In the Arena

Obama on Iran

David Ignatius, Marc Ambinder and Jeff Goldberg have accounts of a White House session on Iran that I also attended yesterday. I tend to agree more with David’s assessment than with Jeff’s: we are seeing real signs that the sanctions regime–far tougher than the Iranians anticipated–is having an impact on Iran and that a new round of negotiations may be coming after Ramadan in  September. Many of the points made by President Obama and his team were similar to those I made in a post here last week. Some other notable points:1. This was a pretty strange meeting. The President’s comments were on the record; his team’s comments were on background, meaning that the individuals speaking could only be identified as “senior Administration officials.” The Senior officials were, indeed, senior. The President arrived about five minutes after the briefing began in the Roosevelt Room across the hall from the Oval Office. He made about 15 minutes worth of comments and then took a half dozen questions. He seemed very much on top of the complicated material.

2. As I reported here last week, the President confirmed that “high level” Iranians have reached out to the Obama Administration over the past months, hoping to get a dialogue restarted. The President emphasized that neither the Supreme Leader nor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have attempted to contact us, and his aides later insisted that nothing concrete was in the works. (A senior official indicated after the President left that the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadinejad, was the man in charge of Iran’s nuclear program.) The President also seemed intent not being gamed again by the Iranians, emphasizing a “pathway” they could take if they were serious about making a deal–that is, specific actions they needed to take to get the talks started (or preconditions by any other name)–a consequence, the President said, of Iran’s “strong record of delaying tactics.” The tone was calm, the words were not hard-edged, but the message was a tough one: if Iran wanted to talk, it had to take specific actions in order to do so. This seemed, to me, a clear indication that the Administration believes that the sanctions and diplomatic isolation were having a profound impact on the Khamenei regime.

3. The two most interesting briefings that followed after the President left covered sanctions in greater detail and the troubles Iran was having with its uranium enrichment program. The U.S. officials expressed surprise and delight that the European Union’s sanctions were so tough. Iranian banks were having trouble finding overseas partners. The oil and gas sector was finding it impossible to get the overseas investment necessary to develop new fields and rebuild its decrepit infrastructure. The bazaari community–Iran’s business leaders, a crucial part of the ruling coalition–are quite upset by the restrictions on their international activities.

4. As for the uranium enrichment program, there seemed clear evidence that Iran was having big problems–the equipment at the Natanz enrichment facility was old and breaking down. The sanctions meant that no spare parts could be imported. The senior official didn’t mention this, but other Administration sources have said that sabotage by the U.S. and Israelis was slowing down the enrichment program considerably. Consequently, the senior official said there was no imminent threat of the Iranians putting together enough highly-enriched uranium to build a bomb.

In sum, it seems to me that the Obama Administration has made significant progress in forcing the Iranians into a corner. The President, again, did not rule out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities–but the progress outlined by his senior officials seemed to promise that such a drastic–and, I believe, foolhardy–step might not be needed.

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.”

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost 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:

  • destor23

    I’m pretty convinced that Obama has no intention of attacking Iran. It’s too bad that he can’t come right out and say that but I understand why. Ultimately he’s about winding down wars, not starting new ones.

  • sevenoaks07

    Joe:

    Is there a list of all attendees? I read all four pieces. It looks like you, Armbinder and Ignatius want this plan to work. Goldberg’s rendering is informed by his predisposition to Israel’s view (that is my guess). Is there anyone else who has posted on this meeting?

    Any idea on how far Russia and China are willing to travel down this road?

  • michaelfury

    “But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.”

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/some-stunt/

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Neato, thanks for the writeup.
    -
    This all sounds great, but what I worry about is what the long-term plan is. If I understand correctly, the Iranian public, like the Indian and Pakistani publics, strongly supports the nuclear program. Will it take an international effort to strengthen antiproliferation norms, and/or a grand bargain with Iran, to prevent them from getting there eventually? (I’m under the impression that we lack any particularly attractive military options). Or can we keep this program at bay indefinitely?
    -
    Goldberg’s sour writeup all seems to come from his determined hate and fear (and delight!) about Iran. But anti-Americanism was a pillar of Mao’s China, too, til interests pushed the sides together. And given that the Green Movement supports the nuclear program in the same terms as the current government, I don’t see why the regime’s willingness to “suppress dissent with terror” means that it will be indifferent to the economic problems brought on by sanctions. You could argue it the other way, I’d think– “given that the regime’s already-tenuous legitimacy among students and urbanites, they can’t risk alienating the bazaari folks.”

  • pintortwo

    Thank you Mr Klein for keeping us informed on Iran.
    .
    I’m interested in the “specific actions they needed to take to get the talks started (or preconditions by any other name)“. Do you know what the Administration is demanding?
    .
    Are preconditions even necessary? If, in fact, the sanctions are effective and Iran is having “big problems” on its own, we appear to have a clear advantage relative to Iran’s position of weakness– a good time for us to negotiate. Further, if Iran has already sat-at-the-table once in Geneva, and “Iranian officials have said they want to rejoin the Geneva negotiations with the group of leading nations known as the “P5-plus-one,” perhaps in September” (from Ignatius), what is to be gained by the “pathway”?
    .
    I’m concerned that preconditions will be a deal-breaker before negotiations start– it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen this happen, and, at times, it’s been on purpose.

  • kathy

    I’m curious what you think is the reason for the Administration revealing this information. For domestic consumption to demonstrate, if further talks with Iran take place, that we’ve called the shots? Because it seems to me that revealing that sanctions are working makes it more difficult for the Iranians to start a dialogue without losing face.and therefore makes them less likely.

    Also, are there any subjects about which you’ve ever found Obama not “very much on top of the complicated material.”?

  • pintortwo

    Thank you Kathy, good point, it would seem to make talks less likely.
    .
    Also, I think your comment relates to mine. This public display could not ony demonstrate “that we’ve called the shoots” if negotiations take place, but that “we tried; it’s the Iranians’ fault” if they don’t.

  • truevcu

    Well the question that needs to be asked is, with the clerical class actively splitting over ahmadinejad, and the bazaaris breaking ranks with the government, can the Iranian government afford to care about international perception anymore?

  • Ike Jakson

    Joe

    Your man said on the campaign trail in 2008 that the war in Iraq would be over by March last year. It isn’t.

    There is now a full-scale War on in Afghan. Do you have any guesses?

    How can you talk about Iran now?

    You are bluffing the Voter. Period.

  • tim1123

    “the message was a tough one: if Iran wanted to talk, it had to take specific actions in order to do so.”

    Sigh, this is the same silly line taken by Bush, which is that Iran must stop all enrichment before negotiations can begin. Let me make a crazy prediction those isolated and cornered Iranians won’t accept this condition and nothing will change.

    The only hope I see from all this is that this spin by Obama to round up the usual suspect of journalist and give up the impression the US has the upper hand is some prelude to the US finally making some realistic compromise with Iran on this issue.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    The issue is a trust one. Bush was “comply with these arbitrary standards or we classify you as an enemy because we don’t like you or what you’re doing”. Obama is “we need a show of good faith because you have demonstrated an inability to be trustworthy.” The other thing to note is that Obama’s leading the world right now and Iran knows it, Bush was leading America and a few NATO nations. As Joe noted, the EU sanctions were stricter than expected and as we all know, Russia and China are participating – the former being one of Iran’s longer running allies. Bush didn’t have any of that.
    .
    Sure, on the surface it might sound the same, but when you actually dig into the details, there’s a world of difference.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    I’m wondering if perhaps there’s an attempt to force the Iranian government into a point of humility – something Amedinejad doesn’t know how to do. In effect, I think the Obama administration is feeling extremely confident that this strategy is working and will work so they’re playing from their position of strength to get a little more of what they want.

  • sasquatch08

    “In sum, it seems to me that the Obama Administration has made significant progress in forcing the Iranians into a corner. The President, again, did not rule out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities–but the progress outlined by his senior officials seemed to promise that such a drastic–and, I believe, foolhardy–step might not be needed.”
    .
    First, either this choice of language is poor our Klein really is as dumb as some on here suggest. Proverbially “forcing the Iranians into a corner” is not a good idea.
    .
    While the average Iranian has no interest in violence or a war with Israel or the West their leaders are confirmed whack-jobs who might well just unleash the dogs of war if backed into a corner. The people that run Iran (again, NOT the regular people who have no say in anything) are similar to 14th Century Crusaders, they believe that if they die in a war with their god’s enemies it’s a ticket to heaven. They care nothing for how many innocent people they take with them. They are, for lack of better wording, total lunatics and fanatics.
    .
    While I would love a world in which sanctions solved everything, such a world does not exist. If not back by the threat of force these sanctions will have little to no effect on the trajectory of Iran’s nuclear program.
    .
    Sanctions without a credible threat of military force got us the modern North Korea, armed with nuclear weapons and run by a movie buff who makes the Mad Hatter look like a picture of sanity. A guy who launches unprovoked attacks against the warships of other countries and since he has the bomb the world sits around with it’s thumb up its collective butt quietly shaking their heads and wishing he hadn’t done it.
    .
    They key difference between Kim Jong Ill and the Mullahs that run Iran is that Kim doesn’t see dying in a massive world war as his ticket to the afterlife, the Mullahs do.
    .
    Secondly, on the “foolhardy” comment:
    .
    The idea is not to go to war with Iran, but to convince them that we are just crazy enough to do it so that they abandon their nuclear program.
    .
    This is “the bully in the bar” situation; if a guy walks up to you in a bar and says “Give me your seat or I’ll punch your lights out” the general reaction is to immediately size up the credibility of the threat. If you believe the guy is crazy/stupid enough to actually hit you, you vacate the seat to avoid the confrontation. If you don’t believe he will hit you, you stay in the seat and tell him where to shove it. Now if that guy backs you into a corner and keeps saying that he’s going to punch you, the logical choice is to strike first and try to hurt him as badly as possible.
    .
    In this analogy (as poor as it may be) we want to convince Iran to give up their seat at the bar, but not provoke them into attacking us or an ally first. It’s a fine line to walk, but without some credible threat of force to backup our request/demand they will simply tell us where to shove it and continue what they were doing.
    .
    Sanctions by themselves will only work against a government that cares about it’s people; which last years crackdown shows the Iranian government surely does not.

  • tim1123

    “The other thing to note is that Obama’s leading the world right now and Iran knows it”

    This is a pretty sycophantic comment. Obama couldn’t even freeze settlement construction in the west bank. The world is not looking at Obama as someone for guidance and if his Iran policy of sanctions don’t work (and they haven’t for 30+ years) he’s going to end up cornered into having only the option of military strikes.

  • raoole

    The answer is right in front of them and they see it; But due to political climate and heavy lobbing from AIPAC and other groups no one will dare to even mention it.

    The only way to disarm Iranian nuke (If they really trying to make one) is to make entire middle east a nuclear free zone. No other choice.

    So we all can debate until hell freezes over, but bombing Iran will not solve the nuke problem. Paki’s already have it and they are 100 times more radical than the mullahs.

    I also hope when they starting bombing Iran they will GPS mark the 24,000 Jews that live there so accidentally they dont hurt them. ;-)

  • abdullah69

    Sometimes it helps to see things from the other guy’s perspective. In Teheran, Obama is no doubt perceived as a weak President who faces massive difficulties in getting legislation passed, and who faces insurmountable opposition, at least in terms of noise, at home.

    But then Republicans do not seek a peaceful solution to the Iranian problem. Where are the defence dollar kickbacks in that?

  • kathy

    and in reply to 6.1 below.

    I think Abdullah69 makes a good point at 12, that “In Teheran, Obama is no doubt perceived as a weak President who faces massive difficulties in getting legislation passed, and who faces insurmountable opposition, at least in terms of noise, at home”

    This may be the reason for the show of strength.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    You’re confusing a military dictatorship disguised as a theocracy with a legitimate theocracy. The last year has proven pretty explicitly – especially with the incredible division amongst the mullahs

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    gah – got distracted and forgot to finish my point:
    .
    Last year proved pretty explicitly that the Iranian government has disposed of the religious component in favor of using the military arm to retain control. I would actually argue that this makes them easier to deal with – they need to take actions to protect their power. As long as Iranians believe that the fault isn’t the US/Europe (which, with the UN, Russia and China backing these sanctions is easier).
    .
    But even if we were to assume you were right, Iran can’t even strike out. Who would they attack? Israel? The problem isn’t the US – they’ve got Russia and China ticked at them and attacking Israel won’t actually address this huge sanctions issue and will give Israel an excuse to retaliate – one that won’t set off the entire Middle East (well, probably – and let’s face it, Israel would probably demonstrate it’s historical stupidity in overreacting, but still). They can’t reasonably strike anywhere else. And if they leave their country to financial ruin, they’ll be deposed. I’ll take this set of possibilities

  • pintortwo

    mark the 24,000 Jews that live there..
    ..and their representative
    .
    “You know that according to the Law in Iran, every 150,000 people have one representative in the Majles (Iranian Government). But the number of the Jews is not even 20,000 people and they have a representative. We say that the life and belongings of all people should be respected.”
    .
    Mahmud Ahmadinezhad -at UN headquarters, New York (September 22, 2006) link

blog comments powered by Disqus