Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Quiet success on Iran
The Obama administration really should get some credit for its quiet, effective diplomacy on Iran. Surrounded by a hawkish commentariat and facing a muddled Iranian domestic situation, the Obama team has managed to formulate a policy which brought Iran to the diplomatic table facing an unusually united international front. And by resolutely staying out of Iranian domestic affairs, it managed to engage diplomatically without particularly strengthening or endorsing the Ahmadinejad government. It has also quietly continued its diplomatic outreach to Syria, with the unusual visit to Washington of the deputy Foreign Minister rather firmly squashing the wave of autopsies for America's Syria outreach.
None of this guarantees success on any front, and there's a long way to go. But it's pretty notable that Obama inherited from the Bush hawks a strong, confident, rising Iran which is now backed into a diplomatic corner, regionally on the defensive, and domestically in crisis.
Top administration officials such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have also done a good job of pushing back against the feverish attempts to depict an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear sites as not only possible but inevitable. The blizzard of such commentary has been striking indeed, with the presumable intent of normalizing an idea which was once seen as nigh-unthinkable. Heck, sometimes I think that the goal is to get people wondering "hey, didn't Israel already do that?"
From what I've heard from Israeli analysts and officials, they have decided that the lessons of the Lebanon and Gaza wars are really that massive force establishes deterrence and that the predicted harsh Arab reaction (uprisings against friendly regimes, severing of diplomatic relations) never happens. If they genuinely believe that, it makes the odds that they might go for it against Iran considerably higher. So the gentle reminders that a military strike is likely to have little long-term impact on the Iranian nuclear program, would badly damage American interests in the region (such as in Iraq, which are not necessarily the same as Israel's interests) and would not really serve Western interests are so important.
The public nature of the campaign to justify an Israeli strike against Iran could be a useful tactical weapon for American diplomats, the bad cop to help sweeten the pot for the Western good cops. But it can only be a useful tactical weapon if there exists sufficient trust between the Obama administration and the Israeli government that the latter would not go rogue and strike on its own. We hear so much about how the Obama team needs to build trust with the Israelis to get progress on peace, but it runs both ways -- Netanyahu needs to do a lot more to build Obama's confidence that they are on the Iran strategy team.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
What is
Abu Aardvark?
Writing under this pseudonym, Marc Lynch began his influential Middle East politics blog Abu Aardvark in 2002...
Contact me at:
abuaardvark [at]
gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, @abuaardvark
Follow me on
:
@abuaardvark
I like what the
I like what the administration has been doing with Iran, but isn't the biggest reason for the unified international front the fact that it was just divulged that Iran has been running a massive reprocessing facility near Qom? That's what brought Russia and China on board, not US diplomatic efforts.
Also, Iran's domestic legitimacy crisis was completely fortuitous. I don't think anyone outside the administration would suggest that Obama had anything to do with that.
In my mind, those are the two biggest factors that have impacted Iranian relations and neither of them had anything to do with the U.S. or the rest of the world.
Of course, the U.S. is in a position to take advantage of those developments, but I'm pessimistic, even though I think the administration has been doing a good job on Iran.
Facts are inconvenient
Iran was not running a "reprocessing plant" -- it was an enrichment plant, and it isn't even operational yet. Iran's disclosure was in accord to its safeguards agreement, and was not a "secret". In fact Iran's enrichment program was never a secret -- Iran announced plans to enrich uranium on national radio in 1983 and invited IAEA inspectors to see Iran's uranium mines in 1992 -- a decade before the so-called "exposure" of its enrichment program.
The Problem is not with Iran's Enrichment Programme,
after all Mr./Ms. hass, Iran is entitled to its own peaceful production and utilisation of nuclear power. One even remembers from the 1980s, that the mullahs issued a fatwa to prohibit the production of weapons of mass destruction in Iran.
The problem started with the United States National Intelligence Estimate, declaring that Iran had stopped the plans of producing nuclear weapons in 2003, but re-started the programme in 2007, adding that it had no further information on the subject. Iran could have and still can, dispell all the concerns of the US and international community, bu opening all its nuclear sites; and not hide any, to international inspection regularly, to show that its enrichment capacity is no further than that of producing energy, and at most, for medical purposes.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Where please ..
Where please the US NIE that claims that Iran "re-started the programme in 2007"???
That is certainly not what the published parts of the NIE said and certainly not what was testified on in congress.
NY Times Dec.3rd. 2007
In addition to the stoppage of 2003, the new estimate says that "enrichment programme could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable eventually unchanged from previous estimates". If they are saying this in 2007,then they are inclined to believe that Iran can have a nuclear weapon within ten years, and that cannot happen without a re-armament programme.
I would say, if Iran is trully uninterested in nuclear weapons production, then the level of enrichment of 5% can show clearly the energy production enrichment, and I think the 9% enrichment for medical purposes. There is no need either for secrecy or confrontation, just open all the sites for periodic insepection, and put an end to the matter. Still better late that never.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Are you saying you lied, or that you simply do not understand?
If the program restarted in 2007, that is EXACTLY what would have been stated in the report. There is NO NEED to read into it, as you have here with disastrously incorrect results.
Either you have been caught lying or you simply do not understand what the report is CLEARLY saying.
The program stopped in 2003, end of story.
End of Story?.
Perhaps end of story to your good self Mr./Ms. A balanced, but not really for the rest of the world. One feels your judgement is somewhat totally out of place, and in any case, since the Obama administration as well as many more other administrations including those in the neighbourhood of Iran, feel that Tehran has to come clean about the nuclear weapons issue, means it is not really the end of story.
khairi janbek.paris/france
I don't want to put to fine
I don't want to put to fine of a point on the matter, but the report says the program ended in 2003, and not in 2007, nor does it imply that it did. In fact, it is not the purpose of the that report to IMPLY anything, it is to be as CRYSTAL CLEAR as possible. So, according to the vast majority of the US intelligence community, you are wrong.
The Obama administrations stances on the matter stem from the idea that there is no imminent Iranian threat, and that stance appears to be working. They know, as well as anyone else, that Iran has not attacked another nation for about 250 years.
Its a free country, so continue with the histrionics if you like, but don't expect people here to believe you, especially when you choose to personally rewrite the national intelligence estimate to make it fit your world views.
Sure I am glad.
What is clear is that, no one really knows the truth about the Iranian nuclear programme. It could develop nuclear weapons now, or in a decade. Therefore transparency from the Iranian side can go a long way to dispell all this. The fact that Iran did not attack anyone for the last 250 years or so, is due to the fact that, it never had a Mullahs regime before, which declared its first intention to be; in the words of late Ayattullah Khomeini, to export the Iranian revolution, and later on, in the words of its current president to wipe out Israel from the face of the map; presumably leading to the destruction of Israel's immediate environ also.
I am neither intersted in historionics, nor have a mission to prove anything, and as your good self says, this is a free country, and here as well is a free country, therefore you are entitled to dillude yourself in believing anything that fits your own world outlook.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Wielding the Club of Israel.
One would say, President Obama is entitled to pat himslef on the back for the good job done and is being done with Iran.
When it comes to the US and Israel, I don't think that the we can talk in terms of trust, rather in terms of understanding perhaps. I say that because I am yet to see, a politician trusting another further than he/she can throw him/her. Just as Israel accepted conveniently to be the wielded club over the head of President AhmadiNejad, to strenghten the Washington administration's position vis a vis Tehran, as well as to serve its own purposes, Israel can be the wielded club over the head of Mr. AhmadiNejad also, to undermine the US position vis a vis the creation of a Palestinian state, and serving its own purposes.
In the absence of any other candidates; usually Gaza and Lebanon, to embarass the US and drag it into a war on its own side, Israel can actually still hit Iran, draw the USA into the conflict; assuming that Iran will actually retaliate against US bases and strategic interests in the region, and re-shuffle the peace agenda in the Middle East, if, President Obama presents Israel with Hobson's Choice regarding the creation of a Palestinian state that is contrary to the vision of the current Israeli government.
Of course, one doesn't know how the Israeli public percieves this possibility. I mean at times of national emergencies people tend to gather around their leaderships in a nationalistic fervour, but alternatively, the Israeli public may well be sensitive also, about valueing US-Israel good relations, above whether Mr. Netanyahu remains a prime minister or not.
khairi janbek.paris/france
My response is the same as
My response is the same as swanic's. It seems far too early to give credit or blame; in this case the credit is being given a bit over-eagerly. The Obama Administration was clearly caught flat-footed by Iran's election fiasco and its response was, at best, awkward. But it's also true that the diplomatic fall-out from that may be positive. The Qom facility also alters the diplomatic deck of cards, at least in the short-term, in a positive way. But the long-term fall-out from both issues is unclear, as the post notes. It's certainly too early for any bouquets to be awarded, but I agree that at a minimum Obama hasn't overplayed his hand toward Iran (one could imagine the Bush Administration's reacting in a counter-productive manner to the Iran election). Beyond that, we shall see....
I'll raise your Gates
US has pushed back against Israeli strike?
from USA Today, July 5, 2009:
Biden: Israel can chart own course on Iran
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, even as the top U.S. military officer said any attack on Iran would be destabilizing.
See what happens
When you talk to people instead of having them look down the barrel of a gun!!!
To be honest, the whole thing
To be honest, the whole thing "are they or aren't they going to strike" discussion strikes me as ridiculous, since the Israelis just don't have the capability to do such a strike without
A. Sending out a huge chunk of their air force on an uncertain bombing run to hit a wide target list using bunker-busters that may not be strong enough to destroy all the targets, all while trying to dodge Iranian anti-air systems (particularly those nasty SAMs the Russians have sold to them) and doing multiple in-air re-fuelings over Iraqi airspace without US permission,
AND/OR
B. Using nuclear weaponry.
I think the Israelis know this (they asked for permission to re-fuel over Iraqi airspace during Bush's Presidency, and were refused), and they're using the perception of the threat as a bargaining chip, even if they don't really have it.
Strike Capability
Of course your good self Mr. Brett, realises that there is another school of war, which states that Israel has actually the capability of striking Iran with long range missiles. Therefore, I don't hink it is a matter of lack of capabilities in this department, rather, a matter of whether Israel can take the reponse of the Iranians in the event of such an attack.
Iran has an unknown number of -Shihab 3- missiles with a range of 1500 Kms. They are working on -Shihab 4- with a range of 2000 Kms. And claim they are developing -Shihab 5- with the expected range of 3500 Kms. It is well known also, that with long range missiles, error is usually measured in Kilometers rather than meters, consequently, to compensate for the error, in the event of attack, Israel will have to use extremely devastating warheads, and Iran would be expected then also, to retaliate in kind. All in all not a very nice picture I think you'd agree.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Of course your good self Mr.
That's why I included "nukes" as an option. If they're willing to use nukes, then wiping out the sites is mostly a problem of accuracy, as you said.
What could the Iranians do? They have proxies, but the proxies aren't invulnerable or that powerful, and all the Iranians have on their own are some (inaccurate) missiles.
The capability
I didn't contradict your good self's statement Mr. Brett, rather wanted to say that the question is not that of capabilities, rather, if Israel strikes Iran it could do that with long-range missiles with conventional heads that are highly devastating.
One is no military expert, rather from general information, if such a war is provoked, it is likely also, that Iran would retaliate with conventional and highly devastating warheads. Given the inaccuracy of the long-range missiles, such a war will be a war of random and wanton destruction. Though Israel is capable of provoking such an attack, I am not sure it would want to invite a response in kind, knowing that Iran does have the same capability. Is it a matter of balance of terror?. Indeed for the time being, it looks like that.
khairi janbek.paris/france
The entire thing is a farce.
The entire thing is a farce. Iran does not threaten Israel. NOT AT ALL. Even with Nukes, THEY DON"T THREATEN ISRAEL and they don't threaten us.
If they actually did threaten us or Israel, then why are we not worried about Pakistan, who HAS nukes, where Osama and tens of thousands of his followers control entire regions of the country? Pakistan, who sold nuke tech to Iran and North Korea, whose military sympathize with al qeada and the Taliban?
In comparison, Iran threatens us about as much as the french do.
Conversly, Israels threat to strike Iran preemptively will more than likely spark an oil price related depression in the US that will devastate the US for decades to come.
Iraq will melt down, as will Afghanistan. Israel will pull us into something like WWIII and we will truley become the great satan in the entire region, a region that we rely on significantly for oil price stability.
I think we ought to follow Brzezinski's advice and shoot down any Israeli aircraft that would endanger US interests in that way, and take out Israels ability to send others if they persist.
The entire thing is a farce.
Depends on what you define as "threaten". I don't think the Iranians would just willy-nilly nuke the Israelis if they had nukes, but having nukes would mean that Iran would be under considerably less military threat from the Israelis, which gives them more options to engage in subterfuge and supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (or revolutionary efforts against pro-US arabic governments, of which there are several that are unpopular).
Depending on your point of view, that's either a highly de-stabilizing thing that will possibly lead to increased low-level conflict and political instability (made worse when the major Arabic states scramble for either their own nukes or nuclear protection from the US), or a good thing that will lead to a more even balance of power in the Middle East. Make of it what you will.
The military (and specifically the ISI) sympathized with the Taliban, but during the entire nearly 20-year period when they were up to their shenanigans in the FATA and Afghanistan they never gave the Taliban or their people nukes, and they keep their own nukes under lock and key. They're not entirely stupid.
Either that, or we finally start permanently shifting away from oil dependency after suffering repeated oil shocks due to disruption of the oil supply from such a conflict.
Packers lose! Packers lose!
I don't see any cancers growing in the Viking locker room, but being 4-0 sure helps. Let's see where they are after November 1st. I can't wait.