02-Feb-17: What's the US view of Iran's friendly-ties initiative and the nuclear-capable rockets it doesn't plan to use?

Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif [Image Source] There's

probably a simple reason for why he's laughing in so many

published news photos

There's some elaborate dancing going on as the US, Iran and Hamas make efforts to explain their relations with each another.

From a disturbing Reuters report published this afternoon:

Iran has tested a cruise missile called "Sumar" that is capable of carrying nuclear weapons in addition to test-firing a medium-range ballistic missile on Sunday, German newspaper Die Welt reported Thursday, citing unspecified intelligence sources... The newspaper said the Sumar cruise missile was built in Iran and traveled around 600 km in its first known successful test. The missile is believed to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons and may have a range of 2,000 to 3,000 km, the paper said, citing intelligence sources... [T]he biggest advantage from Iran's point of view, a security expert told Die Welt, was that cruise missiles are not mentioned in any United Nations resolutions that ban work on ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons... Iran confirmed on Wednesday that it had test-fired a new ballistic missile, but said the test did not breach the Islamic Republic's nuclear agreement with world powers or a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the pact.

A nuclear agreement? As we (and others) keep saying there is no nuclear agreement. That's because the astoundingly ineffective JCPOA was never signed by the Iranians - deliberately. See "09-Sep-15: Figuring out what people have figured out about Iran and its nuclear plans" where we explain ourselves. But that's the undoubted bottom line: despite all the reportorial and editorial claims to the contrary, there is no signed agreement with Iran on its nuclear weapons program. And there almost certainly never will be.

What did happen, as the Reuters piece recounts, is that massive sanctions on the Iranians were lifted in January 2016 under the JCPOA in exchange for their agreeing to curb - such an ambiguous term - the Iranian nuclear program.

But according to the terms of a 2015 U.N. resolution endorsing the JCPOA, Iran

is still called upon to refrain from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years. [Reuters]

Aren't they the same as cruise missiles? No.

Cruise missiles are harder to counter than ballistic missiles since they fly at lower altitudes and can evade enemy radar, confounding missile defense missiles and hitting targets deep inside an opponent's territory... [Reuters]

Also yesterday, President Trump’s national security adviser announced in Washington that the US is putting Iran "on notice" for its ballistic missile test and warning of new sanctions:

Calling Iran a “destabilizing influence” in the Middle East, National Security Adviser Mike Flynn declared Wednesday: “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.” The pronouncement marked a pivot away from the Obama administration’s policy of diplomatic engagement, which led to a 2015 multinational nuclear deal that has been denounced repeatedly by President Donald Trump and his aides. Iran has warned that new U.S. sanctions could constitute a violation of the nuclear deal, setting up a scenario in which the agreement could unravel—something that hardliners in both countries would welcome. Administration officials, while providing few specifics, said Mr. Trump has begun a process of reviewing current U.S. policy and is “considering a whole range of options,” including tougher sanctions. Asked if military force also was one of the options, the officials didn’t rule it out... “The important thing is here is that we’re communicating that Iranian behavior needs to be rethought by Tehran,” one senior official said. “That is something Tehran needs to think through, because we are considering these things in a different perspective.” Mr. Flynn said the latest missile launch was a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal and “called upon” Iran to avoid any activity related to missiles designed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. ["Trump White House Puts Iran ‘On Notice’ After Missile Launch", Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2017

Iran's propaganda machine didn't see things that way and had already pushed back by Wednesday evening via FARS (often called a "semi-official" news agency of the Iranian regime), asserting that Iran's

missile program is legal as per International Law, has nothing to do with the nuclear deal, and is non-negotiable...  [and that] Washington's latest cat-and-mouse games with Tehran... seeks pretexts to decrease international pressures and condemnations following their thoughtless decision to ban Muslims and Syrian refugees from travelling to the United States... Missile tests are Iran’s inalienable right to defend its security and interests. No country or international body can have any say in this regard... Over the past decade, Iran has made steady and gradual advances in its missile development, pursuing advancement of its strategic missile capabilities with incremental increases in range and payload technology. Iran is developing all these defense capabilities through international cooperation, legal purchases, and indigenous development. As per International Law, nothing is wrong with that. Nothing at all. ["A Risky Proposition: Is Iran Ready to Drop Missile Defense?", FARS News Agency, February 1, 2017] 

So to what extent do the Iranians now see themselves as having to comply with American wishes? The answer suggested by the FARS article is: not so much:

Whatever one thinks of Iran, it has no ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons – unlike the United States, Israel, and their NATO allies. But it is always under constant military threat... [E]very now and then, the bloodthirsty warmongers reveal the real reason for viewing an Iranian missile defense capacity as unacceptable: The war against Iran is a risky proposition. Iranian ballistic missiles and military capabilities would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will. What scares the US is Iranian armed forces that have combat experience and a fighting doctrine of their own, able to take advantage of local and geographic factors, and design their combat style outside the traditional American box. That is what’s intolerable. [FARS]

We might be hearing more in the coming days about how intolerable US policy seems to the Iranians. Iran was

among seven Muslim-majority countries whose citizens he barred from the U.S. in an executive order Friday the White House said is aimed at keeping terrorists from entering the country. [National Security Adviser] Flynn said agreements Iran has made with the Obama administration and the U.N. are “weak and ineffective.” “Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened,” he said... The senior U.S. officials briefing reporters on Mr. Flynn’s comments said the president at the moment doesn’t want “to take any action that would foreclose options or unnecessarily contribute to a negative response.” They also sought to separate the nuclear deal from U.S. concerns about Iran’s other actions such as ballistic missile tests. Tehran has maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful power generation and research, and that its missiles are conventional and for defensive purposes. [Wall Street Journal again]

A few hours ago, Bahram Qassemi who speaks for Iran's Foreign Ministry told interested parties that Flynn’s claims are “baseless, repetitive and provocative”. His statements appear in a report on the oddly-named Iranian PressTV website [here]:

Qassemi further expressed regret that instead of expressing gratitude for the Iranian nation’s continued anti-terror struggles, the US administration keeps leveling groundless accusations and adopting unwise policies, which practically promote terrorist groups... [He] further slammed as “inappropriate and discriminatory” Washington’s recent ban on the entry of travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations as well as refugees into the US [and] stressed that the Islamic Republic's regional policies are transparent, expressing Tehran’s keenness to have friendly ties with all regional states based on mutual respect and non-interference in their domestic affairs. ["US claims on Iran missile tests baseless, provocative: Foreign Ministry", PressTV, February 2, 2017]

If you're wondering how "Friendly ties with all regional states" translates into action, the jihadists of Hamas might have an answer.

Sami Abu Zuhri who, in addition to being an advocate for the usefulness of human shields, a groper of women, a sexual molestor of visiting reporters, a fan of slashing praying Jews to death in their synagogues and a one-time smuggling "mule" [all explained here], is one of Hamas' official spokes-thugs. He visited Algeria last weekend and while there was quoted [here] saying Hamas is keen to build "strong relations with all Arab and Islamic states, including Iran". Without giving any details, he said “Efforts and contacts are underway to boost relations with Iran and we hope we will achieve something positive”.

From here in Jerusalem, something positive is not the most likely of the outcomes we're expecting to see.

14-Dec-16: Kenya, one way or another, clarifies its stance in the face of Iranian terror

The arrested Iranians with their Kenyan driver, in the dock of the court and
in handcuffs in a December 3, 2016 Reuters photo [Source] 

Remember what we wrote here about the latest round of Iranian terrorism in East Africa? It's here: "02-Dec-16: Kenya, seeking Iranian oil and gas, learns again that it's getting a very different Iranian export". Towards the end, we offered this unwanted advice to the authorities in Nairobi:

Not to sound rude, but how well do the Kenyan authorities understand what it means to pursue counter-terror co-operation with the Islamic Republic of Iran? We have had our doubts in the past (see "24-Jul-15: Terror here? 'Ridiculous' say Kenyans, deploying their largest ever security blanket" and "16-May-14: More jihadist killings in East Africa today" and "27-Sep-13: Freeing terrorists and the Nairobi massacre"). If the US State Department doesn't return their calls (and the State Department knows a lot about Iranian terror even if they don't always own up to it), the Kenyans could go searching on the web. A good starting point might be "Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" from Wikipedia.

Turns out they didn't pay any attention to our advice on this, which in the circumstances is a real pity. A syndicated Reuters report from December 2, 2016, already conveyed a sense what might be ahead ["Iran urges Kenya to free two Iranians facing terrorism charges: Tasnim", Reuters].

Then the "semi-official" Iranian media chimed in.

Iran's Ambassador to Nairobi Hadi Farajvand announced that the country's mission is seriously pursuing freedom of the two detained Iranian nationals in Kenya, stressing that the media ballyhoos on the case are aimed at distorting the good relations between the two countries... The Iranian foreign ministry said that the two Iranians, namely Abdolhossein Safayee and Seyed Nasrollah Ebrahimi, who are lawyers and university instructors, are now in Nairobi as lawyers of the families of two Iranian prisoners in Kenya to probe into the case of the inmates and provide them with legal advice... Farajvand voiced deep regret over releasing such "baseless" media reports, and said they are merely aimed at destroying the friendly and growing ties between Tehran and Nairobi. He also expressed the hope that given the fact that the two Iranian nationals are prominent lawyers, the process to pursue the case would not be affected by the ballyhoos of ill-wishers and the two lawyers would be freed soon through good interaction between the Kenyan government and judiciary... Kenyan Ambassador to Tehran was invited to Iran Foreign Ministry on Thursday evening to be informed of Tehran's protest. "Tehran asked the Kenyan party to seriously look into the issue, while emphasizing prompt release of the two Iranian citizens," he added. [FARS News, December 3, 2016]

In Kenya, the local media expressed it very much more bluntly:

The Iranian government on Friday ordered the Kenyan government to set free two of its nationals arrested by the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit... [Iran] rubbished the terrorism link saying that the two were government lawyers on an official assignment. [A Kenyan news site, December 3, 2016 - archived by us in case the source disappears]

So having been ordered by the Islamic Republic, here's what happened in Nairobi today:

Kenyan court has ordered the deportation of two Iranian men who were accused of plotting an attack on the Israeli embassy in the capital, Nairobi. A court order issued Wednesday said an agreement had been reached between prosecutors and the Iranian Embassy leading to the termination of criminal charges and deportation. The suspects, Sayed Nasrollah Ebrahim and Abdolhosein Gholi Safaee, had been in custody since November 29, when they were arrested outside the Israeli Embassy with video footage of the facility. They had been traveling in an Iranian diplomatic car after visiting a prison where they saw two other Iranians who have been jailed for 15 years on terrorism charges, according to prosecutors. They were charged with collecting information to facilitate a terrorist act. Iranian agents have been suspected in attacks or thwarted attacks around the globe in recent years, including in Azerbaijan, Thailand and India. Most of the plots had Israeli targets. ["Kenya drops charges, deports Iranians thought plotting attack on Israelis", Associated Press via Times of Israel, December 14, 2016]

Sounds to us like a serious and regretable Kenyan mistake. Meanwhile on a completely unrelated subject:

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, while speaking at a conference in Tehran, said that were President-Elect Trump to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear “deal” signed by the Obama administration, Iran would destroy the State of Israel... ["Iran threatens to destroy Israel - again", Washington Times, December 12, 2016]

28-Dec-12: Two sharply different understandings of what the death of a fifteen year-old child in Iran signifies

From "Iran experiencing luxury car boom" [source]

From bitter experience, we know how much can be learned about a country's values by how it relates to the deaths of its children.

Six weeks ago, the Guardian (UK) published a heart-rending news item over the by-line of Saeed Kamali Dehghan, reporting on the death of an Iranian boy,  Manouchehr Esmaili-Liousi. The fifteen year old suffered from haemophilia, a genetic disorder in which the body's ability to control bleeding and blood clotting is impaired. The well-publicized report is headed

Iranian boy 'dies after sanctions disrupt medicine supplies': Trade restrictions and measures imposed on Iranian banks by US and EU blamed for drug shortages

Dehghan, an Iranian journalist writing for the Guardian, le Monde and other prestigious Western outlets, was the Foreign Press Association's Journalist of the Year in 2010, and a recipient of the 70th annual Peabody Award for film. His work has appeared on CNN, CBC, France 24, the UK's Channel 4 and HBO. [He also has his detractors.]

If like us you read the Guardian article from start to finish, you will see not a single word suggesting there might be a different side to the account of Manouchehr's sad end, other than the interpretation placed on it by the officials of the Iranian government. It was 

due to a shortage of medicine in the country... the first civilian death said to be directly linked to the impact that western economic sanctions are having on the Islamic republic... His family failed to find the vital medicine he desperately needed for his disease, Iran's state news agencies reported on Wednesday.The news was announced by Ahmad Ghavidel, the director of Iran's haemophilia society. He blamed Esmaili-Liousi's death on the US and EU for their punitive measures against Tehran, which are also hitting imports of medicine and hospital equipment. Although sanctions are not directly targeting Iranian pharmacies and medical sectors, measures imposed on Iranian banks and trade restrictions have made life extremely difficult for patients across the country, who are facing difficulties in finding medicines made outside Iran. "This is against human rights … Even in wars, women and children and patients are protected by some impunity based on international treaties," Ghavidel said, according to quotes carried by the state Irna news agency. "But sanctions hitting medicine in Iran are causing a silent death and are a ploy to hurt the health of Iranian people." 

Saeed Kamali Dehghan's November 14
article in the Guardian

The Guardian's - and Saeed Kamali Dehghan's - report dovetails closely with an earlier news item carried by the notorious Fars News Agency (affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps) in November, which provided a soapbox for the president of the Iranian Academy of Medical Sciences to complain bitterly  

about the medical impact of the sanctions in a letter to Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general. Dr. Marandi called the sanctions brutal measures that had increased mortality rates “as a result of the unavailability of essential drugs and shortages of medical supplies and equipment” [more]

Fars says the US and other Western countries are

Targeting Iranian Children through Sanctions [FARS headline] 

but the reality, as happens so often with news reports appearing in the highly-ideological end of the journalistic spectrum that the Guardian occupies, and with the overt propaganda of Iran's state-controlled media, is different. 

Yesterday (Thursday), the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 

appointed a caretaker health minister, Mohammad Hassan Tariqat-Monfared, and had told him in a presidential decree that the reduction of people’s health care expenses was among “the main priorities of this important ministry”

according to the New York Times. The reason Ahmadinejad had to appoint a caretaker was because, earlier the same day, he had

dismissed his health minister, the only woman to serve in the cabinet since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, after she publicly criticized the government’s response to acute shortages of medicine imports [more]

The NYT says the ousted minister, Dr. Marzieh Vahid-Dastjerdi, a gynecologist, was appointed in 2009 and was known as an advocate for Iranian women’s rights. Last month, she irritated Iran's president by speaking out against the inadequate budget of foreign currency set aside by the Ahmadinejad regime for the purchase of medicines abroad, saying (according to Reuters):

“I have heard that luxury cars have been imported with subsidized dollars, but I don’t know what happened to the dollars that were supposed to be allocated for importing medicine..." 

Yesterday was payback day. Clearly the health minister failed to understand that in authoritarian regimes like today's Iran, while (yes) there is a need for medicine and so on, prestige vehicles [as this Tehran Times article explains] also play a key role. Think of it as a matter of political balance. And as for dead and dying children, well - they're also an issue etc.

Some of that needed balance was in evidence in a clear-eyed, straight-talking report two days ago in the Times of London (also in The Australian) which we suspect may not have been noticed by enough people, even those who are concerned about what's being done by and to Iran:

Tehran lied about boy ‘killed by sanctions’
Hugh Tomlinson | Published at 12:01AM, December 26 2012

IN death, Manouchehr Esmaili-Liousi became an instant celebrity, the unwitting poster boy for Iran's growing deprivation under sanctions and the inhumanity of the West.
Five weeks on, the teenager's death has instead underlined the hypocrisy of his own government, desperate to shift the blame for a deepening health crisis amid accusations that state corruption is putting lives at at risk.
Manouchehr, a 15-year-old haemophiliac, was admitted to hospital in the southwestern town of Dezful last month, bleeding uncontrollably from a flesh wound. He died, it was claimed, because local doctors had run out of drugs to treat him. Officials and state media pounced on the tragedy, claiming the teenager as the first civilian death directly linked to the sanctions imposed by the West to curb Iran's nuclear program.
"The US and EU are behind setting regulations that disguise what are really sanctions on food and medication, which are not supposedly on their boycott lists," said Ahmad Ghavidel, head of Iran's Haemophilia Society.
It was a tragic story, but it was not true. 
Sources in Dezful and doctors have confirmed that Manouchehr fell and cut himself while hiking in the mountains. It took almost two hours for him to reach hospital. By the time he arrived, he had lost too much blood to be saved.
The shortage of medicines is real. Government data obtained by The Times confirms the country has sufficient stockpiles of drugs to last only another 100 days. Hospitals have already begun to run out of anaesthetic for operations.
But the campaign over Manouchehr's death underscored the eagerness in Tehran to blame sanctions for the crisis, shifting attention away from the toxic combination of mismanagement and corruption in the government.
Any opportunity is seized upon. Medical personnel in the town of Karaj told of an incident after the death of a 42-year-old woman from a stroke. The woman's family was approached by officials offering to pay all funeral costs if a camera crew could film the ceremony. The woman's sister was asked to record a personal message to US President Barack Obama from the graveside, blaming him and sanctions for her sister's death. The family declined. "This had nothing to do with a shortage of medicine - they were just trying to make capital out of other people's grief," said one Iranian source.
Marzieh Vahid Dastjerdi, Iran's Health Minister, has spoken out repeatedly against government cuts to her department. Some $US2 billion ($1.9bn) in promised funding has not materialised. The regime's response has been to launch a motion to impeach her. [And yesterday it succeeded - TOW]
Medical imports are exempt from sanctions, but the government has slashed healthcare funding as the Revolutionary Guard continues to profit from the crisis. A subsidised exchange rate, imposed by Tehran to ring-fence imports of food and medicine from Iran's currency crisis, has been exploited by the powerful militia to fund the purchase of luxury goods. Regime officials continue to enjoy world-class healthcare while choking off medical funding to ordinary citizens. Surplus drugs from Revolutionary Guard hospitals are dumped on the black market, where they are sold to health groups and civilians at three times the price.

There is much that is unhealthy in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but not only there: also in the journalistic and editorial ethos and morality of those who look and refuse to see.