Is negotiating with the United States, after the brutal sanctions and the assassination of General Soleimani,
a logical solution for Iran? A retired American economics professor warns: “Trusting Washington is a grave mistake.
A retired economics professor from the University of Pittsburgh, Michael Yates, in an interview with a reporter from a Muslim Press, stated:
“U.S. sanctions against Iran are a war crime, and Washington and Israel are seeking regime change in Iran.
The full transcript of the interview is as follows:
The United States, on one hand, has imposed new sanctions on Iran and, on the other hand, has expressed a willingness to negotiate. How do you justify this contradiction? Is this approach a maximum pressure strategy to force Iran into negotiations?
I would put no trust whatsoever in anything the Trump administration says or does. These are fascists, and Iran is seen as an enemy. Negotiations with this administration would be a dangerous game because Trump is mentally unstable, and even if he isn’t, he will ignore deals when it suits him.
How do the recent U.S. sanctions against Iran, particularly in the energy and military sectors, impact the atmosphere of negotiations between the two countries? Do these sanctions further diminish Iran’s trust in Washington?
The sanctions against Iran are both illegal internationally and immoral. The social distress they cause makes them war crimes. Any negotiations should demand that they end before bargaining, with a period to see if this is being honored. Again, there is no reason ever to trust Washington. The United States has a history of violence, deceit, and destruction. Today, Iran is viewed as an enemy, the last bastion of anti-U.S. and anti-Israel warmongering in the region. The destruction of Iran will never be off the table.
Role in reducing tensions and facilitating negotiations? Or is Europe itself part of the problem?
As we have seen with both Palestine and Ukraine, Europe is part of the problem. Trump’s hostility toward Europe and NATO should convince European nations to take a more independent stand. But it would be shocking if they did. Today, these countries are hurting economically, have no serious military force, and have their serious problems, namely, the rise of fascist forces. They are unlikely, in the end, to go against whatever the United States does, beyond some high-sounding words.
Iran has repeatedly stated that it will not negotiate under the pressure of sanctions. In your opinion, can Iran find a way to reduce tensions while maintaining its positions? Or will the sanctions push Iran toward strengthening its military and nuclear programs?
I cannot criticize Iran’s statement that it won’t negotiate under the pressure of sanctions. It might be able to de-escalate tensions if, say, China and Russia were involved in what happens, as well as at least some of the Arab nations. It is hard to see how a country with nearby violent adversaries (Israel, US forces in the region) able and willing to engage in mass destruction and death can not seek to bolster its military. The trouble is that Israel, which has become a fascist state, stands ready to bomb Iran. The risks all around, including nuclear war, are palpable.
How can countries like Russia and China influence the process of sanctions and negotiations between Iran and the United States? Can Iran’s cooperation with Russia serve as leverage against the U.S.?
Any alliances Iran can make with countries like Russia and China could be useful. The Chinese government is very skilled in political maneuvering. It has offered ways out of the Ukraine war, for example. And it has been good at keeping the US at bay over Taiwan. Russia, as well, has shown considerable political savvy, and at the same time, it has built up its defenses. The US and NATO (and Israel, too) have rapidly depleted their military capabilities, which is, from a global perspective, a good thing. And in the end, I doubt any of Iran’s adversaries want a full-scale ground war. These factors could give Iran some leverage and hope for averting disaster.
In your opinion, what is the long-term U.S. strategy toward Iran? Is Washington’s ultimate goal regime change in Iran, or simply limiting its nuclear and military capabilities?
Both the US and Israel want regime change in Iran, without question. Iran’s actual impact on the region and its potential impact are considerable. And I doubt that the European powers, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are not aligned with the US/Israeli aim. And while I wish that there was more consideration of those without much power, including the working masses, in Iran by its leaders and that these groups had more power, the country should be wary of the ability of the US and its allies to undermine a government from within, as has happened in many countries through so-called color revolutions. Iran doesn’t want to end up like Libya. I do think that everywhere in the world, including Iran, much greater inequality in as many aspects of life would, in the end, make societies more cohesive and people happier. Despite many problems, the Soviet Union greatly improved the lives of the majority of its people, with greater equality, including between men and women, and this is surely one of the reasons why the people were willing to make what to us today are unimaginable hardships to defeat the Nazis in World War Two.
How have the recent U.S. sanctions impacted Iran’s economy? Could these sanctions push Iran toward negotiations, or will they lead to increased resistance and self-sufficiency in the country?
Every honest study will show that US sanctions have terrible impacts on the health and well-being of a country’s people. Look at the studies of what sanctions have done to Venezuela, for example. And look at the hundreds of thousands of child deaths in Iraq that resulted from sanctions. Yet, then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked this question by a veteran US reporter: “We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” answered, with a callousness difficult to comprehend: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” Resistance and as much self-sufficiency as possible are most assuredly necessary in the face of such criminality. The nations of the Global North consider people in the Global South to be their inferiors. As General Westmoreland said about the Vietnamese, “The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient.” I am sure that many Iranians are well aware of the view of themselves held by all too many people in rich nations.
Some analysts believe that Trump’s contradictory statements are part of a psychological warfare strategy to create divisions within Iran. What is your opinion on this? Could this strategy be effective?
Psychological warfare has been a critical part of efforts by the United States to maintain and deepen its global dominance. It takes many forms, but whether it be through cultural organizations, radio broadcasts, divide and conquer strategies, or even art, music, and literature, the goal is always to defeat any governments that in any way challenge US hegemony. In some ways, Trump seems more keen on using direct force to get his way, but he has always tried to split apart his antagonists (real and imagined), even within his government. Right now, here in the US, his capricious and ever-changing directives and words tend to sow confusion and to divide us from one another. Nothing really can be put past him. He is an egomaniac, severely damaged emotionally, and he will do anything and everything to get his way. Dealing with him can be a daunting task.
Given recent developments, do you think Iran-U.S. relations will improve shortly, or will we see an escalation of tensions and possibly military conflicts?
I am a lifelong pessimist who tries to maintain at least minimal hope for a better world. This hope has become increasingly difficult to sustain. So, my bet would be on an escalation of tensions and possible military conflict. In any case and for any country forced to deal directly with the United States, it is best to prepare for the worst and hope it does not come to pass. I read recently that the US had prepared a document declaring that the US would wage wars against 7 countries. Here is what aljazeera wrote: “A former commander of NATO’s forces in Europe, [Wesley] Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” So far, Iran is the only one of the 7 not ripped apart by wars and other disruptions instigated by the United States and Israel. This probably tells us something about what is likely in the future.
