Fiddling and Twiddling with Iran
I suspect this article from today’s NY Times lies behind the TimesSelect firewall. Alas, it’s another pushme-pullya story of talking diplomats, threatened sanctoins, and spinning uranium centrifuges.
Key excerpt:
…the Bush administration, along with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany, have quietly shifted their strategy.
In June, the six global powers offered Iran a take-it-or-leave-it package of incentives in an effort to persuade the country to abandon its nuclear ambitions. No negotiations would start unless Iran first froze its uranium enrichment activities.
Now the six countries have offered a major concession. They are embarking on a two-track approach that allows the European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, to conduct open-ended negotiations with Iran on the conditions for a suspension while the Security Council weighs punitive measures.
The article’s title drips with historical irony– and likely an unintentional irony: Two Tracks on Iran: Keep Talking, and Weighing Penalties.
“Two tracks” echoes “dula track” — a scarred phrase in the history of arms control.
“Dual-track” was the nickname for “theater missile negotiations” in Europe, beginning during the Carter Administration in 1978. Russia (then the USSR) was deploying SS-20 triple warhead nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe, and NATO had to respond. The Carter Administration decided to “negotiate then deploy” — dumb politically and strategically. West German SPD chancellor Helmu Schmidt was quietly furious, knowing full well what the RUssians would do — the Russians would continue to deploy the missiles then when talks failed (and the Russians would make certain the arms reduction talks failed) try to keep the West for deploying its own missiles. But the Germans had to go along with Jimmy. 1983 rolls around and it’s decision time– and President Ronald Reagan is branded a “nuclear warmonger” by the global Left and the McGOvernite wing of the Democratic Party for (you guessed it) going through with the NATO missile deployment because the Russians hadn’t budged in negotiations.
The conclusion of the Times’ article:
Some analysts say that neither the international pressure on Iran, nor Iran’s enrichment program, is likely to end soon.
“Next year,” said George Perkovich, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, “we’re going to be at the same spot still.”
Yeah, some analysts say. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: The US suggests a mild rebuke for Iranian intransigence and “illicit” business activities.
The lede:
The United States pressed the top finance officials of the world’s leading industrial nations on Saturday to crack down on what Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said was the exploitation of their banking systems by at least 30 Iranian front companies involved in illicit activities
It’s an attempt to slow the spin of the centrifuges.
The Koran expressly Commands World Jihad and World Domination for Islam. Here are the verses: http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=9761&ret=news.aspx&cat=
Comment by Love — 9/17/2006 @ 10:29 am
Just what do you want? It’s not like Bush can just bomb any country he wants to - he needs authorization from Congress, and that ain’t gonna happen. And if he tries, he risks impeachment (already very likely if the Dems take the House) and funding for Iraq.
Comment by JeremyR — 9/17/2006 @ 6:02 pm
FYI, the NY Times article in question is NOT behind the Timeselect anonymizer.
Comment by David Rogers — 9/17/2006 @ 6:51 pm
I don’t understand why people are so fixated on Iran. They are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The REAL problem is Saudi Arabia. If anyone were to take an honest look at terrorist funding, they’ll see that 90% of it comes from Saudis. Forget Iran… we need to be dropping a few well-placed bombs on Riyadh. Unfortunately, Bush’s balls are so dipped into Saudi oil,he’d never do anything to take care of the REAL threat.
Comment by Howard Cronin — 9/17/2006 @ 9:24 pm
Howard, Perhaps the fixation is on Iran because Saudi Arabia (1) is not actively pursuing nuclear weapons, (2) is not lead by nihilist zealots who proclaim the end of the world is nigh and they have a mandate to facilitate it, and (3) does not have a declared government policy of annihalating Israel ASAP. I agree with you that S.A. is a huge long-term problem, and one of my many criticisms of the Bush administration is the pass they have given to their long-time Saudi buddies. Yes, much of the financing for terrorists comes from there — but at least not directly from the government. Unlike Iran. In the meantime, S.A. is at least appearing to play along with US desires; Iran is actively flouting them, and in fact recruiting others to that cause. So yes, Saudi Arabia must be dealt with, and preferably sooner rather than later. But with Iran, there is no later. They will not only be sitting on the Straits of Hormuz, with 20% of the world’s oil and a huge population of fighting-age men, they will also have nuclear weapons and every appearance of wanting to use them given any excuse.
Comment by Shelby — 9/17/2006 @ 10:12 pm
Yeah Howard Bomb or invade the “Land of the Two Holy Cities”. That’ll show ‘em. We have too many radical Islamists now, that would only make sure they all are.
Comment by John Dunshee — 9/17/2006 @ 10:30 pm
A working fission or fussion weapon is not the only fear. Once they started reproccessing the fuel to enrich the uranium there are a lot of nasty isotopes leftover. A “dirty bomb” is a real possibillity now.
Comment by Bernie — 9/18/2006 @ 2:48 am
The Mideast, 156 (September 18, 2006)… Chirac gives Iran a break: French President Jacques Chirac has urged world powers not to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme. He was the first European leader to state that the suspension of uranium enrichment……
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 9/18/2006 @ 3:13 am
It’s a start, but it may take JDAMs and other assorted “bad manners” to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 9/18/2006 @ 7:01 am
I’ve written about Iran on my blog more than any another subject, probably because I saw Operation Iraqi Freedom as a necessary precursor to dealing with Iran. Like Austin Bay, I find the diplomacy maddening because it is so obviously futile. The President continues to say that Iran will not be permitted to develop nukes and that force is a last resort but the message from the diplomats is that the worst Iran will face is economic sanctions. At the same time, we have the intel community saying that Iran is 5 to 10 years from nukes (I offer my view on this absurd estimate in Intel chief oversees bureaucratic Type II error). It appears that the U.S. government is being run by appeasers in the state department, abetted by Pollyannas in the intel community, and that nothing will prevent Iran from building its nukes. Despite appearances, I am guardedly optimistic that Bush will actually attack Iran. There is some evidence that the U.S. may be funding armed insurgencies in Iran although the U.S. government denies this (the MSM has given this zero coverage - I’ve followed it in Jane’s.) Bush may be planning on actually toppling the Mullahs by fully “activating” these insurgencies at the right moment. If so, he’s playing a very deep game because what we see looks a lot like “fiddling and twiddling.” Additional note. For better or worse, Presidents have considerable power to conduct military operations without Congress’ approval. In another blog piece, I note that Thomas Jefferson engaged the Barbary Pirates, bypassing Congress so this is nothing new. The problem of state-supported piracy in the 18th and 19th centuries and state-sponsored terrorist in the 20th and 21st are very similar. Also, the current war powers restrictions basically allow a President to fight a major war for 60 days without Congressional authorization. Congress has the potential to act at any point to terminate an operation but I expect that the American public will strongly support keeping Iran from getting nukes and even a Democratic Congress is unlikely step in unless the war drags on past 60 days.
Comment by Paul Hager — 9/18/2006 @ 8:07 am
“Just what do you want? It’s not like Bush can just bomb any country he wants to - he needs authorization from Congress, and that ain’t gonna happen. And if he tries, he risks impeachment (already very likely if the Dems take the House) and funding for Iraq. ” Ok - I understand why everyone thinks this is going to happen. I see people saying this all over the place. But no congress controlled by Democrats in its right mind would even think about Impeaching Bush. Why? Because what if it worked and he was removed from office? two words: Dick Cheney.
Comment by Bender — 9/18/2006 @ 8:13 am