MEMRI June 24, 2015 Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.1171
U.S. Secretary Of State Kerry: 'We Have Absolute Knowledge' About 'Certain
Military Activities' The Iranians 'Were Engaged In'; Iran Rejects Outright
U.S. Terms For Future Inspection – For Example, Inspection Of Military Sites
By: A. Savyon and Y. Carmon*
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8624.htm

Introduction

In a June 16, 2015 statement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry officially
acknowledged that the U.S. is aware of the military dimensions of Iran's
nuclear program.[1] Kerry said: "The possible military dimensions, frankly,
gets distorted a little bit in some of the discussions in that we're not
fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in
time or another... We know what they did... We have no doubt. We have
absolute knowledge with respect to certain military activities they were
engaged in."[2]

This statement reveals the Iranian deception, which has been accepted by the
Obama administration, regarding the existence of a fatwa by Iranian Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons.[3] Kerry's remarks indicate
that the administration knows very well that Khamenei is lying about the
fatwa, and about the ostensible religious ban on nuclear weapons.

The Concessions Demanded From The U.S. In Order To Allow An Agreement To Be
Reached

U.S. Concession On Investigating Iran's Possible Military Dimensions (PMD)

Kerry clarified that the U.S. was not interested in focusing on Iran's past
military violations, because it is aiming to ensure that the Iranian nuclear
program can be inspected in the future. He said: "What we're concerned about
is going forward. It's critical to us to know that going forward, those
activities have been stopped and that we can account for that in a
legitimate way... That clearly is one of the requirements, in our judgment
for what has to be achieved in order to have a legitimate agreement... And
in order to have an agreement, to trigger any kind of material, significant
sanctions relief, we would have to have those answers."[4]

With this statement, the U.S. waives its demand regarding Iran's PMD – that
is, that Iran provide explanations to the IAEA on previous suspicions of PMD
of its nuclear program. Without this demand, all future inspection
arrangements will be meaningless, because this concession by the U.S. sets a
precedent for Iran to refrain from responding to any suspicions raised in
the future.[5]

Possible U.S. Concession Also On Future Inspections

At this point, it appears that the U.S. might back down on future
inspections in two additional areas:

· According to as-yet-unverified reports, instead of "any time any place"
inspections,[6] a committee comprising representatives of all countries
participating in the negotiations, including Iran, would decide whether
particular suspect Iranian facilities will be inspected, if they can reach a
consensus on this. In this way, the IAEA will be stripped of all independent
authority.

· Access to military facilities, if allowed at all – and at this time,
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards
Corps (IRGC), the Majlis, and Iran's negotiating team all reject this option
out of hand – will no longer be a precondition for an agreement, but will be
postponed until after an agreement is reached.

What Went Wrong In The Negotiations Process?

The U.S. and Iranian perceptions of the essence and implications of a
comprehensive nuclear agreement are diametrically opposed:

The U.S. Perception

The U.S. sees a comprehensive nuclear agreement as a chance to turn over a
new leaf with Iran, and even to obtain U.S. and Western influence in the
country, thus transforming it from a hostile state to a friendly state that
shares interests with the West.

Thus, the Obama administration's policy is based on the rescinding of the
six UN Security Council resolutions that punish Iran for its nuclear
violations, and is likewise based on disregarding IAEA reports expressing
suspicion that Iran is committing violations. This is why the Iranian
dossier in the IAEA was dealt with based on the international community's
view of Iran as a suspect state with six UNSC resolutions still pending
against it for various nuclear violations.

However, since the negotiations with Iran were taken over by the Obama
administration, and are no longer in the hands of the EU3, Iran has been
transformed from a suspect state under investigation and punishment to a
partner of equal standing in negotiations, in which its demands have the
same status as the demands of the other side. That is, a quasi-judicial
process against a suspect – Iran – has become a negotiation between judge
and suspect.

All this is aimed at transforming Iran de facto into a state friendly to the
West and under Western influence. The model for this is U.S. Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger's bringing Egypt, in the 1970s, and later China and
the Soviet Union, to stances that were friendlier to the West.

The Iranian Perception

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei completely rejects the U.S.'s view. As
far as he is concerned, the agreement is righting a wrong inflicted on Iran,
and has nothing to do with turning over a new leaf – no expurgation of the
past, and no transformation of Iran into a state friendly to the West, open
to Western influence, or sharing Western interests. He perceives these
latter notions as a plot to bring down the ideological camp that he heads,
to elevate Iran's pragmatic camp, and to eliminate the Islamic revolutionary
regime – a process which he will prevent. In his view, Iran's future is in
reliance on an independent "resistance economy" – and absolutely not on the
West and on foreign investments.

Therefore, we assess that Khamenei is unwilling to reach any agreement that
conforms to what the U.S. seeks. It will be remembered that in April 2015 at
Lausanne, the Iranians categorically refused to sign anything or even to
shake hands with the other side, and that even a positive outcome to the
negotiations will not be in the form of an agreement between the sides, but
will be transferred to the U.N. Security Council for a resolution.

It appears that Khamenei's view has some basis in reality. The Obama
administration is offering all these concessions neither out of naiveté nor
as a conciliatory move per se, but in a realpolitik effort that is
manipulative in essence and imperialist in nature, which aims for regime
change in Iran not via authentic internal processes but by means of external
political manipulation. The ideological camp is also aware of these
intentions, and has for several years been preparing to thwart them,
particularly following the emergence of the civil protest movement of
2009.[7]

Just as Iran is not letting go of the notion of itself as an empire, it
cannot let go of the idea of American policy as an imperialist attempt to
manipulate the internal power brokers in Iran, to play kingmaker, and to
bring down the regime. This is also why it is suspicious and completely
distrustful of the Obama administration; despite all this administration's
gestures to Iran, and its submission to Iran's demands, its policy is still
perceived as nothing more than part of an imperialist American plot to bring
down the current regime. This attitude explains the widespread use of
terminology regarding the U.S. that regime spokesmen are unwilling to
relinquish – "the Global Arrogance," "the Great Satan," and the slogan
"Death to America" that was reiterated by Khamenei most recently on March
21, 2015 in a speech marking Norooz, the Persian New Year, and in response
to President Obama's Norooz greetings to the Iranian people (see MEMRI TV
Clip No. 4838).[8]

In June 4, 2015 statements at the tomb of Iranian regime founder Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei confirmed this position, saying: "Everyone must
know that the Arrogance [the U.S.] is still eying our nation because of its
geopolitical importance and its wealth. They have not retreated, and they
will retreat only when the Iranian nation finds a particular strength and
progress that brings them to despair... The continuation of the use of the
defining and practical term 'the Great Satan,' is highly significant. When a
certain person or a certain apparatus is defined as Satan, then it is
obvious how you should act towards it and how you should feel about it. The
Imam [Khomeini] felt this way about America until his final day, calling it
'the Great Satan'... This is the logic of the Imam with regard to the
struggle against the Arrogance, and this logic makes it possible for us to
understand today's global issues and the proper position for us to take
[regarding them]...

"Everyone must know that our enemy [the Americans], with its shifting facial
expressions – sometimes glowering, sometimes smiling, sometimes with
promises, sometimes with threats – aims to take over the country. The enemy
wants to regain the limitless control of Iran [that it once had], and it is
against Islam because Islam vigorously opposes its return... The enemy
opposes Islam because it knows that Islam's dictates are like a mighty dam
in its path. It opposes the Iranian nation because this nation stands fast
against it like a mountain. It will be even more opposed to those in this
nation who show greater steadfastness against it... It is even more opposed
to revolutionary organizations and institutions, and Hizbullah elements
[such as the IRGC, the Basij, etc.], because it knows that they are like a
mighty dam that prevents it from infiltrating.

"The enemy seeks control, and all its efforts are geared towards preventing
the Iranian regime's Islamic movement, which advances the nation. A senior
American statesman said... 'What is important to us is [the regime of]
Islamic Iran, because Iran wants to establish a civilization.' [But] he used
the wrong term, 'empire.' He said, 'We must see Iran as our most significant
enemy.' This statement shows us how important it is to build [our]
nation."[9]

Conclusion

Khamenei will continue to obstruct the negotiations, deliberately thwarting
representatives of his rival, the pragmatic camp, by insisting on demands
that can never be met. Not only that, but he can be expected to prevent the
pragmatic camp from implementing the American vision of an agreement – that
is, opening Iran to American and Western economic, political, and cultural
influences – even if it means using force, which has happened before in the
history of the Iranian Revolution.

*A. Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iranian Media Project; Y. Carmon is
President of MEMRI.



Endnotes:




[1] On April 2, 2015 President Obama hinted in a statement following the
Lausanne declaration about his knowledge that Iran's nuclear program
included military dimensions, when he said: "Iran's past efforts to
weaponize its program will be addressed." Whitehouse.gov, April 2, 2015.


[2] Bnd.com, June 16, 2015.


[3] See: MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 825, Renewed Iran-West Nuclear Talks –
Part II: Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Sec'y of State
Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa By Supreme Leader
Khamenei, April 19, 2012; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5406, Release Of
Compilation Of Newest Fatwas By Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei – Without
Alleged Fatwa About Nuclear Bomb, August 13, 2013; MEMRI Special Dispatch
No. 5461, President Obama Endorses The Lie About Khamenei's 'Fatwa' Against
Nuclear Arms, September 29, 2013; MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No.1022, The
Official Iranian Version Regarding Khamenei's Alleged Anti-Nuclear Weapons
Fatwa Is A Lie, Oct 4, 2013; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5681, Prominent
Iranian Analyst, Author, And Columnist Amir Taheri: Nobody Has Actually Seen
Khamenei's Anti-Nuclear Fatwa, Which Obama Often Quotes, March 17, 2014;
MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1151, Iranian Regime Continues Its Lies And
Fabrications About Supreme Leader Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa Banning
Nuclear Weapons, April 6, 2015.


[4] Bnd.com, June 16, 2015. State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke told
reporters on June 12, 2015 that there is a possibility that the U.S. would
settle for an agreement between Iran and the IAEA on investigation of the
PMD that would be implemented in the future. It should be mentioned that
during the press briefing, Rathke was asked about Kerry's public statement
in April 2015 that the issue of the PMD is a precondition to an agreement,
and his current position that the topic would be addressed after an
agreement. State.gov, June 12, 2015. Also see press briefing by State
Department spokesman John Kirby on June 19, 2015.


[5] The following day, State Department spokesman John Kirby issued a
partial denial and said that there wasn't "any kind of concession or change
in the policy. It's just simply not true... The sanctions lifting will only
occur as Iran takes the steps agreed, including addressing possible military
dimensions." He added: "We've said we're not looking for a confession (from
Iran); we've already made judgments about the past" Cnn.com, June 16, 2015.


[6] On April 2, 2015 President Obama addressed the Lausanne declaration and
said: "This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to
develop a nuclear weapon. Iran will face strict limitations on its program,
and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and
transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So
this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification...
International inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to Iranian
nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that supports Iran’s
nuclear program -- from uranium mills that provide the raw materials, to the
centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program. If
Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we
will inspect it. Iran's past efforts to weaponize its program will be
addressed. With this deal, Iran will face more inspections than any other
country in the world." Whitehouse.gov, April 2, 2015. See also April 6, 2015
statements by U.S. deputy national security adviser for strategic
communication Ben Rhodes to Israel's Channel 2: Asked directly if the IAEA
would have anytime, anywhere access, Rhodes said, “Yes, if we see something
that we want to inspect.” “In the first place we will have anytime, anywhere
access the nuclear facilities,” he said, referring to “the whole supply
chain.” And, he added, “if there is a suspicious site, for instance
somewhere in a military base in Iran, and we want to seek access to that, we
will be able to go to the IAEA and get that inspection because of the
additional protocol of the IAEA that Iran will be joining and some of the
additional transparency and inspections measures that are in the deal.”
Timesofisrael.com, April 6, 2015. Also, see June 8, 2015 statements by U.S.
Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken: "[W]e would not agree to a deal
unless the IAEA is granted access to whatever Iranian sites are required to
verify that Iran’s program is exclusively peaceful – period.” State.gov,
June 8, 2015. Also see U.S. document published following the Lausanne
declaration on April 2, 2015: "Iran will be required to grant access to the
IAEA to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment
facility, conversion facility, centrifuge production facility, or yellowcake
production facility anywhere in the country." State.gov, April 2, 2015.


[7] It should be mentioned that contrary to the U.S. administration's claim
that its initiative began only after the election of Iranian President
Rohani, the pragmatic camp representative, in 2013, the U.S. began secret
negotiations with Iran during the era of his predecessor, President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad.


[8] The "Death to America" slogan is one of the main focuses of both the
pragmatic and ideological camps in Iran. See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No.
1025, The Struggle Between Khamenei And Rafsanjani Over The Iranian
Leadership – Part VI: Despite Rafsanjani's Push To Omit 'Death To America'
Slogan, Demonstrators At Tehran Friday Sermon Persist In Chanting It, Wave
Placards Against Obama, Rafsanjani, October 10, 2013, and MEMRI Special
Dispatch No. 5499, The Struggle Between Khamenei And Rafsanjani Over The
Iranian Leadership – Part VIII: Rafsanjani Receives Death Threats, October
28, 2013.


[9] Tasnim (Iran), June 4, 2015.


© 1998-2015, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved.
Materials may only be cited with proper attribution.