Thursday, June 01, 2006
The New York Times urges unilateralism
Could the New York Times be any more silly than in its editorializing about Iran?
Wednesday morning, the Times urged the United States to abandon the quaint idea that it should work through either the United Nations or our "European allies." In an editorial titled "Iran wants to talk," the Grey Lady said that Iran wanted to negotiate with the United States, but "Washington, perversely, seems uninterested," owing to the Bush administration's "stubborn resistance." The Times does not, apparently, think that the mechanisms of international law or cooperative negotiations with our allies are going to work, so we should deal with Iran on our own, and then hope that they all sign up for a deal they had no hand in negotiating. It is extremely peculiar reasoning.
Unfortunately for the Times, first thing Wednesday morning -- before most readers even got to the editorial page -- the Bush administration actually did declare its desire to negotiate directly with Iran. Indeed, the timing was so close we can safely conclude that Bush had decided to offer direct talks before the Times published its editorial, and we can reasonably speculate that the various Times reporters who have been following the story knew about the volte-face before their employer had written its editorial.
Within hours of the Times declaring that "Iran wants to talk" and the Bush administration offering to do so, Iran pissed all over the American offer, calling it "propaganda." But wait, that's good news! The quick rejection from Iran should -- according to the Times -- strengthen our diplomatic position:
Direct talks with Iran may fail to produce an acceptable agreement. But by testing Iran's willingness to bargain seriously, America could put itself in a far stronger diplomatic position to seek more effective international sanctions later.
This is, of course, asinine. This brief episode merely confirms a pattern that has repeated itself countless times since 1979, at every crisis: some third echelon Iranian official hints off the record that the United States should propose direct talks, the United States refuses, the press beats up on the White House, the White House eventually makes a public gesture toward Iran, and Iran scoffs at the gesture as if it is so much imperialist claptrap. We are Charlie Brown, and they are Lucy pulling away the football just as we persuade ourselves that this time we will actually get to kick it. In no way have any of these encounters strengthened our diplomatic position. Why? First, because we look just as foolish as Charlie Brown, falling for the same deception time after time. Second, because everybody involved, including especially the Chinese and the Russians, already know that Iran is not in the least bit willing to "bargain seriously."
We may indeed have to negotiate directly with Iran if only because our other options suck so much. If, however, Iran does not fold up like a cheap suitcase -- which it won't -- we will then have to take action that I am confident the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council will not support. Why? If they have not agreed to sanctions up until now, they certainly won't support the American position in a negotiation that they have chosen to abdicate. It will be much easier for them to decide that the United States botched the negotiations, and that therefore they are under no obligation to help the Americans put pressure on Iran.
UPDATE (6:00 am Thursday): There's another story on Iran's rebuff of our overture this morning (risible AP deadline: "Iran foreign minister welcomes U.S. talks"), and it contains within it some smart words from President Bush:
"Our message to the Iranians is that one, you won't have a weapon, and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward," President Bush said Wednesday.
"I thought it was important for the United States to take the lead — along with our partners," Bush said. "And that's what you're seeing. You're seeing robust diplomacy. I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically and I'm going to give it every effort to do so."
This is an important distinction: "diplomacy" and "direct talks" are not the same thing. There is now, and there has been, all sorts of diplomacy going on. There have been low echelon secret talks, no end of back-and-forth through third countries, public declarations to domestic audiences that signal through the press coverage, and jockeying for position in and through the Iraqi theater. All of this is diplomacy.
Speculation alert
The Democrats, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, will try to embarrass the Bush administration. They will conflate "diplomacy" and "direct talks," and will measure the success of the former according to the conduct -- or lack thereof -- of the latter. The objective will be to declare the Bush administration a failure for not having secured "direct talks" with Tehran. When you see this happening -- as it did in the New York Times editorial linked in the original post -- consider whether pressure of this sort is playing into Iran's hands by increasing the value of the one thing that Iran can deny the United States: "direct talks."
8 Comments:
By 
The Mechanical Eye, at
Thu Jun 01, 02:00:00 AM:
Iran's tactics on their nuclear enrichment program are meant for the consumption of two classes of credulous people, Tiger:
a) Children
b) Diplomats
I'm fairly sure that the editorial brain trust over at the Times aren't b)...
DU
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Jun 01, 08:14:00 AM:
I think the Democrats would prefer not to talk about Iran at all. A Cold War style containment with broad international support for sanctions might have some small effect, but it appears that either (a) Iran will be a nuclear nation in ten years; (b) We will bomb Iran into the stone age, prompting another civil disaster and regional instability a la Iraq; or (c) The Bush administration will, for the first time in their reign, find a diplomatic solution.
I'm guessing that, since Bush is adopting John Kerry's stated strategy of forming international cooperation over Iran while moving towards direct talks, Democrats would handle this similarly to Bush's handling. So there's no political hay to be made over it really. I think maybe we'll see a lot more attention on Bush's incompetence at home rather than a big debate over Iran.
If Bush decides that a decade is just too big a "gathering danger", and we have to bomb the bejesus out of Iran long before [the November election] they have anything approaching a nuclear weapon, then I take it all back. I think the war zealots in Bush's cabinet and staff would like to head in there right now, buns-a-glazin', but somewhere in that muddy headed mess of an administration, someone is advising temperance.
Thank you, whoever you are.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Jun 01, 10:45:00 AM:
Unilateralism on Iran and North Korea, multilateralism with Iraq, unilateralism with Serbia/Bosnia. Whatever news that fits the political agenda.
By The Mechanical Eye, at
Thu Jun 01, 02:05:00 PM:
I think the war zealots in Bush's cabinet and staff would like to head in there right now, buns-a-glazin', but somewhere in that muddy headed mess of an administration, someone is advising temperance.
Thank you, whoever you are.
You think in cartoons - war-loving closet-fascists versus thoughtful people who happen mirror your own sentiments. In fact, the options you give to stop a nuclear Iran are absolutist - either the destruction of the Islamic Republic ("bomb 'em to the stone age") or the siren-call of "more talks," which, as we all know, will magically solve anything.
In fact, a bit of both is necessary - diplomatic talks should be backed up with at least the credible threat of force - force that may not re-introduce Iran to the Neolithic Era but will wreak havoc on the Islamic Republic's ability to create nuclear weapons. Talks should be firm and show that, if the European powers are unable to back up their talk with substance, at least the United States will. Iran would react rationally to this - the President of Iran may be a kook, but the government itself is a rational state willing to make a stragetic loss if it avoids pain.
i.e., President Clinton's actions in Iraq in 1998 and with Kosovo.
There's also the ever-present possibility of encouraging unrest in Iran - always tricky, considering our shameful abandonment of the Shia in Iraq in the early 1990s and the charge within Iran that any opposition the Islamic Republic is tantamount to U.S. lackeyhood.
As for the Democrats, I think you're correct in assessing that they would be more or less doing what the Bush administration is currently doing. However, I think their silence isn't agreement so much as political shrewdness - if things go well, they'll say that they were with the President all along. If not, they can wash their hands of the mess.
DU
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jun 01, 02:07:00 PM:
"Unilateralism on Iran and North Korea, multilateralism with Iraq, unilateralism with Serbia/Bosnia. Whatever news that fits the political agenda."
There is so much truth in that.
Iran is a sticky situation. Part of the reason (I think) that they're being so bold and willful here is that they think that we are on the ropes, so to speak. They can get away with whatever they want because the only power with the strength to hurt them (US) now cannot find the support to do so, thanks to political fallout over the Iraqi WMD thing. And truthfully, I don't think that our leadership really wants to do anything in Iran. (which I think the Iranians suspect as well) Two reconstruction efforts per decade is the limit, thanks.
The current strategy seems to be to go through all the conciliatory, 'diplomatic' motions we can think of (knowing full well that none of them will work) and hope that they conclude and muster a consensus before Iran has working atomic weapons. I shudder to think how things will turn out if said strategy fails.
I meant to say more interesting things, but my Vicadin is kicking in... my lower back seized up the other day and I'm on quarters. So if I ramble or mistype or something, please forgive me.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Jun 01, 04:49:00 PM:
DF 82 - I agree, I don't think we want an overt conflict with Iran. But I think we are fomenting pressure on the ground. They are feeling it. The nuclear works make us feel like time is on their side, but really, it may be on ours. A difficult proposition to test, but they have a restless population, a bad economy (despite high oil prices), striking unions, demonstrating students. The question is -- if they exhibit terminal brutality in quashing dissent (which they have shown some willingness to do at this stage), what do we do? How do we defend the people who are showing the fortitude to fight repression? Do we have the stomach to put some of our own guys in, and help arm the revolutionaries?
In some respects, the Rice proposal buys more time for pressure to increase on the regime from the inside. Our administration seems to be showing confidence in the presumed slow boil of their nuclear program...
By Escort81, at
Fri Jun 02, 01:13:00 AM:
I want to pose somewhat of a technical question regarding Iran's nuclear energy development (which I think everyone understands is a nuclear weapons development program): do nuclear explosions leave forensic evidence as to the site of the manufacture of the fissionable material -- that is, if a bomb goes off, can its origin be determined by any radioactive residue, even if no state or group claims responsibitily for it?
If the answer is yes, then why doesn't a variant of the Cold War doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) apply with respect to Iran -- that the US could establish a doctrine (recognizing that Iran lacks the delivery systems that the Soviet Union had to make the destruction mutual) that states that the use of any nuclear weapon traceable to Iran would result in the complete destruction of the Iranian government and most of its people and territory.
Granted, this would not make the Israelis feel all that comfortable, since apparently the Israelis would be the primary target of an Iranian bomb (and we can assume that the Israelis have their own deterrent force that would survive a first strike), either smuggled by Hezbollah or launched by intermediate range missle from Iran. But are the Mullahs that completely whacked out that they would act to destroy Israel with a nuke at the cost of nearly every Iranian life?
I am not suggesting that Iran having a bomb is a good thing, but it seems to me that we are headed toward that eventuality, unless Iran is bluffing about its progress or unless the West gets its act together. Based on the comments Hans Blix made on BBC America News tonight, when he implied that the U.S. was the party most responsible for the current diplomatic impasse, that doesn't seem likely.
More random questions -- if the U.S. makes this proposed doctrine known before the full development of an Iranian nuclear weapon, would it in any way alter the thinking of the Mullahs, or is that already baked into their equation? Would future U.S. administrations honor the implementation of what would be a Bush Doctrine? Would Jimmy Carter even have enforced his own doctrine had he been reelected in 1980 (Carter proclaimed: "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." Note that he opposed the ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in January 1991 and wanted more time for sanctions to work, though his doctrine wording gives him an out with the term 'outside force' as he could argue that Iraq was an 'inside force'.)?
Just thinking out loud here, trying to explore branches of the decision tree.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Fri Jun 02, 09:00:00 AM:
CP, it is hard to know whose side time is on. In Zurich I saw a very interesting talk by Ian Bremmer, the President of Eurasia Group. He likened the situation in Iran to two competing alarm clocks: the nuclear clock, and the reform clock (the assumption being that the whole provocative stance by Iran is driven by domestic politics). The question is which clock goes bing first. The recent spate of domestic protests in Iran indicate that the reform clock is at least still ticking.
