03/03/15 – Reza Marashi – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here for MyHeroesThink.com.
They sell beautiful 7-inch busts of Libertarian heroes, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and Harry Brown.
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.
Alright you guys, welcome back to the show.
You know, this article I wrote for the Christian Science Monitor five years ago, reality check, Iran no nuclear threat, I think holds up rather well.
Anyway, on the line is our friend Reza Mehrashi, formerly of the State Department, but now he works for the National Iranian American Council, that's NIACouncil.org, and I really like these guys, Trita Parsi and them, working for peace between America and Iran.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Reza?
I'm doing well.
Thanks for having me.
Very happy to have you here.
So, tell me, were you very impressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to the U.S. Congress this morning?
I mean, I think that he gave a charismatic speech that had a lot of sound bites.
That doesn't mean I was impressed, though I thought it was a deeply ideological speech that shows just how out of step he is with mainstream American public opinion.
Alright, well, now on the facts, was there any real challenge to your position in there that you thought, you know, he does kind of have a good point there about, you know, the vulnerabilities of this deal for, you know, whatever kind of problems, anything?
No, not at all, because diplomacy is not about getting everything that you want.
It's about finding out where areas of commonality exist and areas of divergence exist so that compromise becomes possible.
The idea is both sides, the U.S. and Iran, have decided that getting some of what they want, but not everything that they want, is better than the alternative, which is getting really nothing that you want and a war becoming increasingly likely.
And now, you know, that seems to be a big part of the talk and points of both sides on this thing as I watch the debates go back and forth and, you know, believe me, I know that the neoconservatives really have always had Iran as their top target in mind and that there are a lot of people who would like to not stop until they get their regime changed.
But then I see the peaceniks, too, saying, oh, you know, if we don't get this deal, this could really lead to war.
But it seems like that really is conceding the false premise that if we don't get this deal that the Iranians are going to break out and go ahead and try to make nuclear weapons at some point and then we'll have to bomb them.
Because really, if the deal fails and we're left with the status quo, the status quo is a safeguarded civilian nuclear program.
Who cares?
Well, that yes and no, maybe, but I disagree in all likelihood, no.
I think that if there's no deal, then the United States is going to ramp up sanctions and other forms of pressure, secret assassinations, cyber warfare, all things that we've seen in recent years prior to President Rouhani being elected in 2013.
So if the United States chooses to escalate, that escalation does not happen in a vacuum.
The Iranians will respond to pressure with pressure.
That is what the track record shows.
So they, in turn, will respond by systematically advancing the technical aspects of their nuclear program.
This cycle of escalation nearly spiraled into a war not very long ago, back in 2012.
So we know what the track record looks like.
We don't have to look very far back in our recent past.
And that's what makes the status quo unsustainable if the talks break down.
Right.
And the fact that it's a safeguarded civilian nuclear program has never had anything to do with it anyway, as far as the narrative on the American or Israeli side.
They just characterize it however they want to.
And of course, it's pretty easy to understand.
The average guy doesn't know anything about nuclear or anything.
So if you just say the word nuclear, you're basically right there saying, defer to an expert here and then TV will have an expert for you to defer to.
And so who's going to figure this out for themselves when it's such a complicated issue?
That's really what it comes down to.
So yeah, I mean, you're right, I guess they could just sit there and, you know, Scott Ritter wrote a thing way back in 2005 saying what looks like Plan A, Plan B and Plan C for how to negotiate this deal.
And then only Plan C would be finally to go to war.
That really that's a smokescreen.
Really it's just step one, two and three.
We've got to pretend to go through all of the motions of negotiating this thing as best we can before we say, see, they're absolutely incorrigible.
And now we have no choice but war.
So I could see that narrative kicking right in if these talks fail.
Of course, even if it's the Americans fault, 60, 40 or 70, 30, they're still going to blame the Iranians for the talks failing.
And then that I see what you mean.
That could be the beginning of a whole new push for violence.
Yeah, I mean, if the talks break down, God forbid, then the likelihood of war increases exponentially in my view.
But also you have a blame game that will start to take place.
And yes, the U.S. will blame Iran and Iran will blame the U.S. irrespective of what where the actual truth lies.
The difference is that the United States is trying to win the blame game within global public opinion.
The Iranians are just trying to win the blame game at home.
They're trying to convince their people that they've done everything in their power to try to solve this issue peacefully and that the problem is in Washington, not in Tehran.
But if the interesting part here is, will the rest of the international community follow suit with the United States if we decide to not cut a deal for whatever reason?
Because I think that numerous world leaders that are at the negotiating table with the Iranians and the Americans have said that the Iranians are actually negotiating in good faith.
So will they will they fall in line with more sanctions and an escalation of the conflict that America will spearhead?
Or will they will they decide, you know, we can deescalate the conflict with Iran unilaterally, you know, bilaterally.
It remains to be seen which one is going to play out.
But that's not really a risk that either side should take when we're so close to being able to actually get a deal.
That's a win win for everyone involved.
Right.
And, you know, it's interesting, too, the politics in D.C. where Obama is saying yesterday that, well, you know, or I guess his spokesman, I don't I don't know, I just read the headline.
Somebody in the administration was saying, well, you know, chances are probably not even 50 50 in this kind of thing.
And I can see the politics of that wanting to play it down and and how they could benefit, I guess, even if the talks fail by saying, see, we told you we would never give in to a bad deal and that we have Israel's back or whatever.
That's pretty good.
You know, democratic politics probably as good as saying, see, we told you we could get a reasonable deal with the Iranians and we got one.
Right.
So I could see from a domestic politics point of view, from the Obama administration, like it might just be 50 50 either way.
They don't really care whether they get the deal or not.
As far as that goes.
Yeah, I mean, I think one of the what you just pointed out is that there are a lot of moving pieces that are playing out here.
And precisely because there's a lot of moving pieces, this is why we don't negotiate in public.
The negotiations have to happen behind closed doors so that the negotiators have the political space that's necessary to see what kind of flexibility and compromise can be possible.
Fast forward to today, the Israeli prime minister went in front of Congress.
He didn't say anything new.
The whole reason why he did this was to try and blow the negotiations open into the public eye so that everybody can take a look and see what's happening.
And that puts more pressure on the negotiators.
It reduces their flexibility and increases the likelihood that they cannot take yes for an answer.
So precisely because all these moving pieces are so delicate and so difficult to iron out, he wants it to be done publicly so that there's going to be, you know, 100, 200, 300 negotiators in the room instead of the handful that we need to get things done.
You know, I couldn't help but think this morning of the Leverett's argument that Obama should have just gone to Tehran and shaken hands with the Ayatollah and said, now we're friends.
Now let's negotiate all of these other issues.
Nixon goes to China style because there was Netanyahu saying, oh, come on, you're going to make a nuclear deal with the Iranians who still give money to Hamas?
You're going to make a nuclear deal with the Iranians who do 100 other things that I don't like?
Those issues should have to be resolved before we make any kind of nuclear deal with them, which is exactly what the Leverett's were saying would happen, right?
That all the other extraneous issues would be used to try to derail the centerpiece, which is the nuclear program.
And I'm sorry, of course, I talked us right up to the break like I always do, but hold tight right there.
We'll be right back, everybody, with Reza Marashi from the National Iranian American Council.
That's NIACouncil.org.
In America today, teachers, cops, judges, and other so-called public servants make far more than the average taxpayer.
And their pensions?
Well, if the people knew, they'd join us.
That's where you come in.
Taxpayers United of America is embarking on a great new project to train activists how to take on the parasites in your communities.
The entire process, from prying loose the facts to disseminating the truth to the people.
The first of these great workshops is in Orlando, Saturday, March 7th.
It's just $25.
For more information, go to taxpayersunited.org slash govpensions.
All right, you guys.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
I got Reza Marashi on the line.
He's from the National Iranian American Council, and we're talking about the nuclear negotiations with the Iranians and Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the Congress this morning, et cetera.
And before the break, I was leading to some form of a Jeopardy kind of question there about what do you think about Obama's strategy here, trying to put away the nuclear deal first, and then maybe as a first step toward ending the Cold War and normalizing relations with Iran, rather than going all out on the Nixon-goes-to-China model and just putting the Cold War to bed first, and then maybe that would make negotiations like this much easier in that different context.
What do you think?
You know, I think that while I understand where Obama's coming from and I acknowledge the domestic political constraints, I would like to think that we could walk and chew gum at the same time and discuss more than one issue at once, but having spent some time in the U.S. government, I also understand how the nuclear issue has become the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room that really preoccupies everybody else's attention, sucks all the air out of the room, and prevents folks from having the ability, the flexibility to address the other issues, regional security concerns, et cetera, et cetera.
So while I would like it if we did more, I'm happy we're just doing something at all, because there was a very long time, decades, where we were doing nothing.
Well, and the thing is, actually, it's not that.
We're doing nothing as far as talking with them, but George Bush fought an entire war for Iran, and they're loyal sock puppets of the Supreme Islamic Council and the Dawah Party, 2003 through 12 there, or through 11, and seemingly now again.
And that's the funny part about all this, is even during 2007, I would say, is probably the closest we came to war with Iran, when they were blaming Iran for everything bad that was happening in Iraq, when America was fighting as their spear tip in that entire battle against the Sunnis and driving them out of Baghdad and all that with the Bata Brigade.
And I'm actually really worried about this, that we can't just stop threatening them.
We have to actually either do both at the same time, fight for them and against them at the same time, like in the Bush years, or there's been talk of Obama and Khamenei talking about, yeah, once we get this nuclear deal done, then maybe we can work together against ISIS in Iraq.
But of course, it's working for Iran in Iraq that's helped lead to the creation of ISIS to oppose us in the first place.
It seems like, I don't know what you guys' official position on that is, but I would hope that you guys are opposed to working with Iran in any alliance on a war against the Islamic State or anyone else.
Can't we just have peace, you know, instead of fighting one way or the other?
I think that's the goal.
You know, average Joes like you and I, it's easier for us to say that because we don't have to deal with the institutional constraints in the DC establishment.
That being said, I try to be as fair as possible.
And I give President Obama credit for doing something that zero of his predecessors have tried to do, which is take the political risks that are necessary to try and solve at least an aspect of this conflict, never mind the entire thing.
And, you know, to be even more fair, I give the Iranians credit as well, because it's not just America that's reaching out and negotiating.
The Iranians are doing so as well.
So should we expect more than baby steps from our political leaders?
Of course.
Am I happy that we have baby steps instead of no steps at all?
Absolutely.
Well, but, you know, I'm talking about big steps the wrong direction, like, hey, let's be friends and then go off to war together again.
Yeah, I don't think anybody wants a war here at the end of the day, at least none of us that are sane, because the war benefits nobody except extremists.
And the extremists are always going to be in the minority.
So taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent another armed conflict in the Middle East, I think should be priority number one.
And again, that's one of these points where I give Obama credit.
Right.
Yeah, no, me too.
And, you know, I think we've talked about this for a while.
It's been, you know, a year and a half of negotiations here or more, whatever it is.
And it's been kind of an open question of just how serious Obama is about getting this deal done.
And even though, like I mentioned before, that he said, you know, and he said this numerous times, chances are probably 50-50 something.
I'm not hanging my hat on it and whatever.
I think that's just politics.
I think he and John Kerry both have decided they really want to see this thing through and it'll be a real disaster, a real failure on their part if they don't get it done.
And especially because of the other thing you said, that clearly the Ayatollah and the president of Iran are way out on a limb on this thing, too.
And they have really, you know, been willing to suck up a lot in order to, you know, given up their uranium stockpile and, you know, even really negotiating under the terms of these sanctions, under the situation of these sanctions.
It's a big event, a big political risk domestically for them, obviously, to do this.
So all the more reason to think that Obama and Kerry ought to be able to do it.
And it certainly looks at this late date like they mean to.
And the leaks from all sides say that they don't foresee any more extensions at this point.
They think they're going to wrap this up by the end of this month.
Isn't that right?
That's the goal.
That's what they're shooting for.
And, you know, having a goal is positive.
There's no guarantee that they'll be able to wrap up the political framework agreement that they're working on.
But the last two meetings that they've had, one in Munich and one in Geneva, they made quite a bit of progress, according to their own words.
And that kind of momentum is what you need to cross the finish line.
So I remain cautiously optimistic.
All right.
And then so now what about your read on Congress?
I mean, 50 Democrats didn't even show up or they said they weren't going to.
I don't know how many actually didn't show up at Netanyahu's speech this morning.
It has become a pretty controversial topic and even a partisan topic in Washington, D.C.
So what do you think about the current state of Congress's ability to end up scotching the deal somehow?
Well, Congress is going to have to play a pivotal role in any deal that is reached with the Iranians, because while Obama can negotiate the terms, if he negotiates terms that he knows are going to be a nonstarter to Congress, then the deal is going to be dead on arrival because Congress will have to actually help execute anything that the president signed.
So Obama is going to take into account what the various interests of Congress are, and he's going to have some work that he's going to need to do in order to peel off members of Congress to support him instead of a foreign leader like the Israeli prime minister.
But at the end of the day, I do think it's possible it's going to require a lot of heavy lifting and it's going to require a lot of political will.
But the tangible benefits of getting this deal done are so obvious.
And and so plainly clear as day that I think it will sell itself.
And that's that's where we're at.
So hopefully, hopefully that's what will happen, you know, and what time will tell remains to be seen.
Yeah, you know, debating the deal before it's done is one thing.
But if the president United States is saying, listen, I had this deal here, Congress, and I would like for you to not screw it up.
That's kind of a whole different topic at that point.
And, you know, if it comes to a president trying to start a war and Congress getting in his way, that's great.
But when a president's trying to make peace, it seems like they better not, you know, obstruct.
I think the politics there at that point will have shifted toward the president pretty far if he has a deal in hand.
So, you know, I sure hope you're right.
Seems like you are.
But anyway, so thank you so much for coming on the show and telling us what you think, Rez.
I appreciate it.
My pleasure.
Thanks for having me.
Good to talk to you again.
That's Reza Marashi.
He's at the National Iranian American Council.
That's NIACouncil.org, NIACouncil.org.
And they have an official statement out here from, I guess, their president or director, Trita Parsi here.
NIAC statement on Netanyahu's speech.
You can find that on my Twitter feed or just at NIACouncil.org.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for Liberty.me, the social network and community-based publishing platform for the Liberty-minded.
Liberty.me combines the best of social media technology all in one place and features classes, discussions, guides, events, publishing, podcasts, and so much more.
And Jeffrey Tucker and I are starting a new monthly show at Liberty.me, Eye on the Empire.
It's just four bucks a month if you use promo code Scott when you sign up.
And hey, once you do, add me as a friend on there at ScottHorton.
Liberty.me.
Be free.
Liberty.me.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here.
Are you a libertarian and or a peacenik?
Live in North America?
If you want, you can hire me to come and give a speech to your group.
I'm good on the terror war and intervention, civil liberty stuff, blaming Woodrow Wilson for everything bad in the world, Iran, central banking, political realignment, and well, you know, everything.
I can teach markets to liberals and peace to the right.
Just watch me.
Check out ScottHorton.org slash speeches for some examples.
And email me, Scott at ScottHorton.org for more information.
See you there.
Oh, John Kerry's Mideast peace talks have gone nowhere.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest, at CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
U.S. military and financial support for Israel's permanent occupations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is immoral, and it threatens national security by helping generate terrorist attacks against our country.
And face it, it's bad for Israel, too.
Without our unlimited support, they would have much more incentive to reach a lasting peace with their neighbors.
It's past time for us to make our government stop making matters worse.
Help support CNI at CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org.
Thank you.