12/05/13 – Peter Jenkins – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here for MyHeroesThink.com.
They sell beautiful seven-inch busts of libertarian heroes Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and Harry Brown.
I've got the Harry Brown one on the bookshelf now.
Makes me smile every time it catches my eye.
These finely crafted statues from MyHeroesThink.com make excellent decorations for your desktop at work, bookends for your shelves, or gifts for that special individualist in your life.
They're also all available in colors now too.
Of course, gold, silver, or bronze.
Coming soon, Hayek, Hazlitt, Carlin.
Use promo code Scott Horton and save $5 at MyHeroesThink.com.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
We're on Liberty Express Radio and ScottHorton.org.
Full interview archives there.
More than 3,000 of them now.
Going back to 2003.
And don't forget to join up the chat room at ScottHorton.org slash chat.
All right, our first guest on the show today is Peter Jenkins.
He is the former UK ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations.
Welcome back to the show, Peter.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well, thank you.
Well, very good.
Very happy to have you here.
And I meant to say as well that you've been writing for the Loeb blog.
A lot of great pieces at our friend Jim Loeb's blog.
That's Loeb like your earlobe.
Loeblog.com.
This one is called Nuclear Related Sanctions on Iran Are No Longer Justified.
Well, isn't that interesting?
Because I thought that the only debate in the whole world was whether we should have a million sanctions on Iran or a million and ten.
And you're saying it's time already before the final deal to go ahead and start repealing the sanctions we've already got.
Well, I'm realistic enough to realize there won't be repeal before the final deal.
But what I'm trying to do is discourage Congress from bringing in even more sanctions at this stage.
Because as you know, all the debate in Washington at the moment in Congress is about bringing in even more sanctions.
It's not they haven't even begun to talk about lifting them.
And then now, as far as that goes, is there really a school of thought that says that, hey, now that we're halfway between an interim agreement and a final agreement, now's really the time to, to tighten the screws in order to really make sure that they go along with what we want?
Or is this clearly an act of sabotage?
Well, that's a good question.
I'm not the best placed person to answer that.
I mean, if you if you take what the senators and representatives say, if you take them at their word, then they appear to believe that it really would be helpful to bring in more sanctions at this point.
That is, to my mind, such an extraordinary idea that perhaps in reality, what they're saying does conceal some kind of ulterior purpose, i.e. sabotage.
Well, you know, it seems like in a way with the administration taking the pro talks position and trying to make this deal, they've actually staked out the hardest pro-peace position that's getting any attention at this point, for the most part.
And yet, they're almost as bad as the war party when it comes to all of the false assertions about this Iranian nuclear program that they claim to have to go to such lengths to prevent from becoming a nuclear weapon poised to destroy all that is good and true in the world.
I mean, it seems like the Democrats have conceded virtually everything that the Republicans and the Israelis have to say about the Iranian threat and then say, well, but their idea for solving it through these talks is the only way out.
And it seems like they're sort of painting themselves into a real corner with that instead of taking a more honest approach, which is that, come on, they're not really making nukes.
All we want to do is be extra sure of that.
That's all.
I agree with you 100%.
And I would add to what you've just said, that they've done themselves a disservice by claiming repeatedly that it's only because of the existing sanctions.
And as you know, they're a very, very heavy burden on lots of ordinary, decent, innocent Iranian people, not on the elite who may or may not have had a bit of a nuclear weapons program in the past.
But they claim that it's only because of these sanctions that Iran is now ready to talk to us and to do a deal.
One of the things I'm saying in my piece is that I don't agree with that.
I don't believe that.
I know these guys who are leading now in Iran, Rouhani and Zarif, and I'm convinced that for at least 10 years, they've wanted to do a deal.
In other words, even if the sanctions weren't in place, they would still be wanting to do a deal with us in order to demonstrate to us and to the rest of the world that whatever research they may have done in the past into nuclear weapons, that's the thing of the past, that's over now.
And their program is going to be peaceful.
And they want to have peaceful relations with the rest of the world.
All right, now, a couple of things there.
First of all, could you talk a little bit more about the effect of the sanctions on the Iranian people?
Because the way that the government and the media talk about, especially here in the US, it's a little bit better in the British papers, I guess, but the way they talk about is how specific and targeted they are against the worst of the worst, as Cheney might call them, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
These are the men who are being made to suffer under the sanctions.
And and rightly so, they're the ones who must be pressured into doing what we want.
And you seem to be implying that that's not the whole story.
It's 100% bull.
Am I allowed to use that word?
Oh, please do.
Yes, sir.
It's 100% bull.
Because the initial sanctions, the ones that were brought in a few years back by the United Nations between 2006 and 2010, those were targeted.
But since 2010, particularly at the end of 11 and beginning of 12, the US and EU brought in much, much wider ranging sanctions on Iranian trade, and the payments that that are associated with with trade.
And as a result of that, Iran's ability to to export and earn foreign exchange has been greatly curtailed.
And so has the tax revenue that the government gets from the export of oil.
So what you have is a dramatic decline in Iranian foreign exchange and Iranian tax revenues.
And since a large part of those tax revenues go on subsidies to ordinary people, to poor Iranians, help them to pay for their fuel, help them to pay for their food, there really has been a really big feed through into a decline in the living standards of millions and millions of, as I call them decent, innocent people.
I mean, people just like, like you and me, and probably the people who are listening to this show, decent, decent citizens.
And then who runs the oil black market out of Iran?
Well, that would be run by the Revolutionary Guard.
You're absolutely right.
So, so ironically, those who have profited from the sanctions are the Revolutionary Guards, the very people whom our governments claim the sanctions are targeted.
All the smuggling networks in Iran are controlled by the Revolutionary Guards, or at least nearly all.
I mean, I shouldn't nearly all.
I mean, I shouldn't say all because I don't know that as a certain for a certain fact, but everything I've read suggests that the Revolutionary Guards have a stranglehold on smuggling.
Well, they're certainly the most powerful gangsters in the country, no doubt about that.
Absolutely, absolutely.
All right.
Now, and if you could, please tell us more about your dealings with Rouhani and Zarif from back at your time representing the United Kingdom as ambassador to the IAEA.
Would this be this is the E3 talks?
This is the E3 talks, which were launched in October 2003, and which finally collapsed in July 2005.
And the reason why they collapsed was that the Iranians made a proposal to us that's actually very similar in many ways to what was agreed in in Geneva on the 24th of November of this year, but which we Europeans had to turn down because we didn't want to tolerate any uranium enrichment in Iran.
And and our American allies didn't want us to tolerate uranium enrichment either.
And so one of the most important changes that have happened since collapse of those talks in 2005, is that the West, the US and its European allies, we've we've, we've come around to realizing a that we don't need to prevent Iran from conducting enrichment provided that enrichment is geared to Iran's needs for nuclear fuel.
And and be and that we're not going to succeed in in preventing it because the Iranians just are not going to give way on this point.
And even if we were to bomb the enrichment plants, that would only buy us a biased time.
And, you know, once the technology exists, once people know how to do these things, then then you really can't stop them forever.
And but I haven't really talked about Rani and very fun.
Sorry.
But what I want to say is that reads a very, very impressive guys.
That they're, they're extremely intelligent.
They're very accomplished diplomats.
They understand the world, they understand Iran's position in the world.
And they they're, they're very able to calculate what's good for Iran and what's bad for Iran.
And and they have long since worked out that trying to get a nuclear bomb, it would be a crazy idea, a very bad idea.
Because Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons.
It's not threatened by anyone who has nuclear weapons.
Now that Saddam Hussein is long since dead.
And, and, and, and the rest of the world would react in ways that would really harm Iran, if it were to try and go all the way to getting a nuclear weapon.
So what I'm trying to the message I'm trying to leave with you and your listeners is that these are really smart guys who can work out what's good for Iran and what's bad for Iran.
And we need to place a lot of reliance, if you like, on their smartness, because if they don't want nuclear weapons, then we can be confident that Iran is not going to try and get nuclear weapons.
Right?
Now, let me ask you this.
The part about they were only ever considering it to keep Saddam out or in case Saddam ever came up with nukes.
Did they tell you that themselves?
No.
Well, I'll answer that question in two ways.
First of all, it occurred to me that this was the case when I learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency, that it was around 1984, 85, that Iran reached out for the first time to AQ Khan, the Pakistani engineer who stole enrichment technology from the Europeans, and then used it to create the Pakistani bomb.
Because it was in 84, 85, that we all of us, I mean, not all of us, but you know, intelligence communities and officials and so on, began to be aware that Saddam Hussein was putting together centrifuges with a view to producing weapons grade uranium for weapons.
So I, I inferred, I think I intuit that it was the news of what Saddam was up to, that made the Iranians change course, and start looking into what they could do to counter the threat from Saddam Hussein.
Because up till then, the revolutionary, the Islamic regime in Iran, had always said that it wasn't interested in nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons were contrary to to Shia Islam.
So that's one thing.
Secondly, I have discussed all of this with an Iranian diplomat, asked him whether it would be helpful for me to write about it.
And he, in effect, didn't say to me, Oh, you're crazy.
None of those things happened.
It's all in your imagination.
He simply, I mean, he tacitly, if you like, accepted that what I was surmising, had in fact been the case.
So I feel reasonably confident that it was Saddam Hussein that prompted Iran, during a period that lasted from 84-85 to Saddam's death, to flirt with nuclear weapons.
Hmm.
It's interesting, because that always sounded right to me.
But the only place I've ever heard it before was Seymour Hersh retelling what the CIA believes in his book, his article.
I'm not in bad company there, am I?
No, no, not at all.
So that's confirmation, in a sense, at least what's going on there.
And of course, that would have been after in 1981, the Israelis bombed Saddam's facilities and drove them underground and turned his civilian IAEA safeguarded nuclear program into a military secret, not safeguarded weapons program, which they say was only discovered in 1991.
But sounds to me like you're saying you knew about it six years before that.
Oh, I think I think I must be careful what I say.
I think it was well known to those whose job it is to find out what's going on.
Not to you at the time, but to them back then.
Not to me.
Yeah.
I understand.
Okay.
And then now during the talks, I think it's really important to get back to what you say about Rouhani and Zarif and that what they're telling you, that they really mean this, that they're saying that, no, really, we're not trying to make nukes.
It seems to me just sitting here from Texas and without experience and without having met these people or anything like that, it seems from the outside to me like what's happened here is they said to the Ayatollah something to the effect of, look, we're really not making nukes here.
We really are only making electricity.
We've got a little bit of extra uranium enough to be a bargaining chip or what have you to negotiate.
But so let's go ahead and negotiate and let's give in to Obama's demands to such a degree that he can claim his fears are allayed and that it's not just verified, but it's additional protocol verified.
It's extra verified.
And apparently the Supreme Leader said fine.
I mean, and in fact, all the headlines for the Christian Science Monitor and other papers reporting out of Iran are saying that Rouhani is making a really big deal out of this and selling it to the people of Iran.
That now's our chance to have this big opening with the Americans and everything.
They're making a real big deal out of this at home.
And so it just seems funny to me to contrast that with the rhetoric on the right, which is that this is all a Munich and you, Ambassador, and the rest of them are all a bunch of Chamberlains giving in to Hitler here when all other indications seem to point away from that is all.
All other indications point away from that.
It's nonsense to compare this with Munich.
It couldn't be further from the truth.
Well, it seems to me like maybe they're appeasing us, but okay, I guess.
Yes, yes.
To some extent, they are appeasing us.
To some extent, they're humoring us by saying, okay, we understand you won't just take our word for it.
Pity, but never mind.
We understand that.
So here's all the things we're prepared to volunteer in order to help you finally accept that we're not telling lies.
We're not trying to deceive you when we assure you, when we promise you, when we tell you that we don't want nuclear weapons and we don't have a nuclear weapons program.
And now, so how do you feel about the deal as it exists so far and the prospects for the final deal being made?
I mean, I guess if it was just the P5 plus one representatives meeting, they could get it worked out.
But there's all kinds of internal politics in the United States, in Europe, and of course, in Israel and in Iran as well.
I almost worry that six months is too long of a time to give the war party a chance to sabotage this thing.
Yes.
I don't know if you saw a piece I wrote a month or two back in which I argued that really, they shouldn't do try and do this in two steps.
They should try and do it in just one step.
And negotiate flat out between now and the end of the year in order to effectively get a comprehensive agreement by the end of the year.
Anyway, they chose not to take my advice.
And I'm not, not the least bit bitter about that.
They probably know best.
But what I'm saying is I do agree with you that that it's a little bit worrying that there will be several months during which the Israelis and possibly the Saudis, although I don't know if you saw that statement that the Saudi foreign ministry put out nine days ago, it was really quite positive about the initial steps.
So maybe the Saudis are beginning to change their tune.
But anyway, Netanyahu still hasn't changed his tune.
And as you and I and as many of others know, he's able to mobilize extraordinarily widespread support in the United States Congress, against the administration of the United States, the most extraordinary situation.
Anyway, so all these guys, Netanyahu and his US allies, they do have time now to, to try and undermine what was agreed in Geneva two weeks ago, and to try and put all sorts of obstacles in the path of concluding the second half of the agreement, what's called the comprehensive solution.
However, I think I'm, I think I'm confident that that that that they won't win that they won't win.
I think I think the US administration and its European allies are determined to persevere, provided they continue to feel that the the Iranians are being straight and, and are equally determined to to get an honest agreement.
And, and technically, it's not such a very, very difficult task that lies ahead of them, to find ways of ensuring that whatever goes on in in Iran on the nuclear side is solely for for peaceful purposes.
And that the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency are able to have the best possible access to, to verify that it's not an impossible task.
I think actually, what's going to be hardest of all, is persuading Congress to, to ultimately to lift sanctions.
Because as you know, what what what we in the West have had to promise in return for all the things that Iran is promising, is that we will in in the in due course, comprehensively lift all nuclear related sanctions.
And God knows how the administration is going to manage to persuade Congress to do that.
Yeah, well, you know, it's funny, I keep reading different conflicting accounts about how much authority he has under those different sanctions bills, to provide waivers or to refuse to enforce them in certain ways.
There was one piece of foreign policy that said Congress can't do anything about it.
If the President wants to waive these sanctions, that's all he has to do is want to.
But then others are saying that Congress has butted in and has created such constrictive language about under which circumstances he might be able to lift them, including they basically have to abandon their entire regime and become a Jeffersonian democracy, as Clint Leverett put it, before they'll be lifted.
So, you know, I don't really know about that.
Do you know much about the limits on Obama's authority to actually follow through on his own end of the bargain, the final bargain they're working toward here?
Like you, I've heard and I've read that the President certainly does have some quite extensive waiver authority.
But I think his waivers can only ever have force for six months at a time.
And that's important, because if you're a company that's wondering whether to start trading again with Iran, what you want for the future is certainty and predictability.
And so you're going to hesitate to start trading again, if all you've got to base yourself on is a presidential waiver that may or may not be renewed in six months time.
So it wouldn't be a satisfactory basis for moving forward to rely solely on presidential waivers.
And then, as you say, I'm not at all certain whether the president's waivers are comprehensive, or whether there aren't restrictions imposed on his ability to use his waiver authority by a Congress that, of course, doesn't want him to use that waiver authority.
All right, now, so here's another thing.
And I'm a libertarian piece, Nick, here, and my point of view is way outside of the mainstream and the way anybody involved in this thinks, really.
But I try to think from the point of view of the American government on this, and put myself in their shoes.
And it seems like, you know, from their point of view, they should see a lot of possibilities in the future for a renewed relationship with Iran, maybe not the kind of friendship we used to have, where our government owned theirs, but at least, you know, a significant warming up of an end to the Cold War, basically, sort of like our relationship is with China right now, something like that.
And I wonder whether you think that the hard feelings in DC over the revolution of 79 have possibly softened enough that we can really move forward, whether anybody is really looking at it that way, or they just are looking at this nuclear deal, try to put this nuclear issue to bed for a minute.
But are they really looking to a brighter future here at all, you think?
Yes, I do.
I do think they they feel that the nuclear deal is the most essential part of the problem, the Iran problem, because the nuclear deal has the potential to trigger conflict in a very sensitive and economically important part of the world.
But I think they will want to move once they've got a nuclear deal, they'll want to move beyond that to address other questions, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, where the Iranians have said on many occasions, that they believe they have common interests with the United States and with Europe and would like to work with us in the interests of stability and peace.
And narcotics is another area where we can contribute.
And I also think that that this is Iranian government would be very happy to take part in the in Syrian peace talks, and in in wider talks addressed that would have as their goal, the reduction of tension in the Middle East, between Sunnis and Shia.
This tension is grown in as you know, to quite dangerous proportions, really, in the last two and a half, three years, the Iranians realize that they have no interest in stoking it.
If the Saudis are prepared to talk, and to lower the temperature, then then the Iranians will be happy to talk.
So I really do think that this nuclear deal has the potential to open the way to something pretty like a transformation of the situation in the Middle East, which would be extremely valuable for the United States and Europe.
And then also, let's not forget that Iran is sitting on top of some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world, and is a nation of 75 80 million people, and therefore also a market of 75 80 million people.
So our traders and investors stand to gain a lot from a gradual normalization of relations with Iran.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And that's the most important point.
Remember, Dick Cheney in 1998, denouncing Bill Clinton for the sanctions on Iran saying, let's do business back when he was the CEO.
And you know, I you mentioned earlier the I think the biggest buried lead of this whole story, which is the Saudis saying to the Americans, okay, you want to do a nuclear deal?
All right, we'll follow your lead on this, which that's huge as far as the Sunni Shia split, and whether this has to turn into a massive war within their shared civilization over there or not.
And, and we'd all like to see not I hope.
Indeed, indeed.
All right.
Well, thank you so much for your time on the show today.
It's great to talk to you again.
It's been a real pleasure talking to you too.
You're extremely well informed.
Well, I'm very interested in peace and this audience is as well.
And we sure appreciate your perspective a lot.
Great.
All right, everybody.
That is Peter Jenkins, former UK ambassador to the IAEA and the UN.
Hey, I'll sky here inviting you to check out modern times magazine and modern times magazine.com.
It's a great little independent publication out of Phoenix, Arizona, featuring unique views on economics, politics, foreign policy, sports, and music with great art scene coverage and fiction writing as well.
That's modern times magazine at modern times magazine.com.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for the future freedom, the monthly journal of the future freedom foundation.
As you may already be aware, Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman, and James Bovard are awesome.
They're also in every issue of the future freedom and they're joined by others of the best of the libertarian movement.
People like Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, Lawrence Vance, Joe Stromberg, and many more.
Even me.
Sign up for the future freedom at FFF.org slash subscribe.
It's just $25 a year for the print edition 15 to read it online.
That's the future freedom edited by Sheldon Richman at FFF.org slash subscribe and tell me you heard it here.
Hey, I'll Scott here, man.
I had a chance to have an essay published in the book.
Why piece edited by Mark Gutman, but I didn't understand what an opportunity it was.
Boy, do I regret I didn't take it.
This compendium of thoughts by the greatest anti-war writers and activists of our generation will be remembered and studied long into the future.
You've got to get why piece you've got to read why piece it features articles by Harry Brown, Robert Naiman, Fred Bronfman, Dahlia Wasfy, Richard Cummings, Karen Gutowski, Butler Schaefer, Kathy Kelly, Robert Higgs, Anthony Gregory, and so many more.
Why piece because war is the health of everything wrong with our society.
Get why piece down to the bookshop or amazon.com.
Just click the book in the right margin.
That's Scott Horton.org.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager whose site is unique on the web.
Subscribers are allowed a window into Mike's very real main account and receive announcements and explanations for all his market moves.
Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to finance the bank bailouts and terror war overseas.
So Mike's betting on commodities, mining stocks, European markets, and other hedges against a depreciating dollar.
Play along on paper or with real money and then be your own judge of Mike's investment strategies.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
Why does the US support the tortured dictatorship in Egypt?
Because that's what Israel wants.
Why can't America make peace with Iran?
Because that's not what Israel wants.
And why do we veto every attempt to shut down illegal settlements on the West Bank?
Because it's what Israel wants.
Seeing a pattern here?
Sick of it yet?
It's time to put America first.
Support the Council of the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org and push back against the Israel lobby and their sock puppets in Washington, D.C.
That's councilforthenationalinterest.org