In the Arena

A Smart Iran Policy

David Sanger and William Broad lay out the next stage of the Obama Administration’s Iran policy in the NY Times today and it seems pretty solid to me. The President gave Iran a year to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory; and four months to formally agree to the nuclear fuel transfer program, which it negotiated in Geneva. Iran hasn’t complied, so it’s time for sanctions–and also, one hopes for more of this:

In addition, international nuclear inspectors report that at Iran’s plant in Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges spin to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, the number of the machines that are currently operating has dropped by 20 percent since the summer, a decline nuclear experts attribute to technical problems. Others, including some European officials, believe the problems may have been accentuated by a series of covert efforts by the West to undermine Iran’s program, including sabotage on its imported equipment and infrastructure.

The sanctions will be targeted, with the intention of not harming the Iranian middle class:

Sanctions will be a difficult balancing act for the administration, since it acknowledges that three previous rounds of sanctions have failed to deter Iran, and it also wants to avoid angering Iranians protesting in the streets by depriving them of Western goods. That is why the administration is focusing on the Revolutionary Guards, who are increasingly detested by the protesters, and who have built up billions of dollars of business interests in telecommunications, oil and construction.

The administration aims to get Arab and Asian nations to join Europe in cutting off financial transactions with front companies for the Revolutionary Guards.

The crucial question here is whether the Russians and Chinese will join in. This is an important moment in our relations with both countries. The Obama Administration worked hard to build a strong working relationship with each. It has removed the European-based anti-missile system, which threatened Russia, and has joined in good-faith nuclear weapon reduction talks. It has not pressed China on human rights and it provides security for Chinese economic development programs, like the massive new copper mine in Afghanistan. That’s no guarantee that either country will join in–although I do have some hope that the Russians will, and that our European and Sunni allies will help apply the pressure.

In any case, this seems to me a far more plausible strategy than the bomb-bomb-Iran brigade has posited. It is strong, it is subtle, it doesn’t alienate the Iranian people and it doesn’t make bullying kinetic threats that might weaken the international coalition that is building against Iran. Let’s hope it works.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • sacredh

    With all the turmoil going on in Iran right now it wouldn’t surprise me to see the regime in Iran fall back on it’s “US is the Great Satan” default position to try to divert the Iranian people from protesting against the government. I don’t think it will work unless Israel launches a pre-emptive strike at the nuclear facilities.

  • sacredh

    It also wouldn’t surprise me if the Iranian government is actually hoping for an Israeli strike.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    What is equally important here is how the media discusses this issue. If they continue on a path of a reality based narrative then reporting the truth will go along way toward shifting public opinion away from GOP absurdity. Obviously, there is certain amount of concern abroad that America will not sustain its current path because Obama will be weakened at home and the GOP mindset will surge in the off-year elections. How many of our allies will be willing to back our play if they perceive the msm putting their foot on the scale for the other side?

  • http://professorwinn.wordpress.com professorwinn

    Au contraire.

    Obtaining nuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles to deliver them are strategic national imperatives for the tyrants in Teheran. Sanctions will not stop Iran and have a poor track record of changing regime behavior. Sanctions are an excuse to do nothing and delay the inevitable, however unpalatable choice.

    The West, led by the Obama Administration, is afraid of Iran (Teheran openly mocks him) and afraid of using force – the only instrument totalitarian regimes respect as even a fair reading of world history demonstrates. Iran is also Terror, Inc. and few who would miss the current regime. For more, please read my Net Assessment:Iran: http://globalsecuritymonitor.blogspot.com/2009/12/net-assessment-iran.html.

  • umeshgeeta

    On my blog (http://www.21stcenturypolitics.com/2010/01/andrew-sullivan-on-iran.html) I did point out what is missing in Andrew Sullivan line of thinking on Iran – accepting nuclear Iran. The consequent ‘nuclear arms race’ in Middle East is not acceptable and hence the option of Military Action should not be ruled out.

    But before that if any sanctions are to be brought in, that is worth the try provided Russia and China come along; as like everybody is suspicious of their thinking here.

    Some time back Fred Kaplan argued that Obama White House should not over invest in ‘nuke disarmament talk’ with Russia as benefits are less there. Subsequent developments where Russia is demanding ‘linking mothballing of any missile shield programs with disarmament’ confirms the kind of futility or at least difficulty of such talks. So the question is, will even temporarily halting deployment of any missile shield tech (Russians are asking beyond the dropped E. European shield) would bring Russia on board when it comes to co-operation with Iran? May be that is something America can find. This way, China will be the lone stand out inUNSC and the game will be then put them in isolation at which point China may see the light.

    Otherwise, what is acceptable to America? Israel unilaterally bombing Iran? Will that be any helpful for American credibility? Will that make Arabs to believe and trust America when it comes to Arab-Israeli problem?

    Knowing that sanctions did not deliver much in past, America needs to be pretty open for ‘military strikes’ if the proposed round of sanctions do not work as well. It is also clear by now that internal ‘turmoil’ of Iran is irrelevant to the Nuclear Issue because all factions in Iran are equally committed for Nukes.

    No one is advocating ‘boots on grounds’ strategy. What many folks are saying is the option of ‘air attack’ should be a serious option which America undertakes if situation comes to that pass; if not itself then jointly with Israel as like in past.

  • http://www.historyisaweapon.com historyisaweapon

    China is probably not going to join in because, as has been clear for decades, they believe that nations should not interfere in the internal workings of other nations. Iran is not a threat to the United States, Israel, China, Iraq, or anyone else, despite whatever bellicose hawk rhetoric we hear domestically. Until that changes, it’s foolish to expect them to join in on an isolate Iran policy. The same thing goes for Iran. The rest of the world is paying more attention to oil and they have no reason to ally with the US on this. Obama is foolish if he thinks continuing the nonsense of the Bush years (the joke line that is the “axis of evil”) is a smart belated strategy into the 21st century.
    He needs to look at root causes, or we’re going to continue to relearn and relearn (or continue to fail to learn and fail to learn) that total information awareness can always be defeated by the death of a thousand cuts.

  • 53_3

    “No one is advocating ‘boots on grounds’ strategy. What many folks are saying is the option of ‘air attack’ should be a serious option which America undertakes if situation comes to that pass; if not itself then jointly with Israel as like in past.”
    .
    Actually, you are advocating a “boots on the ground” policy.
    .
    The Iranians won’t be neutralized with air strikes, and we we will not be able to neutralize their missile capability with an air-only approach. The failing parameter here is remote sensing and accurate, adequate intelligence.
    .
    The Iranians will successfully close Hormuz to oil shipment. Bear in mind that we can keep it open “militarily”, but that is not the same as making Hormuz safe enough for passage of oil tankers. Big difference.
    .
    My criticism of you is leveled at your failure to realize and anticipate the consequences of military action in Iran, which, I’ll remind you, will not be like Iraq in 1990.
    .
    This is not an issue of whether we “fear” Iran or not. We most certainly would “win” such a war, eventually, but the biggest question is is it worth it.
    .
    And, having seen India and Pakistan square off six years ago, the answer is most certainly “no”.
    .
    It is those consequences rather than the airy hope you convey of an “air only” cooperative with Israel that will dictate what will follow. This is not playtime in the imagination, but a real world situation. Keep in mind that once that bridge is crossed, boots on the ground will be the only effective solution.
    .
    Almost certainly more than a million pairs…

  • formerlyjames

    As we watch Pakistan, it is hard for me to not smile sardonically at talk of concern for nuclear proliferation. At the risk of attacks from both left and right, I have to say that Iran does at least have a reasonably responsible government in place, albeit subject to challenge and change amongst its civilized population. I predict that soon focus will shift to the horn of africa and yemen, where thought and action for real concern has been and will continue to develop where civilized behavior seems to have long gone by the wayside.

  • umeshgeeta

    - We are not saying here that attacking Iranian nuclear sites is free of consequences. Argument is allowing undeterred Iranian nuke is far more expensive than the consequences which we will face. Naturally, there are no good options; we have to be open for ‘avoiding’ the worst one. Failure to see consequences, it can be argued both ways.
    - No Israeli leader (Bibi or even Tzipi Livni) will avoid bombing of Iranian sites in the end as Iran inches toward existential threats of Israel. It will be only ‘the period or time’ till when they would wait on behalf of American pressure.
    - It is not necessary that all of Iranian sites are demolished. Obviously all known ones will be demolished in these attacks and the question will be left for those which are not exposed. But even among the known sites, site like Natanz is the one which has 54K centrifugal tubes whereas newly exposed Quam is far way from production and has only 3K. This means destroying known sites is going to give the pay back of pushing back Iranian nuke program way behind.
    - About oil tanker movement – read the latest news. Saudi’s are taking out their capacity from Carribians knowing that USA market, still the largest, has seen the ‘high water mark’ of oil consumption. Already Gulf states are lining up their oil supply for China and India. Let these countries understand the importance of stopping Iranian nukes. Just by saying ‘that is not our problem’ if China wants to graduate as World Super Power; we should let them know it does not work.
    - As Andrew Sullivan says (Tom Friedman would readily join the chorus), if this raises the price of ‘oil’; it is better for America because our Congress is never going to show the foresight of going away from Carbon based energy. External shocks will help push the Congress. And meanwhile, Russia (the one who has actually surpassed Saudi also in oil export) would reap the advantages of high export price. So if you want to see the economic consequences; there is a way to look at it in not so negative terms.
    - Intelligence for Iranian site and boots on ground required for that – that is already happening. American intelligence based in Iraq and Afghan must be doing that already. So I am not sure how are you saying that I am advocating any ‘invasion’ here.

  • formerlyjames

    53, I am having a laugh here at this. You really want to engage with a neocon? Why? And umesh, what is wrong with Russia deriving economic benefit from its natural resources. If you hadn’t lost me before that mysterious point, you did then.

  • 53_3

    No, formerlyjames, I just wanted to rebut, then say two words to this neocon:
    “Gaza”
    “Lebanon”
    .
    The proof is in the pudding…

  • umeshgeeta

    formerlyjames – No, there is nothing wrong Russia getting benefited by increase in oil price. All I wanted to point out there was such a beneficial arrangement can further induce Russia to be with West to start with or that they would realize that siding with Iran is hardly beneficial to them in the end.

    For both ‘formerlyjames’ and ’53_3′: it is very convenient to you to label anyone as Neocon who argues differently than what you advocate. The core of Neocon philosophy is ‘march of freedom is in the end beneficial to America’ (as propounded by Paul Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney and the gang) which I do not subscribe and it is clearly not the case here in Iran.

    I cared least when Rice was selling Lebanon and Gaza elections as a solution for America. I am on record opposing Bush’s Iraq war. So I think I do not need to prove any of non-neocon credentials here.

    My beef is – regime change or rectification of regimes or even waiting out for an internally achieved regime change; that cannot be a policy of solving America’s Foreign Policy Problems (which was the core Neocon position). Realist School in American Foreign Policy does not bother about regimes and hence does not get bogged down with that. Precisely for that reason, what is the end of Iranian Turmoil; it should concern least to us apart from how any freedom loving society would encourage such resistance at a distance. Our difficulty with Iranian pursuit of Nukes remains no matter what happens inside Iran and it needs to be addressed no matter what.

  • hassani1387

    Apparently Joe Klein lives in some sort of parallel universe because 1- Iran has not violated the NPT and there is nothing in the NPT that requires Iran to give up enrichment, and quite the contrary the demand the US places on Iran is a violation of the NPT (not to mention that the US is violating the NPT by providing nuclear technology to India) and
    2- Iran never agreed to the exchange deal in Geneva

  • umeshgeeta

    hassani1387 – do you have any credible information to corroborate your claim that USA is providing nuclear technology to India which is forbidden as per NPT, the treaty to which India was never a signatory (as well as Israel too)? For that matter the final ratification / process completion of Bush-Singh Nuclear Accord is still pending so that ‘business can be transacted’.

  • hassani1387

    umeshgeeta — the fact that India has not signed the NPT is precisely why the US nuclear aid to India constitutes a violation of the NPT. You see, the US has signed the NPT as a nuclear-weapon states. And according to the NPT, nuclear-armed states such as the US are obligated to do three things: 1- work towards their own disarmament, 2- share civilian nuclear technology with other signatories, and 3- not share nuclear technology with non-signatories such as India. Read mroe specifics at http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2007/20070803_IndiaUS

  • queencersei

    That is exactly the line that the mullah’s are taking sacredh. From another article I read just this morning…

    “The government, meanwhile, stepped up its accusations that the West is fomenting Tehran’s post-election turmoil, saying that foreign nationals were among those arrested in the most recent clashes between security forces and pro-opposition protesters.”

  • umeshgeeta

    hassani1387 – still this does not answer the original question I asked. NPT does not forbid any nation to undertake nuke tech trade as long as IAEA verification is allowed and the purpose is civilian. So even if USA undertakes trade under Bush-Singh accord (which again has not started yet and you are conveniently forgetting that); that will be according to terms consistent with NPT because the whole point of that accord was separation of between civilian and military separation of facilities for India. India has to do that.

    Are you saying is Iran asking for such separation of civilian and military nuke facilities? Let Iran say that. Because that in itself will be admission of ‘military facilities’ which Iran was not allowed to have in the first place because it had signed NPT as non-nuclear state.

    Plain and simple fact is India got away with this separation because scrupulously it kept away from NPT to start with. That is not with Iran. It came in first as non-nuke state and then is after nukes.

    And by the way, India never talks about annihilation of any state with it’s nuke nor has it acquired those nukes by stealing technology from anyone else. With Iran, proliferation from N. Korea and Pakistand has happened and on top of that Iran presents real and clear danger of proliferation to potentially non-state actors like Hezhbollah and Hamas since all of them talk about ‘annihilation of Israel’.

    I do not think by comparing India or America’s proposed co-operation with India under Bush-Singh Accord, Iran is likely to argue it’s position successfully. To forget ‘geopolitical’ context here as well as rhetoric of Iranian leaders; that luxury is not available.

  • shadowfox98

    Sanctions will not work to persuade Iran to change it’s position. China and Russia will oppose the US every step of the way, simply because it is in thier best intrest to do so.

    I beleive US policy should be to offer Iran the technology to enrich uranium. Openly and without reservation. I think that we would see a dramatic shift in China and Russia’s stance towards the US.

    Once the announcement was made and the knowledge handed over to Iran, I would then refuse to acknowledge that it ever occured. If the US remained absolutely SILENT in the world stage, it would force China and Russia to play some cards.

    I am frankly tired of all the talking, all the finger pointing, and the uselessness of global politics when there is one superpower. Isoloationism did not work when we were a weak, globally small, nation. It might work if you’re the sleeping giant next door, instead of the nagging wife.

blog comments powered by Disqus