1) Give Syrian President Assad and his regime the opportunity
to crush the armed opposition and eradicate jihadists and (2) Spare Iran a
military showdown with the United States and/or Israel.”
She says, “Obama would be
committing a costly strategic mistake if he approved such a bargain. He would
be winning a tactical deferral of a nuclear-armed Iran but consenting to a
pogrom in Syria that effectively boosts the Islamic Republic of Iran’s hegemony
in the region.
“President George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion handed Iraq to Iran on a silver
platter…
“The Syria war could become Obama’s if he were to endorse the supposed
bargain, handing Syria to the Islamic Republic on a second silver platter.
Should that happen, Obama would go down in history as having allowed Iran to
become a nuclear state with legitimate regional hegemony…”
But perhaps, Dergham concludes, “all this chit-chat about bargains in the
making is meant to cover the realities of added isolation and sanctions on
Iran, of Russia’s declining influence in the region and on the United States,
and of the fast approaching collapse of the regime in Damascus.”
