May 21, 2006

Merkel Wants Bush to Talk to the Iranians Too

It's not just most Democrats and many Republican foreign policy experts who say the time has come to seriously prepare for dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Our friends overseas, including very notably Angela Merkel of Germany, reportedly want us to talk directly with the Iranians. From IHT vet and man about Europe John Vinocur:

When Bush says "she's not a fake," take it as meaning this: Bush believes Merkel accepts the necessity of emphasizing Iran's very nontheoretical danger in ways that will prepare the psychological ground in Europe for major economic and diplomatic sanctions.

At the same time, while she has never said so publicly, I was told here Merkel made it clear to Bush in Washington that it would be helpful (read very helpful) if America talked to the Iranians.

Bush answered that if America came in now, the likely result, thinking of the run-up to the war in Iraq, would be to divide the Europeans again. (Not to mention Bush's wobbling conservative base in an election year.)

Merkel's problems are not theoretical. Telling the Germans that Iran specifically threatens them, or detailing her position that an attack on Israel is a violation of German national interests, means opening the way for other German politicians or business interests to say what a good part of Germany may want to hear: that a deal can be done with Ahmadinejad, and that she should stop running interference for the Americans.

Merkel's continuing to give Bush a pass on staying out of direct talks with Iran may bolster Europe's legitimacy as front-line player on issues of war and peace. But it also collides with a not unreasonable argument made last week by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

He said, "As long as the Iranians have a sense that they are negotiating with the Europeans ad referendum" (needing referral for a final decision), "and what they discuss with them will have to be discussed with the Americans, and then come back again to them, I am not sure they will put everything on the table."

Kofi's gotta point, as much as people like to beat up on the fellow.

More, including the perils of creeping Genscherism on the Rhine:

[Merkel] will have to steer hard against the grain to make clear to the country she is not an arbitrator, and Germany not a bystander. To do it, Merkel will have to choose showing she remains the chancellor who, with Iran in mind earlier this year, linked Nazism's abyss to Western democracies' failure to face it down in time.

Here's the type of thinking Merkel's up against: A German editorial writer called last week for a Merkel approach similar to that of Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister from 1974 to 1992 who found a swerve to match almost every problem. As extra inspiration, the article recommended a nothing-for-something type gambit that might have pleased Genscher.

The article's idea, as I decoded it, was leaning on the Americans to offer the Iranians something real and of sufficient magnitude to get Iran to drop the nukes they haven't produced yet. What? It didn't say specifically.

But since the writer suggested that "even against the majority of the population," Germany's elite would have to stand with Israel in an existential situation, it sounded like a call for Israel to be pressured by the United States to abandon its nuclear defenses in a something-for-nothing trade-off with Iran. And for Europe and Germany to be relieved in the process of unwanted discomfort.

Push come to shove on military action in Iran, I don't think we can rely on Europe to be there, even with, say, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel in power. The French have talked big force de frappe talk on Iran, but it's more for neo-Gaullist show than anything real. The German foreign policy elite will hoist a more Genscher-ite solution on Merkel, at the end of the day, involving some form of negotiated out. The Brits? Maybe an assisted sortie or two, if that, but there is little appetite in London for more neo-colonialist misadventures in the Middle East (Can you blame them? What will we do, sent Bernie Kerik in after to train the Teheran gendermarie, whilst listening to Rummy lecture us lil' kiddies about the perils of 'dependency'?). And then, of course, there is a (somewhat theatrically, canny fellow that he is) pissed off Putin, post-Cheney in Riga, and the Chinese, neither of whom have ever been particularly hot, to say the least, on the idea of a war on Iran. The only country that would really be happy to go along for the ride is Israel which, of course, is the one country we wouldn't want to have flying air missions alongside us (worth noting too, albeit surreptitiously, the Saudis and Egyptians likely wouldn't be too distressed to see Iranian nuclear facilities taken out, somewhat ironically perhaps). Now, I've heard a senior GOP type, here and there, whisper: well, we could always let the Israelis do it like they did in Iraq. But this isn't Osirak, alas, and the Israelis might not be able to pull it off (whatever that means). Regardless, any attack would be viewed as having been 'approved' by Washington, so that the Iranians will be hell-bent on scuttling our war aims, in retaliation, in each of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bottom line: the 'coalition of the willing', at the end of the day, would be a very, very small one. Especially if we hadn't even tried to engage the Iranians directly in talks first. Do we have to wait for a Zelikowian study two years hence to move Iran policy up to speed, or can we dispense with another 18-24 months of wasted Euro troika machinations?

She is a Chamberlin!

Posted by: NeoDude at May 22, 2006 02:12 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Push come to shove on military action in Iran, I don't think we can rely on Europe to be there, even with, say, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel in power."

Exactly why we should not agree to direct bilateral talks unless they have a overwhelming chance to succeed. Seeing that the EU-3 are not making much progress says to me that bilateral talks will only serve to give the Europeans a break from the limelight. Sorry, the world is full of tough decisions and the Europeans are as threatened by Iran as we are (missiles don't reach the USA, but Iran hates us more...I guess its a wash.)

Iraq taught America that you need your allies and cannot go it alone - why should this lesson not hold true on Iran?

Posted by: Aaron at May 22, 2006 02:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

It is difficult to see why the Chinese would prefer Iran controlling their lines of supply vs American control.

Unless China sees a war with America in their future.

Russia of course loves Middle East instability. It raises the value of their energy resources.

Posted by: M. Simon at May 22, 2006 08:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

"It is difficult to see why the Chinese would prefer Iran controlling their lines of supply vs American control.

"Unless China sees a war with America in their future."

Americans have been talking about a war with china in our future. It would make sense the chinese might listen.

They're trying to build a pipeline from iran to china, so that at least some of their oil won't go through supply lines controlled by the US navy. They'll have to pay whatever price iran is willing to sell at -- but they might get cheap long-term contracts if they can offer iran some kind of protection from us.

And they're making a serious effort toward alternate energy, not like us. We get all interested in oil shale and tar sands when the oil price goes way up, and then we dump it each time the price goes down again. That's about it for our alternate energy.

Posted by: J Thomas at May 22, 2006 12:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

' Bottom line: the 'coalition of the willing', at the end of the day, would be a very, very small one. Especially if we hadn't even tried to engage the Iranians directly in talks first.'

then the logical solution is we agree with the Euros that we WILL talk with Iran on CONDITION that they WILL support us, even to war, if the talks fail.

Which is what Krauthammer said this AM. See, even he is for talking to the Iranians ;)

He raises other good points - we agreed to support the EU3 talks, on the condition that if they failed the EU3 would support action at the UN, and support sanctions even if the UNSC failed to agree. Now theyre asking for yet ANOTHER delay, having welched on the earlier deal. And that timing matters - presumably while we are talking we are NOT advancing the sanctions process - so Iran has every incentive to ask for talks, to drag things out, while they continue enrichment.

Posted by: liberalhawk at May 26, 2006 07:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

It would be absurd for europeans to agree to do what we want in exchange for us failing to do what they want.

I'm sure they believe the Bush administration has no intention of allowing talks to succeed. Why would europeans reward us for going through the charade of having talks?

Posted by: J Thomas at May 26, 2006 08:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

Does the Iranian government agree that "the time has come to seriously prepare for dialogue"?

Iran rejects U.S. talks as nuclear tensions simmer

Posted by: MDP at May 27, 2006 01:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

MDP, did you notice that the talks they reject are only talks about what to do about iraq?

This might not be the best time to discuss how they can help us out about our iraqi mess.

Posted by: J Thomas at May 28, 2006 06:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

This discussion is so very frightening. So the EU-3 and the IAEA have already provided cover and time for Iran to significantly advance their nuclear arms program. Now, having abjectly failed, they recommend direct discussions with America - to what end? Perhaps Merkel will be pleased if two years hence Bush returns from Tehran with a document and proclaims "Peace in our lifetime".

Oh, the really frightening part: Iran has no desire to negotiate anything when it comes to their nuclear armament. You don't have to read between the lines because they have stated so clearly and behaved accordingly. Time is cheap and the Iranians are more than happy to talk until their nuclear arms are functional.

Posted by: marvls at May 28, 2006 09:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

Marvls, have you seen this article?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html

It claims to be an iranian view of the situation. Worth reading, huh?

Posted by: J Thomas at May 31, 2006 12:10 AM | Permalink to this comment

looks like Kraut was right, and J Thomas wrong.

Posted by: liberalhawk at June 1, 2006 07:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

LH, I'm willing to consider you might be right, but about what?

Posted by: J Thomas at June 1, 2006 08:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

'It would be absurd for europeans to agree to do what we want in exchange for us failing to do what they want.

I'm sure they believe the Bush administration has no intention of allowing talks to succeed. Why would europeans reward us for going through the charade of having talks?'

Condi offered talks.

There was an agreement in Vienna on package of carrots and sticks.

Now thats still not support to the point of war, I admit. at this point we dont know that sanctions wont be enough. And we dont know what was promised in private.

Posted by: liberalhawk at June 1, 2006 09:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/world/middleeast/01cnd-tehran.html?hp&ex=1149220800&en=78c862563636c51a&ei=5094&partner=homepag

President Bush also spoke briefly about the proposal today, saying that he had spoke to leaders of China and Russia and that "they understood our strategy." He was careful not to say that they had agreed to impose sanctions if the package failed.

Too soon to see what's actually been agreed, at least from the most recent Google news.

Posted by: J Thomas at June 1, 2006 11:38 PM | Permalink to this comment