 |
June 03, 2006Condi's MomentIn orchestrating the latest Iran diplomacy happenings, Condeleeza Rice showed herself not only to be reality-based, to use the blogospheric jargon, but also a quite skilled and adept tactician. I say reality-based because she understood that the existing policy of sub-contracting out to the Euro-troika (while refusing to talk directly to Iran) was becoming increasingly dysfunctional and on the verge of capsizing into basic irrelevance. The Iranians were basically outmaneuvering us and we appeared to be content to let the process continue to disintegrate towards greater and greater ineffectiveness. Unlike a Donald Rumsfeld, say, Condi Rice wasn't content to stagger deeper on towards known unknowns like a reckless arrogant. On the tactician side, not only did Ms. Rice corral all the key Administration players towards agreeing these major steps, she also deftly orchestrated the roll-out of the dramatic new policy to maximum effect. For instance, the quite dramatic concession of agreeing to potentially talk to the Iranians could easily have appeared to look like we were kow-towing to them. But, save for the rabid Krauthammer types (always ready to call for varied blitzkriegs from the comfort of their increasingly yawn-inducing Fox green room rounds), I think it is fair to say the manner by which Condi Rice spearheaded the announcement of the policy did not appear weak-kneed. Indeed, there is a general feeling that the U.S. firmly placed the ball in the Iranian court, in a relatively reasonable manner, with key allies in support, so that the episode doesn't look like some cheaply ginned up disingenuous diktat. Balanced against this, of course, is whether the preliminary conditionality to talks (suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities) could nevertheless ultimately be viewed as something of a ploy to force an Iranian rejection of the offer to talk, the better to move towards a more classic Bush Administration M.O., namely rapid resort to punitive actions. But to have had each of the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans agree to a package of carrots means there were some meaningful ones proferred (notably, for instance, a light-water reactor is reportedly being offered up), and despite initial Iranian rumblings that talks cannot take place unless pre-conditions are dropped, at very least, it is clear that Teheran will have to analyze very assiduously the package of incentives (and possible sanctions) presented to them. Getting this kind of buy-in on a package that met with the approval of capitals as varied as Moscow, Beijing and Washington was no small feat. Ditto, also, getting the President and hard-liners on his team to sign on. There are conflicting rumors about whether Cheney was on board with Condi's policy (this Glenn Kessler piece says he was, this NYT piece indicates he was opposed). Whether one of Cheney's aides is leaking to Kessler to make it look like he had bought into the strategy merely to save face, or whether it's true he supported Condeleeza's Rice's approach, what's clear is that the U.S. for the first time in well over two decades is allowing for the prospect of high level public negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is obviously a very big deal. But Cheney is a smart and savvy man, and I still think he is influencing a good deal of the President's thoughts on this matter, in tandem with Condi Rice too, of course. He reportedly appears to have stressed a cautionary note amidst all this diplomacy-making--a 'red-line', if you will--whereby a 'slippery slope' allowing the requirement for a freezing of enrichment to go by the way-side cannot be permitted, at least in the context of an American willingness to negotiate. Putting aside the merits of such a stance, for the time being, it's clear that this could short-circuit the US offer to talk and give it not much of a shelf life to speak of. Regardless all this is highly significant, as I said, but in a way, it was the easy part. The going will only get tougher now going forward. Reportedly, while the Chinese and Russians and Europeans and Americans could all agree the carrots, it appears matters are much more vague with regard to the sticks, if the Iranians end up balking. Yes, a 'menu' has been agreed, with escalating penalties, but aside from agreeing to the menu in toto, the Russians and Chinese certainly haven't confirmed that they are on board for the tougher punitive actions (the carefully parsed language speaking of "negative disincentives" or neutral 'steps', rather than sanctions, speaks to how sensitive these discussions doubtless were). In the short term, Condi will have a bit of wind at her back to get more robust action out of the UNSC, but it's not hard to see even some of the Europeans peel away from particularly draconian actions. Also, of course, while the ball has been deftly placed in the Iranian court, they are going to respond not unintelligently. They will likely think about how to peel off the Russians and Chinese from the Americans and Europeans, perhaps by agreeing to suspend the installation of new enrichment systems or letting U.N. inspectors back in to conduct inspections (without advance notice) during the negotiations. There is also the risk they will pretend to agree to a suspension of enrichment, but continue it in secret, although this would be a very high risk strategy indeed. Were they caught out, even the Chinese would be hard-pressed to not sign on to, at least, robust sanctions. All this said, Condi's done what discredited figures in this Administration (like Rumsfeld) haven't been able to do. Recognize that a policy was failing. Methodically orchestrate an intelligent way to re-energize and re-direct said failed policy, with many allies (at least initially) in tow. Get buy-in from the entire Administration and move forward to try to effectuate it. A very good show, all told. But, as I said, it's only going to get tougher from here on out. I think this moment of allied unananimity vis-a-vis Iran might well prove pretty short-lived. And then every one will have to go back to their respective drawing-boards and question fundamental 'red-lines' and other assumptions yet again. Still, there is hope this process could bear some positive fruit, and I am obviously happy to see that we've opened the door to direct discussions with Iran, as I've been advocating for them in the pages of this blog since at least 2004. Posted by Gregory at June 3, 2006 10:16 PM | TrackBack (0)Comments
Cheney is a smart and savvy man. You have to be to grow Halliburton into the company he grew it into. That was Cheney's doing. Rice has done an excellent job with a very, very bad hand. Best thing about it is, we've put the Rug Merchants on the defensive without having to give up a thin dime. Condi has gone as far as she can go, however. Bush is a Republican, and we can't fork over the enrichment card to self-proclaimed Nazis. There are things that the Republican Base won't tolerate, and that's one of them. Condi's been able to do this because of the conditionality of enrichment. She gives that up, then support for the whole thing collapses and Bush looks like Neville Chamberlain's bitch. The bad guys in Tehran end up winning. That's why it's incredibly important that both parties stand fast behind our negotiating position. Sad to see the Usual Suspects over at HuffPo and Yglesias insist that it's all a scam and we need to conduct a fire sale to prove our sincerety to the Persian Ayatollahs, lest Chimpy McBushhitler start Another Illegal War. I never thought I'd live to see liberal Democrats take the side of Persian theocrats in a negotiation, but there you have it. Posted by: section9 at June 4, 2006 02:12 AM | Permalink to this comment
Forgive my ignorance, as I haven't been able to read as much as I'd like on the latest breakthrough, but what evidence do we have that this was Condoleeza Rice's initiative rather than someone else's? Not saying that it isn't, but are we simply going on the fact that she was making the announcement? The post just reads like it was her single-handedly fighting for the favored course of action.
Iran has a legitimate economic case for nuclear power - which is why the US encouraged and supported Irans' nuclear program. A few articles on US/European participation in Iran's nuclear program are found at "Blast From the Past" entry at IranAffairs.com -- see http://iranaffairs.typepad.com
OR -- Cheney has given Condi enough rope to hang herself. Also, you gloss too easily over China and Russia seeming to play ball: if US is trying to appear magnanimous in order to pave way for tough medicine to come the very same can be said of China and Russia as regards their position contra the troika plus one. Possibly Condi has learned valuable lessons from her serious screw up, dereliction of duty really, on Iraq - and possibly she's putting those lessons learned to good use here - but fact remains that past screw up may render all subsequent initiatives, no matter how sound they are, irrelevant. Posted by: saintsimon at June 4, 2006 12:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg sees a glimmer of hope, and magnifies it into dazzling light show. What I see is a continuation of the Bush regime's decision-making process in the Middle East ---- only when it becomes glaringly obvious that the current approach is disasterous is a new approach considered, and that new approach is obviously doomed to failure. This wasn't Rice's triumph, but that of our European allies. The "carrots and sticks" involved here were offered to the US, and the sticks (complete isolation of the US on international Iranian policy) did the trick. (WHile the US press was trumpeting the fact that our "allies" had agreed to impose sanctions on Iran if it doesn't do what we want, Greg has correctly pointed out that what we're really talking about here is entirely ambiguous 'negative disincentives' and 'steps' to be taken if Iran doesn't meet our conditions. Its an entirely empty threat, and Iran knows it) Posted by: plukasiak at June 4, 2006 12:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
I still think the offer is meant to fail or can be easily be made to fail as it seems to be initially over the simplest details of planning any talks. So it's essentially a PR move to make Rice look 'moderate'. The biggest nuclear threat to the US in regard to a nuke weapon going off here still lies totally with terrorists getting weapons and smuggleing them in. Save that the luaunch of nuke missles on the US means MAD for the offender. Only a madman and then madmen in the chain of command of a nation would launch and assure their and their peoples demise. In that light the biggest threat lies with Russias arsenal and the possiblity of some weapons getting out. The next biggest threat is Pakistan's because the country is so unstable that questions of command and control are freightning. Since Iran does not have nukes and is years if ever away from making any it's so far down this list as to be a joke. The problem of Muslim fundamentalist terror with a nuclear component has been on the mind of this liberal for many many years. I'd say since the first WTC attack. It's an intractable problem with no total solution. The possibility has existed since the early 90's and the break up of the USSR and the rise of the international jihad. Iran is still an irrelevency to this topic 15 years later yet is presented as the foundation of it. The ignorance or dishonesty is breathtaking. Attacking Iran could well lead to WWIII in some sense. Disrupting and then possibly destroying gulf oil production. Goodby the world economic system as we know it and then who knows? Against that the destruction of one American city by a terrorist nuke would be a bargin, and I say that very reluctantly but if we are going to play the global strategic thinking game then let's play rough. The attack Iran now crowd are juviniles. Admittedly the total disruption of ours and the world economies will make a militaristic one party takeover of the US a piece of cake. Posted by: rapier at June 4, 2006 01:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
"...the better to move towards a more classic Bush Administration M.O., namely rapid resort to punitive actions." O.K., I'll bite - I didn't know you had converted to the Kossack persuasion on your move to NYC, but these increasingly yawn inducing slams on the evil, evil neo-cons is getting a little repetitive. As I said, I'll bite: where has the Bush Administration resorted to too rapid punitive actions? I can only assume you mean our 12 year song and dance with Saddam, Kofi, Chirac and Company over the terms of the Gulf War I ceasefire agreements. Have you now drank the Kool-Aid? Do you now believe we shoul.d have waited for the crop duster to sweep down on the Mall - or Central Park - or Disney World - to give us our Fort Sumter justification for enforcing the 17 UN resolutions? Please answer this question in a future posting. Posted by: wks at June 4, 2006 01:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
The biggest nuclear threat to the US in regard to a nuke weapon going off here still lies totally with terrorists getting weapons and smuggleing them in. I'm not sure. We have nearly 10,000 of our own nukes in this country. We have stringent safeguards in place to make sure they don't blow up prematurely. In sixty years it's never happened once. Maybe we're due. Think about it. Terrorists have to successfully get a bomb, sneak it here, and set it off before they get caught. Anything goes wrong anywhere along the line and it doesn't work. Get caught after they sneak it here and we get upset instead of get hurt. Isn't there a better than 50% chance they fail and alert us instead? But our 10,000 nukes are already here, they don't have to get smuggled into the country. Homeland Security will not find them. And they go off if somebody makes a mistake. Every day that nobody makes that mistake with 10,000 chances, is another day we get by. We're betting that the terrorists who get one bomb fail. We're betting that the US military with 10,000 bombs succeeds. We have things set up to strongly reduce the chance of failure. But to quote John Galt's Systemantics, "Failsafe systems fail by failing to fail safe." We're in no position to estimate odds on either terrorist nukes or our own nuclear accident. Neither has happened yet. But with budgets falling to fund iraq, the chance may be rising.
Sujal's question upthread is a good one, and hasn't been answered by any of the reporting I've seen. No one expects any Secretary of State to come up with all policy ideas on his or her own. The head of the department is entitled to take credit for its successes, just as the head of the department must take the blame for failures. It's still worth exploring where this initiative really came from, if only to get an indication of who might be driving any negotiations that do result from it and what their thinking is. Frankly, my impression has been that Sec. Rice is fully occupied managing her relationship with the President and his other associates. Posted by: Zathras at June 4, 2006 09:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
We all (US, USSR, Iran, Palestine) like Moslem terrorist groups because they're useful to arm and send to attack people we don't like. They're like a drug we're addicted to, sadly for us. In these past decades we've found them seductively attractive, and I understand that even now the Bush administration is enjoying funding Islamic terrorist groups, again because they're useful for getting terrorism & instability done remotely in a way that US soldiers and CIA operatives are not directly to blame. If we cannot even ourselves stop funding Islamic terrorist groups, how much hope is there we can convince anyone else to do so?
I think Condi is burnishing her credentials for a Presidential run. She can appear as the moderate. Posted by: coad at June 4, 2006 10:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think Condi did the right thing. Im not surprised, as this approach (more sensible balance of diplomacy and force, and a subtle shift toward multilateralism) has been the general direction of for policy since Condi became Sec of State. The precondition does seem essential to me. If its not there, doesnt that give Iran an incentive to drag out negotiations indefinitely, why they continue to move toward a bomb? Im not sure how far aboard the Russians and Chinese are - but Im not sure I share the degree of pessimism youve expressed. At some point the Russians and Chinese have to look at Iranian words and behavior, and the implications for regional security of an Iranian bomb. They have to weigh that vs their dislike of sanctions on principle, and residual desire for a balance to US power. The more US power is exercised moderatly, the less rationale there is to accept costs in order to constrain it. Posted by: liberalhawk at June 5, 2006 03:49 PM | Permalink to this comment
The precondition does seem essential to me. If its not there, doesnt that give Iran an incentive to drag out negotiations indefinitely, why they continue to move toward a bomb? Since the alternative has always been that we start bombing without negotiations first, what's to keep us from ending the negotiations and starting bombing whenever we're ready? Isn't it plausible that we intend to drag out negotiations until we're ready to attack, or indefinitely, while iran sits still and doesn't enrich uranium? Whichever side has time on its side has an incentive to stall. (Incidentally, I've seen that iran has uranium ore, but I've seen nothing about the extent of their thorium. Would it make sense for them to build a thorium reactor?)
"Since the alternative has always been that we start bombing without negotiations first, what's to keep us from ending the negotiations and starting bombing whenever we're ready? Isn't it plausible that we intend to drag out negotiations until we're ready to attack, or indefinitely, while iran sits still and doesn't enrich uranium? Whichever side has time on its side has an incentive to stall."
Also note that since the negotiations are to be multilateral, the Europeans would be privy to whatever happens in negotiations, making any US stalling quite visible. So no, its NOT plausible that the US would drag out negotiations. Posted by: liberalhawk at June 5, 2006 07:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Liberalhawk, you're assuming a degree of rationality in the US government that I think is utterly unwarranted. What is there to negotiate about? We want to make sure that iran cannot build nuclear weapons. To do that we must restrict them to expensive light-water reactors that don't meet their power-production needs and that leave them open to blackmail by their nuclear fuel suppliers. For them to agree to that would be surrender. They want to enrich their own fuel, which is precisely what we cannot allow. Even if they negotiate seriously, once they have the capability to enrich their own uranium and separate their own plutonium, after a regime change the next government could tear up the agreements and be ready to build bombs quickly. The greater the chance that the government might fall in the foreseeable future -- even to an elected opponent -- the less we can rely on any agreement they might make, short of surrender. There is no room for compromise. Either we accept that they might at some time in the future break their agreement and start making nukes, or we win by keeping that capability away from them. We cannot depend on what they say they will do, we can only control what they are able to do. Unless they agree to dismantle their enrichment program and agree to stringent inspections to prove they never try again, our only way to achieve our goals is to destroy their enrichment faciilities by force. And so both sides must stall during negotiations. They have nothing to offer us except an unacceptable negotiated surrender. We have nothing to offer them that they want, except the promise that we won't attack them -- which we cannot give them. I don't know what the europeans would say about this. Maybe they'd take sides and say it was them stalling instead of saying it's us stalling. This matters for our standing in the rest of the world. But does that standing matter to the Bush administration? Are they even looking three years ahead? in the short run it doesn't matter what the europeans say about who's stalling in the negotiations. In the short run it only matters what we do, and what the russians and the chinese do.
"Liberalhawk, you're assuming a degree of rationality in the US government that I think is utterly unwarranted."
And they want to stall indefinitely - so what. They are in office for 2 and a half more years at most. At which point theres a new admin for Iran to deal with. Probably either a Dem or McCain.
Most smal to medium nuclear energy producers import enriched uranium IIUC. ANd Iran seems not to worry that much about being reliant on imported gasoline. This is a very acceptable solution, and the notion that its surrender is propaganda from the Iranian regime. "And so both sides must stall during negotiations. They have nothing to offer us except an unacceptable negotiated surrender. We have nothing to offer them that they want, except the promise that we won't attack them -- which we cannot give them." Even if the regime places no value on the economic benefits, or on the poliitcal benefit of the beginnning of dialog with the US, there may be others in Iran who do, and their refusal to accept the offer would impact the light in which the Iranian public sees the regime. As for standing in the world, its fairly obvious that matters to Ms Rice.
The only reason we are asking them to suspend enrichment and being a hard case is that they hid many of their facilities from IEAE (sp?) inspections. They have the right by the NPT to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but they are obligated to allow inspections. So, they buy interesting selections of equipment from secret vendors (Khan's network) and hide them from inspectors.... but according to folks on this message board, it's America that has the problem of bad faith in these negotiations..LOL. Assuming leaders in Tehran read the papers, they have seen a recent phenomena where an Arab muslim state managed to get off the terror list, get recognized again, and did not suffer a regime change, so obviously they realize there are options when dealing with America. Like take the light water reactor, ask us to pay the difference, and sit on that for 10 years and be a good boy with the inspections. Then in a few years advise that you want to master the enrichment process, but this time make sure to remember to send those invitations to the inspectors. Why is there such an urgency for them to master the enrichment cycle unless it is to pursue a bomb? If it's for econmic reasons alone as some claim, then just make us pay the difference. Oh, and I think having Russia, EU, China, and the USA as possible suppliers for your light-water reactor material is pretty good diversification for security reasons. How many more excuses can we make for the Iranian government's policies? Posted by: Aaron at June 6, 2006 11:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Aaron, the Bush admnistration has a poor track record at funding things it says it will fund. And that's only the next 2 years. 3 years from now, if oil prices are high, how many billions will we agree to pay iraq? We'll figure they're rich and we're up to our eyeballs in debt. Who's going to take the initiative to give money to iran? But in 20 years they'll need a lot of power plants and they won't have much oil to pay for fuel. I can't say the iranians are trustworthy, but our recent history is very bad. And I can't say whether they're looking 20 years ahead. But if they are, they need to be doing the sorts of things they're doing. There is the matter of hiding their work. That looks like they're trying for nukes. I can't say they aren't, it makes sense to me that they ought to. But wouldn't we try just as hard to stop them enriching uranium if they hadn't tried to keep it secret? If we knew where all their nuclear facilities were we wouldn't have such doubt we can bomb them. I could make the argument for them doing everything we know they've done, even if they weren't trying for nukes. But I don't see that argument is worth making. Once they can enrich their own uranium they can make breeder reactors and put up new breeder reactors wherever they want. They can make as many bombs as they want, cheap. And if they choose to do that there will be a short lead time between the time the inspectors first find out and their first plutonium-bomb or U233 test. Once they're using cheap power-plant technology, they could change their minds and make bombs rather quick and easy, whenever they wanted. So it doesn't really matter what they're trying to do now, and it doesn't really matter what the NPT allows them to do. If they continue doing what they're doing now, they'll have the ability to quickly make nukes sometime in the future. We won't feel safe unless we stop them. Khamenei has offered to give us full inspections so we can make sure iran isn't making nukes. But we won't be satisfied with any kind of inspections. We want those plants taken apart and destroyed or shipped out of the country. We want iran's power plant fuel under foreign control. The only reason for the iranians to agree to that is our threat to hurt them severely. They have to believe we're about to attack or they will not cave in. They have to believe we'll do it despite any consequences. They have to believe they won't get protection from russia or china. And they need a way to explain it to their base. So here's my prediction. Whether or not the iranians agree to negotiation on our terms, the Bush admiinistration will stall until after the November elections. The iranians won't fold without a serious threat, and too much threatening might give a Democrat victory in November. For the same reason we won't attack until after the elections. Then we will roll out the big threats. If the iranians fold sufficiently, then we send in the troops unopposed to do inspections. If they stall at that point, we keep making threats and demands until we think they won't surrender anytime soon. Then we bomb. Alternatively, we might be bluffing. We make the big threats, iran doesn't budge, we throw up our hands and sulk like we did with north korea. The iranians are surely studying that case carefully. So there's my prediction. Nothing but words until November. Then threats. Then My confidence in these probabilities is not high. I'm not sure it isn't 80% we bomb Or possibly 90% we bluff and then back down I see very little room for negotiation because for us anything short of victory is defeat.
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
