The new measures against Iran by the Trump administration, including the
formation of an Iran Action Group, are measures of desperation,” Professor Tim
Anderson, a lecturer at the University of Sydney, said in an interview with the
Tasnim News Agency.
"Washington has no real allies in this, just some countries which are afraid to
contradict Washington,” he added.
The main effect of these desperate measures "will be to isolate the USA” in the
long term, the analyst said.
Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of
political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia. Author of the 'The
Dirty War on Syria', he has been largely published on various issues
particularly the Syrian crisis.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim: As you know, the US government’s hostility toward Iran has recently
entered a new stage. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has formed a dedicated group
to coordinate and run the country's policy towards Iran following President
Donald Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran.
Pompeo announced the creation of the Iran Action Group (IAG) at a news
conference, naming Brian Hook, the Department of State's director of policy
planning, as its head. What do you think about the group and its objectives and
do you think that it would be able to reach its goals?
Anderson: The new measures against Iran by the Trump administration,
including the formation of an Iran Action Group, are measures of desperation.
Washington has no real allies in this, just some countries which are afraid to
contradict Washington. Other countries, which formerly backed the nuclear
disarmament moves against Iran (notably Russia and China, but also some European
countries) have abandoned the US, leaving it isolated. And that isolation is
deepening because Washington is now threatening all its so-called allies.
All this might seem quite irrational, but we should remember that, for the US,
the stakes are high. The destruction of Syria was meant to pave the way for the
isolation of and siege on Iran. That was the goal of the 'New Middle East' (by
the Bush 2 and Obama regimes), which was supposed to usher a world of 'freedom
and democracy', under North American tutelage.
Yet after several bloody wars the US proxy armies led by Jabhat al Nusra and
DAESH, and financed and armed by US agents in the region, were defeated by
resistance forces in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Syria and its allies prevailed.
So while the US and its proxies remain dangerous, and they continue to kill and
destabilize, strategically they have failed, and they know it.
Compounding the US obsession with Iran is the fact that, as the 'New Middle
East' project was failing, an even greater counter project for Eurasia
integration was building, and here also Iran is important. Tehran now has mega
linkage projects with Russia and China, and developing links across central
Asia. Pepe Escobar’s recent article ‘Economic war on Iran is war on Eurasia
integration’ (http://www.atimes.com/article/economic-war-on-iran-is-war-on-eurasia-integration/)
outlines this quite well.
China's new network of infrastructure projects (the Belt and Road Initiative)
move forward inexorably, as Russia's economic links with East Asia, West Asia
and parts of Europe steadily grow, avoiding US interference. If Asia and Europe
succeed in building strong economic links, the role and influence of North
America across the entire Eurasian super-continent will be reduced.
In short, Washington sees Iran as the major obstacle to its plan to dominate
West Asia, and also an important part of the Chinese and Russian led Eurasian
integration, which they oppose. That is why, in my view, we see these desperate
measures, with President Trump threatening most of his 'allies' over Iran. The
main effect, in the longer run, will be to isolate the USA.
Tasnim: The Trump administration recently threatened to cut Iranian oil
exports to zero, saying that countries must stop buying its oil from Nov. 4 or
face financial consequences. Washington later softened its threat, saying that
it would allow reduced oil flows of Iranian oil, in certain cases. Since oil is
a strategic product and countries around the world always demand it, do you
think that the US is able to carry out this threat at all?
Anderson: The US has been threatening many countries not to buy Iran’s oil.
This has some influence on some countries. India, for example, seems to be
hedging its bets. The French company Total has pulled out of its investments, no
doubt judging that its business in the USA is worth more to it than those in
Iran. However, oil is a global commodity and there are limits on how much
economic loss companies and states will tolerate in seeking ‘safer’ but more
expensive alternatives. And of course, the sanctions on Iran hardly deter the
other countries which face their own unilateral sanctions from Washington.
For those which chose to maintain at least normal business links with Iran,
there are some unintended consequences which are unfavorable to the US. China,
for example, which has no problems in purchasing Iran’s oil, seems to have
created a boom in Iranian shipping, through its deal to import Iranian oil in
Iran’s ships, with Iran covering the insurance side (https://www.rt.com/business/436466-china-iran-oil-us-sanctions/).
The ‘petrodollar’ is also being undermined. China, which has been trading in
bilateral swaps with many countries over the last decade, is quite happy to pay
for its oil in Yuan.
US sanctions do bring pressure to bear on vulnerable countries, not least Iraq,
still struggling to escape a virtual colonization by the US, after the brutal
2003 invasion. Iran-Iraq trade is substantial and of strategic importance, for
both neighboring countries. In the short term, the US can pressure Iraq over its
use of US dollars. However, as US analysts have recognized, these pressures are
‘backfiring’. Given the popular mood and economic realities, even the most
compliant Iraqi leaders ‘cannot afford’ to cut economic ties with Iran. If Iraq
‘violates sanctions and is hit by US penalties, it is likely to place the
country further into Iran’s sphere of influence’ (https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-iran-sanctions-are-backfiring-in-iraq-trade-gas-supplies/).
US unilateral sanctions on Russia also add to pressures on other US allies to
move out of the North American financial sphere. Germany’s foreign minister
Heiko Mass recently called for an alternative to the SWIFT system for
international transactions (https://www.ft.com/content/23ca2986-a569-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b),
not least so as German industry can purchase cheaper Russian gas. Now the
Europeans have been slow in this regard, but at least they are talking openly
about seeking greater independence from their NATO ‘big brother’.
In short, US sanctions will cut some markets and force some adjustments.
However, the demand for Iran’s oil is not going away. Unlike a decade ago, the
US has few allies in this campaign. Fairly rapidly this economic aggression will
consolidate relations amongst Iran’s more reliable strategic partners, weaken
the petrodollar and pressure a range of more independent policies amongst US
allies.
Tasnim: Trump's threat is part of his walking away from the Iran nuclear
deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He also plans to
fully reinstate anti-Tehran sanctions from November 4. In the meantime, the EU
has vowed to counter Trump’s renewed sanctions on Iran, including by means of a
new law to shield European companies from punitive measures. German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas recently said Europe should set up payment systems
independent of the US if it wants to save the JCPOA. What do you think about the
EU’s role in reducing Washington’s pressures against Tehran and saving the deal?
Anderson: Washington’s cynical rejection of the JCPOA / Barjam has
undermined its support across the board. The Europeans clearly took the nuclear
agreement more seriously than Washington. While European companies are now under
serious pressure to abandon their Iranian investments, so as to maintain their
US investments, the European Union has begun to ‘grow a spine’ in face of
Trump’s bullying.
Alongside the German proposal for bypassing the US controlled SWIFT system, the
EU has re-activated its ‘block law’, to protect companies doing business in Iran
(https://www.dw.com/en/eu-to-reactivate-blocking-statute-against-us-sanctions-on-iran-for-european-firms/a-43826992).
This law was first created to avoid the third-party impact of unilateral US
sanctions on Cuba. The statute protects ‘against the effects of the
extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country’. It
prohibits compliance with non-recognized US sanctions while rejecting any court
rulings to apply US penalties.
There is genuine resentment in Europe at US unilateralism and at Trump’s
bullying, but the EU has been deeply embedded in US strategy for some time and
its incipient moves must be read in that light. There are some rumblings of
European economic independence, as regards US aggression against both Russia and
Iran; but greater dynamism for structural change is coming from the east,
through the Eurasian initiatives of China and Russia.
Will the JCPOA/Barjam survive? I suspect not. The US has openly betrayed the
deal and split with all other players. Most of the Europeans seem to want to
maintain the deal, but if they cannot deliver on their side, to remove sanctions
against Iran, there is nothing in it for Tehran. Russia and China are long gone.
US analysts recognize that Washington has no credibility to renegotiate anything
and nothing to offer; so there will be no second JCPOA (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/there-will-be-no-second-iran-deal-27507).
Both Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the country’s Foreign Minister Javad
Zarif are now calling the 2015 agreement a ‘mistake’. That seems to bridge the
gap between Iran’s liberals and ‘principlists’ over the matter: greater Iranian
unity in face of an imperial project with seriously eroded support. Why would
Iran allow foreign surveillance of its energy and nuclear sector, and get
nothing in return? Time to move on, it seems.
Source: Tasnim