Cole in Salon: Why Bush Folded on Iran
My essay why Bush sent a high-level diplomat to meet Iranian negotiators with no preconditions is out in Salon.com.
Excerpt:
'Pundits and diplomats nearly got whiplash from the double take they did when George W. Bush sent the No. 3 man in the State Department to sit at a table on July 19 across from an Iranian negotiator, without any preconditions. When Bush had addressed the Israeli Knesset in May, he made headlines by denouncing any negotiation with "terrorists and radicals" as "the false comfort of appeasement." What drove W. to undermine John McCain by suddenly adopting Barack Obama's foreign policy prescription on Iran?'
Read the whole thing.
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/31/2008 01:15:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
I think the diplomatic trip is a cover to be used as a political cudgel, a theatrical piece to justify violence with Iran. As you have stated, the US position is unchanged. We demand that Iran live under the threat of an enormous Israeli nuclear weapons stockpile and constant US antagonism and threats of violence.
Unless the US changes its NSS, which clearly details the United States' self-appointed role as world hegemon, confrontations and planned imposition of state violence will remain the unifying force in American foreign policy.
Add to this the possibility of Olmert leaving in September, to be replaced by either Livni or Mofaz, both of whom are extremely bellicose and hawkish, one can imagine a sort of October surprise with Iran.
You also have two warmongers in Obama and McCain potentially coming into power next year, so the political scene is set for another unreasonable period of violence.
Have you thought about the Russians gas cartel? Does our change of focus mean we accept Iran's regime as a condition for first dibs on the gas? I suspect if Iran joins the Russian gas for China deal we'll go back to invasion mode. since you have better sources than I, would you think about it and blog later?
NYT today has details of the current state of negotiations on status of forces in Iraq. Bush is caving on that as much as he is on Iran. It looks like the document will have to contain some kind of time horizon, because Iraqis continue to insist on it. Already in the document is an astonishing concession on operational control and immunity for the troops--operations would have to be approved by regional committees of Iraqis, and troops would only be immune from Iraqi law while on approved operations or on base.
Those of us who have listened to conservatives still angry about 'Nam know that a chief complaint is that US troops were bound by rules of engagement that they claim prevented them from bringing all their muscle to bear. To have operations approved by regional committees goes far, far beyond any hand-tying from the 'Nam era. And allowing Iraqi police--of which their are a bewildering variety, some just militias--to arrest US troops if off their base and not on an approved mission--this just gives the game away. How would troops get close to civilians and interact positively, as Petraeus' model requires?
This agreement shows that Bush's only remaining idea for Iraq is to hope Maliki can handle security while we keep troops perpetually based in Iraq merely for a presumed geopolitical advantage, intervening only should total lawlessness break out, in which case any rules governing troop conduct would be moot. With the exception of Bush's desire for permanent bases, as a practical matter he is implementing Obama's position, because the US combat role would be limited by red tape to the point where it would be nearly inconsequential. Like with Iran, Bush has been mugged by reality.
This whole Iran thing really confuses me. It seems obvious as Dr Cole pointed out that given the high oil prices, the consequences of attacking Iran and having the Strait of Hormuz blocked would cause depression creating oil prices. However what though is the point of negotiating with Iran? Iran seems dead set on developing its nuclear technology. It seems determined to do so no mater what sanctions the outside world places on it.
I do not know why it is so determined. It could be national pride in nuclear technology. Maybe it is the regime's determination to acquire nuclear weapons.
Anyway given that the US cannot attack Iran and given that Iran is going to continue enriching come what may, what is the point of putting sanctions of Iran to begin with?
If someone has a good answer to this question I would very much like to hear it.
However what though is the point of negotiating with Iran? Iran seems dead set on developing its nuclear technology. It seems determined to do so no mater what sanctions the outside world places on it.
If your definition of "negotiating" is "stop doing that or we'll slap sanctions on you" then you're right - there would be no point to "negotiating".
If, on the other hand, your definition of "negotiating" include finding things that the other party wants that you can give them (let's call them carrots) as well as actions you can take to induce behavior you desire by force (let's call those sticks), then the idea of negotiating with another country becomes less pointless.
If your definition of "negotiating" also includes the possibility that the folks sitting across the table also have carrots that you would like and ALSO have sticks that you would like to avoid, then you've reached a point where negotiations become not only "not pointless" but possibly "fruitful".
That's where we are with Iran. We have sticks, we have carrots. They have sticks, they have carrots. Not sitting down at the table and talking about such things would actually be pointless these days.
As for why Iran might want nuclear capabilities - they have a lot of reasons. For starters, they're worried that one of their enemies (the US, Israel) might launch a first strike attack on them, and they've seen that if they have nukes, those countries might be less willing to take that chance (see North Korea). For another, they'd like to sell as much of their oil as they can instead of using it internally - they can make a lot more money that way. They also have some national pride reasons. The first two areas are places where negotiations can work. National pride, unfortunately, is hard to negotiate away, and something that usually requires large baskets of carrots and never the hint of a stick...
Bush didn't fold on Iran. He did the opposite. Sending an envoy to deliver what amounts to an ultimatum is not negotiating. It is the exact opposite thing to negotiating. The EXACT opposite.
And since then, what has W done? Oh, just invite the Israeli ambassador over to reassure him that war remains very much on the table.
And what is this position of Obama's that supposedly W is caving in to? Obama has called for negotiation, yes, but what has been much louder has been his increasingly strident assertion that Iran is a grave threat to Israel and to the world. Admittedly, he hasn't used the phrase 'gathering danger' or 'imanent threat', that I know of. But he's come very, very close. And, most importantly, he's explicitly given Israel an green light, carte blanche, to attack Iran.
I have seen this argument before and it makes sense for reasonable men but if Hersh's recent article is an accurate report then such "reasonable " men as VP Cheney are still working on ways to provide justification to attack Iran.
If the US can invade and occupy another country in a pre-emptive strike designed to prevent imminent gathering threats, what will stop Israel from simply attacking Iran which perceives an enrichment program as a nuclear weapons threat ignoring the obvious that it could be for conventional usage?
Post a Comment
<< Home