Iran Has Been Framed With False Charges

Iran, the US and Saudi Arabia have turned into the three sides of triangle diplomatic story in which Tehran was accused of conspiring to murder the Saudi Ambassador to Washington Adel al-Jubeir. As the media frenzy dies down, doubts about the credibility of accusations leveled against Iran are becoming stronger. In an interview with IRD, Kaveh Afrasiabi, international affairs analyst speaks of a Washington-fabricated scenario aimed at pressurizing Iran.

IRD: Let’s start from here, how credible do you see the US allegations against Iran? Accusing Iran of conspiring against the Saudi ambassador to Washington seems more like a plot contrived by the Americans to manipulate the Iran dossier.

I’m convinced that this is a baseless, fabricated accusation against Iran that will be untenable in any court of law. I once took Harvard University to the US Supreme Court in a civil rights case and am quite familiar with the rules of evidence. US has no credible evidence to corroborate its allegation of Iranian government's involvement in the alleged plot. Once we scrutinized the details of the allegations, we discover a number of inconsistencies and inexplicable holes, in addition to the fact that the whole terror plot bespeaks of political motivation and a malicious attempt to smear and frame Iran. So I think we need a sober analysis to deconstruct the narrative in order to pinpoint the trustworthy nature of these allegations; case in point; whereas, initially the US officials claimed that money had been directly wired from Iran to Mexico, yet subsequently they changed their story, and now the official line is that the money from the Iranian sources was transferred from “undisclosed foreign entities” to a US bank.  Investigative reporter Gareth Porter has examined the criminal complaint and shows that the purpose of the money transfer was for a drug deal, and that this was a sting operation by the FBI in which the FBI informant acting as a member of the Mexican cartel deliberately lured the Iranian side to the issue of a terror plot and there is not one single quotation from the Iranian party confirming this matter. So this raises serious questions about the authenticity of the allegations, lending itself to the plausible suspicion that we are dealing with basically a busted drug deal cunningly exploited by the US officials (as a cold-war tactic) to be connected to a fantasy terror plot in order to smear Iran in the international community and to undermine Iran's legitimacy and credibility at a very delicate time in Middle East politics.

IRD: Knowing that the US played the same game during Saddam Hussein’s rule, alleging that he possesses WMDs, and attacked the country under that pretext, and the only thing undiscovered were the alleged WMDs, why is the same scenario performed for Iran, which has a nuclear dossier in the UN Security Council, as well as human rights dossier, but is not unpopular as Saddam Hussein was in the region, and has its own partners in the Middle East.

KA: Well, I think that this has to do with confluence of factors that deal partly with American domestic politics, the fact that Obama is seeking reelection and basically has little to show in the form of foreign policy success; and he has been under tremendous pressure by the pro-Israel forces in the US politics and criticized for his lame response to the Palestinian initiative for statehood and we all know that the Jewish support for Obama’s reelection bid is very critical. So one might legitimately argue that this is aimed at appeasing the Jewish voters, in addition to that, the United States is angry at Iran over a number of issues one of which is Iraq. As we know, the Iraqi government has rejected the US attempts to retain token military force over the issue of capitulation and legal immunity and my opinion is that the Americans see Iran's hand behind that, but this is not a valid criticism and the US has to blame its own rigid and inflexible interventionist attitude that leads to these types of situations and Iran should not be blamed for the disagreement between the US and the Iraqi government over this particular matter. On a broader level, the US is of course concerned and one might even say panicked about Iran benefiting from a ”power vacuum” in the region. And one can see the elements of deliberate effort on the part of the US to contract this momentum by leveling these a fictitious charges against Iran in order to put Iran on the defensive and reverse some of its political regional fortunes. Furthermore, we need to factor in the role of both Saudi Arabia and Israel, because with respect to Israel, one cannot rule out the possibility of a complex intelligence operation behind these allegations involving the Israeli secret service Mossad -- and some experts believe there is Mossad’s footprint behind this. There could also be some intelligence cooperation between Israel and some other regional powers that are concerned about Iran's rising regional power, Saudi Arabia is grappling with the potential domino effect not only in Bahrain but also in Yemen and triggering Shi’a unrest in Saudi Arabia itself; and the leadership in Saudi Arabia is feeling the heat of the political insecurity and so we’re really dealing with the politics of scapegoating Iran for problems besetting both US and its key allies in the region, so I think one can dub this matter as a psychological warfare against Iran as part of a complex concerted effort in order to put Iran on the defensive and reverse the momentum benefitting Iran as result of the Arab Spring and Islamic Enlightenment and the imminent departure of the US’ forces from the region.

IRD: NY Times published a piece about US launching fresh multi-pronged attacks after months of silence about Iran. In the meantime, Washington has asked Ban Ki-moon to consider Iran's nuclear dossier and draw a final report on the case. We also heard Ahmed Shaheed’s Human Rights report on Iran on Monday. The claims made in his report may not be surprising, but bear import as they came along with this wave of pressure. Are these simultaneous pressures more of a diplomatic gesture or they are a prelude to real action against Iran? What is the US pondering? To impose further sanctions on Iran or to start war in an already conflict-ridden region?

Well, I personally do not think that Americans are serious about getting into a war with Iran. Because that would be irrational, it would harm their own interests as well as interests of their allies in the region, it could harm the world economy and, as a result,  there are limits to how far they can play with the military card. We need to shift the focus somehow, because prior to this, Iran had made a number of overtures: two hikers had been released, president Ahmadinejad in [UN General Assembly in] New York had made some overtures to the US and offered to suspend to 20 percent uranium enrichment if there is outside supply, an idea that was fully endorsed by a number of leading American experts, and overall, the climate between Iran and the US was inching forward, towards a breakthrough, via the fuel swap. It was becoming more of a realistic scenario, and then this sudden outburst of Iranophobic allegations put an immediate stop to this whole process and was a showstopper. One obviously wonders if the two issues are somewhat related and there are unanswered question on this matter So the fact that president Obama has immediately seized on this issue to renew US’ accusations against Iran on the nuclear issue indicates that there is a systematic effort on the part of the US government to demonize Iran and isolate it in the international community and to succeed where it has failed on the nuclear question, because it is well-known -among at least Iran experts in the West- that the sanctions have failed to bring Iran to its knees and force it to change it course on its civilian nuclear program. So, we see a new American offensive against Iran that is multi-pronged. It is part nuclear, part security, part political and I think it is based on the confluence of internal, external, regional and global factors.

IRD: I want to get into US domestic politics. We have the US presidential election in 20112 and Obama is not as empty-handed in foreign policy as the Republicans claim. When he started his career, Middle East was quite touchy about George Bush’s diplomacy and US popularity in the region was at its ebb. Obama made some gestures, including his Cairo speech, and he promised to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict in the first term of his presidency, but he failed. He won the Nobel Prize. Surprisingly, he left Mubarak high and dry during the Arab Spring. What is with the wave of attacks with a man who has killed Bin Laden, alQaeda leaders in Pakistan, in Yemen he was more successful. His anti-Iran sanctions and the consensus he build up against Tehran were more effective than George Bush’s efforts, but as Obama takes one step back, his Republican rivals come one step forward. There is as you said the pro-Israel lobby too, which is influential in the US elections and Obama has something to offer them. How far will Obama go with appeasement of the anti-Iranian elements, and why should Iran be the victim? Nearly one year ago, we had the WikiLeaks disclosures. Saudi Arabia had had no assassination plans for Iran, but had called for the US to “cut off the head of the snake.” They had agreed to provide Israel with air corridors to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. These allegations were never emphasized.

KA: With Saudi Arabia, they receive millions of barrels of oil from them on a daily basis, and there is no pressure whatsoever on Saudi Arabia from the US toward political modernization and a more inclusive and participatory political system. The US’ dilemma is that it is giving lip service to the Arab Spring and, at the same time; it is excluding a whole section of the Arab World, i.e., the whole sheikhdoms led by Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf, from the process of democratization and political participation. That is a built-in dilemma for the US foreign policy. The fact that the US’ invested interests in the region dictates sustaining these exclusionary archaic political systems that have lacked the motivation in the area of political modernization. With respect to Iran, the Obama administration has recycled the previous pattern of wild swings from obsessive attention to benign neglect. And we have seen many months go by without President Obama without mentioning Iran and now suddenly it has become a focal point of the US’ foreign policy. This has the elements of foreign policy disarray, as well as schizophrenia; because in the same breath as these allegations are leveled at Iran, we see that US envoy to New York Susan Rice makes a feeble attempt to reach out to Iran. So I think that this indicates a level of ambiguity on the US’ part, that while it continues its coercive diplomacy and efforts to escalate threats by putting [Iran's] Central Bank on a sanction list which would introduce a significant escalation tantamount to economic warfare against Iran and economic blockade against Iran, at the same time, we seen an implicit, and very feeble, tendency on the part of the US, to open up channels of dialogue and that is what I mean by schizophrenia and bifurcated approach that is contradictory in nature and, I hasten to add, of course looking at the overall situation in the region, it is very clear why the US needs to have dialogue in Iran. The security situation in Afghanistan is extremely fragile, with the potential to worsen in the proximate future, and the US has a timetable for troop withdrawal, has an on-going tussle with the Pakistani government, as well as a number of other regional players; and the international summit coming up in December in Bonn, that in order to be successful requires the full participation of Afghanistan’s neighbors. So in the absence of dialogue wit Iran, which is as well all know is a central player regional security, it is a clear given that the present impasse in Afghanistan will not be resolvable, and in turn, this requires serious and sincere effort by the US to pursue the path of dialogue with Iran and that requires great deal of preparatory work prior to the Bonn summit in order to reach a better understanding with Iran about the situation in Afghanistan. This may call for bilateral security dialogue on Afghanistan, just as Iran had a number of such dialogues with the US over Iraq. So it would be inadvisable and unwise on the US’ part to commit the greatest error of ignoring Iran's huge regional role in regional stability and to pursue this one-track coercive approach against and follow a self-defeating approach that would likely result in further regional instability, this while there are possibilities of win-win scenarios which need to be explored. But that requires a more prudent US diplomacy towards Iran that is unfortunately absent until today, and one might look at the nature of the Obama's foreign policy team and the over-presence of some hawkish pro-Israel elements that prevent a sincere and serious policy of engaging Iran. We may also look at Obama's preoccupation with internal and economic issues that have distracted US president .Equally, if not more important, is the destructive, negative impact of third parties on US-Iran relations. These third parties have historically acted as breaks on US-Iran relations, precluding any serious attempt at rapprochement and détente. So the US really needs to insulate itself on these counterproductive influences by third parties and perhaps that would mean and an effort on Washington to no longer box the Iran diplomacy through the multilateral approach and instead seek direct dialogue with Iran because of the negative influence of third parties.

IRD: So if you want to put it in the clear words, would you say Washington’s ultimate goal is to open a direct channel of dialogue with Iran?

KA: Well, I think this could be an unintended ramification of this whole bizarre scenario, and in the topsy-turvy world of diplomacy, there are always intended and unintended consequences, and who knows this could evolve in different directions. The US -addicted to coercive diplomacy against Iran- is now threatening to escalate it. But the other side of coin is that this has prioritized the Iran issue, and some top US officials, according to media reports, have questioned the wisdom of Obama's rash judgments and tougher sanctions and, knowing the American political system, I think that this will generate heated debates within the administration between hawks and doves and the feasibility study of various options that exist, from the worst to the best, one of which is the path of dialogue; because the US as a superpower and Iran as an important regional power, have a number of issues on their plate that require dialogue, and some of what we have seen in the form of these allegations may stem from the absence of dialogue and absence of understanding Iran's political system on the part of US decision-makers, the fact that they’re succumbing to a raw Iranophobic plot story --  that bears no resemblance to the reality of contemporary Iran and is an insult to the Iranian nation and requires immediate apology to Iran.

IRD: You pointed to Israel. Mahmoud Abbas has submitted a UN statehood bid, and we have the swap deal, that is, the release of Gilad Shalit in return for Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu and Lieberman have demonized Iran since their rise to power and always rung the alarms about Iran's threat. To what extent could be the allegations of Iran’s assassination plot be a ruse to divert attention from Palestine’s plight and blunt the support given to their statehood bid, even by European countries. Is the assassination plot scenario partially intended to serve Israel's interests?

KA: I think that we need to view all these concurrent developments in tandem with each other. They are not unrelated, and the coincidence of Israel's concessions to the Palestinians with the intense allegations against Iran and the global campaign US is trying to foster with the help of its European allies raises curious questions about what is the game plan, and is this part of a game changing strategy by the US and Israel to lessen the pressure on Tel Aviv and increase the pressure on Tehran by improving Israel's international public image and heightening the global concerns about Iran by linking it to terrorism in the aftermath of Bin Laden’s death and serious blows inflicted on alQaeda? It is quite possible that the US’ intentions of linking Iran with terrorism is to basically replace the Iranian Revolutionary Guards with alQaeda and to create a more conducive situation for Israel to toy with the military card. One cannot rule it out although the probability of an Israeli strike on Iran, in my opinion it remains low to moderate, not very likely for a variety of reasons.

IRD: Could you point to some specific reasons?

KA: A number of logistical, political, geostrategic challenges stand against this scenario. The Israeli military officials themselves admit it that even in the best-case scenario hitting Iran's nuclear installations this would be a temporary remedy and within two or three years Iran can refurbish its facilities and continue. So, this would be a panacea for what Israelis perceive as an existential threat to them. The military solution is not much of a solution in addition to the fact that Israel would have to receive the consent of some of Iran's neighbor to use their air space and this would be way problematic for countries like Turkey or Iraq. This is not to mention their fear of Iran’s robust retaliation.

IRD: What about Saudi Arabia?

KA: I doubt very much that the Saudis would go that far, even in these circumstances. So that is one. The other one is that Iran has made it way clear that it regards any attack by Israel as an attack by the US. The Iranian counter-strategy is ‘extended deterrence’ and that would likely engulf America’s oil allies in the Persian Gulf and  jeopardize the  oil flow from the Persian Gulf and hamper the whole economic recovery. The Middle East is already a way volatile the power cake, causing war with Iran would throw the entire region into serious turmoil that from the vantage point of the world economy and US’ own interests is unacceptable. They are very high-cost involved with this scenario that act as prohibitive factors.

IRD: One part of the alleged Iran's plot is its attempt to blow up the Israeli embassy in Washington. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel have kept silent about that claim. Why?

KA: That is very interesting because if this allegations were valid you would have seen the Israelis making a big fuss about it and I think they know that this is fabricated and part of a psychological warfare against Iran and they don’t want to put themselves in the limelight because as I said they probably have a fingerprint in this story. They prefer to stay in the background and let the others take the offensive against Iran. Invoking the whole issue of Argentina is meant to resurrect the memories of 1994, bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires and the allegations leveled against Iran. Despite the fact that we know that at the time, Argentina was supplier of nuclear fuel to Iran and was Iran's nuclear partner and some MOUs were signed for further nuclear cooperation that were instantly interrupted after the bombing; so those bombings did not serve Iran's interests but Israel's -- which in turn raises the possibility of a false flag operation  both then and now, that is,  the present allegations against Iran that have all the markings of a false flag operation, a sophisticated intelligence operation, perhaps with operation of two or more countries in order to attach the label ‘terrorism’ to Iran to escalate the sanction regimes and reverse Iran's regional fortunes.

IRD: So you say that behind the stage, Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel have agreed to pressurize or ostracize Iran or intensify the sanctions.

KA: I think that is the most likely scenario. Although we are in the dark about the story and a great deal is unknown, but once we deconstruct this whole narrative and contextualize it, this hypothesis becomes plausible: a false flag operation, which puts a showstopper to prospect of a breakthrough with respect to the nuclear fuel swap and normalizing Iran's nuclear program. Iran has expanded its cooperation with the IAEA, even the IAEA chief recently applauded Iran for its nuclear transparency. So, with one instant offensive, the US and its allies are hitting several targets, yet the problem is that the allegations are so absurd, questioned by their own experts in US and Europe, that they can backfire on the accusers, Obama in particular, since it shows a “rogue” US president who has rushed to judgment, taking stern action over an “alleged” plot that is still the subject of an on-going legal process.  In light of recent US authorized murder of a US citizen accused of terrorism, this shows Obama’s descent to legal nihilism, in some respects even worse than Bush.

IRD: So the reason for Obama's rush to exploit the situation is to forge an international consensus against Iran as soon as possible, otherwise the glitches in the story would come to the fore.

KA: Exactly, because in some ways, this is like a historical déjà vu, that is, the WMD hoax prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, regardless of the public criticism, that was a successful scenario. The US managed to go to Iraq and occupy the country. So why not resort to another one? This is a bad bad precedent I think. Old habits are hard to quit and US is now despite President Obama's pledge of meaningful changes in US’ foreign policy has continued to follow the footsteps of the Bush administration by resorting to a campaign of lies and distortions in order to smear Iran, link it to terrorism and pursue its own sinister objectives against Tehran. But if the perpetrators of Iraq’s invasion had been punished, then the US would at least pause before engaging in this mischievousness against Iran.

IRD: How likely is that Iran faces a similar scenario that was written for Iraq. That is, its dossier be submitted to the UN Security Council.

KA: This is an interesting question because Iran’s opponents think that Iran has some geostrategic vulnerabilities today, with Iran's key ally Syria  under siege at home. The Israelis are making overtures to Palestinians to quiet the Palestinian front and Chavez is sick. Iran's global alliances are some causes of concern. We see convergence of anti-Iran viewpoints and interests among some regional and international players. That is their perception and of course requires prudent crisis management by Iran. I think we acted swiftly to these allegations at the United Nations by taking the lead to complain.  We must make sure that they do not succeed in turning this into the spectacle of a lengthy “UN fact finding” with the terror label hanging over Iran indefinitely -- that would be falling into America's trap. Iran’s demands are categorical: dismissal of the absurd charges and apology. The Supreme Leader has prudently responded by dismissing these false allegations and Iran has used its outlets of public diplomacy to educate the rest of the world about false and concocted nature of these allegations. Given the collective global memory of the Iraq War and the lies that went into it by US and UK, I think that we are dealing with a more sophisticated international community that is not willing to allow itself to be so easily manipulated by campaigns of falsifications and lies. That is to Iran's benefit, acting as a major obstacle vis-à-vis these sinister plans against Iran, lessening the prospect of Iraq’s scenario replayed against Iran.

IRD: So you say that like Iraq, Iran is facing false allegations, but this time the story would not have a similar ending.

KA: Exactly. And one of the reasons is that the US’ military is overstretched and US military officials have themselves admitted that the war with Iran is unwise and would be deleterious for the US military and I doubt there is any high Pentagon official who favors war with Iran. There is a division of perspectives in the US government on this.

IRD: Do you believe that US intends to toughen sanctions against Iran to force it towards concession?

KA: Definitely. And I think that the intention is to achieve another UN resolution and to pass more unilateral sanctions both by US and Europe; and as I said if they proceed with the threats of sanctioning the Central Bank, this is a very serious measure with serious consequences, affecting the Iranian economy and I would imagine that Iran will responds firmly, even resorting to hard power responses in the region against such flagrant acts of economic warfare against Iran.

IRD: I want to single out three main factors that could potentially force Iran to make concessions: the decline in the power of Iran's allies in Syria and Palestine, the impact of economic sanctions and human rights issues coming to the fore after the 2009 post-election unrests. With a look at the three-decade conflict between Tehran and Washington, to what extent would Tehran possibly yield to pressures?

KA: The United States has a way one-dimensional approach towards Iran that has not been effective. Iran has remained defiant against the sanction regimes and has cultivated its own networks of friends in the region and beyond and has managed to progress despite the Western pressure. So the US is now seeking to take it to another level, to gain what it has failed to achieve so far, and that is a major gambit with high risk that will definitely not yield the kind of result that the US is seeking. In light of the fact that a number of regional issues such as stability issues in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's neighbors with whom Iran has cordial relations, require collective effort between Iran and the international community to promote stability in the region. I think that the US has not really pursued a well-thought approach towards Iran and part of that is due to those wild swings of neglecting Iran and then focusing but from only the vantage point of animosity and confrontation. As a result of it, the potential areas of mutual understanding and confidence-building are overlooked.  So this is a very complex situation with various dimensions that involve third parties and their meddling and so on, in addition to US’ upcoming election and the domestic priorities that all determine the situation and have brought us to this point of escalating tension and confrontation, at the same time with unintended consequence of opening some vistas for dialogue. So which direction it would go depends on the prudent diplomacy of both sides, to reflect on the overall situation and see if there are coinciding interests that require dialogue and further understanding.

IRD: Then we come to the EU, Arab League and Turkey. The European Union has mostly supported the US’ foreign policy, especially in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack and Washington’s invasion of Afghanistan. They somehow faltered before the Iraq War and some European states refused to join the military operation. How far will EU follow the US in Iran's case, despite the lip service? What would the consequences be for Iran?

KA: This is a difficult time for Europe, because of the problems in the Eurozone and the weakened Euro is less capable of independent action, that means Europe is more amenable to follow the US’ footsteps. There are expression of support for more organic trans-Atlantic union and partnership between Europe and the US. In terms of an independent foreign policy by the EU, unfortunately the trend is towards more reliance on the US leadership. Additionally, the idea of a homogenous Europe is a myth and we have seen in the reaction comparing French and the British with the Germans towards these allegations. One can see that the Germans for example are a lot more skeptical and some key leading German experts dismiss these allegations as nonsensical, whereas the official reaction in Paris and London has been echoing the US’ accusations. There is a division inside Europe itself, and will exacerbate further if this matter escalates to a more potentially dangerous situation. The United States has no vested economic interests with Iran compared with Europe, which is Iran's number one trade partner. So the Europeans have to be careful not to sheepishly follow Americans on this matter, because it could have disastrous consequences for their vested interests including energy security. Iran through Turkey is an energy partner with Europe with prospects for greater cooperation on the energy front with the Europe, that wants to free itself from heavy dependency on Russia. There is a high stake here that the Europeans need to carefully consider before jumping on the US’ Iranophobic bandwagon.

IRD: How about the Arab League? Iran's relations with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia soared following the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain and Arabs made unexpected reactions towards Iran. Saudi Arabia is the economic partner of many Arab countries, and there is also the issue of Shi’a-Sunni conflict. Would Arabs side with Iran or the US and Saudi Arabia?

KA: Well, the Arab League has for sometimes been a weak player and its recent decision to request the NATO intervention in Libya has not been very popular in some parts of the Arab World and we see the Egypt emerging slowly but surely as an independent player and the whole make-up of the Arab World is in a state of transition. We should not give too much credence to rhetorical statements by some Arab League members. On the whole, the Arab League is disunited and incapable of collective opinion..

IRD: How about Turkey? Their first response to US’ allegations against Iran was that they could not comment on the issue hastily, but in the Syrian crisis they left Tehran high and dry.

KA: I was just in Turkey and had the chance to speak to the Foreign Minister [Ahmet Davutoglu]. Turkey is part-European part-Asian with multi-regional identity and some of its interests do not coincide with each other, as the result of which we see these flip-flops on foreign policy matters. That has caused a degree of incoherence in Turkish foreign policy. Turkey has had contradictory approach toward the Arab Spring. It has prioritized democratization in Syria while keeping a blind eye towards the developments in Bahrain. It has shown some propensity to collaborate with Saudi Arabia over Syria and we all know they have consented to install the NATO radars on its soil despite the opposition by Iran and Russia. I would have hoped to see a more forceful condemnation of this whole plot against Iran by Turkish leadership  because clearly these allegations are fabricated and politically-motivated as the Iranian leadership has stated and any credible Iran expert looking at this has said so, numerous American experts as well as European experts, head of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Kenneth Katzman,  Gary Sick, and the list goes on. Turkey has its own crop of Iran experts, I am sure they share such opinion that the elite, disciplined Quds Corps would never engage in such childish, amateurish misadventure. So  I think the Turks needs to re-think and support Iran's position with full force. The US general approach towards Iran is wrong. It’s a Manichean approach, it’s the whole Bush mentality “if you are not with us then you’re against us” and an alternative approach is needed in which countries such as Iran with their own points of views and outlooks on regional issues and so on would be respected and not to be automatically viewed as the hostile ‘other’. In the absence of such deeper understandings, this lends itself to misperception and Iranophobia, which we see in full gear today. US needs –for its own interests- to arrive at a better understanding of Iran with the help of more sophisticated lenses. As it is right now, this is laden with misperception that is causing unnecessary tension and escalation of conflict. This is not either in Iran's interests or the US’.

IRD: What is your prediction about President Obama's political future and the 2012 election?

KA: I prefer not to predict because it is too early. There is a great deal of unhappiness with his policies among the US population and many people blame him for prioritizing the banks’ interests versus the people’s interests and you see the manifestation of that in the Occupy Wall Street movement mushrooming not only in the US but also all over the world. The major challenge for Obama is to address the unemployment and other economic issues to succeed in his reelection. He has got major challenges.

IRD: Could he be another Jimmy Carter?

KA: It is possible. I think his Republican opponents do not have terribly good record, Romney for example. This whole issue put Iran at the center stage of presidential debate and we are likely to see the candidates outrunning each other in Iran-bashing. This is very unfortunate, because Washington needs to have a very carefully cultivated and nuanced approach towards Iran which is seriously lacking in the US right now. Part of that is because the US does not really have good Iran experts. If you look at who the US consults with respect to Iran, a number of experts, some Iranian-born, haven’t been to Iran at all or only been there at their childhood. Iran experts from afar have given a whole set of wrong advices to the Obama administration for the past few years, without having a solid grasp of the Iranian political scene.

Dr. Kaveh Afrasiabi is an Iranian foreign affairs expert who has taught political science at Tehran University and Boston University. Afrasiabi was formerly a research scholar at Harvard University, Tehran's Center For Strategic Research and the Institute For Strategic Studies in Paris. He is the author of several books and hundreds of articles in prestigious journals and international newspapers, including The New York Times, the Guardian, Der Tagesspiegel, The Harvard International Review, Eurasianet.org, Middle East Journal, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Mediterranean Quarterly, Global Dialogue and the Iranian Journal of International Affairs. Dr. Afrasiabi is a regular contributor to UN Chronicle and Asia Times. His books include, After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy; Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts versus Fiction; Iran's Foreign Policy After September 11, co-authored with former Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Maleki; Looking for Rights at Harvard (2010) and UN Management Reform (forthcoming, 2011).