« In Praise of Paper | Main | Into The Arena »
December 05, 2007
"Time to Talk to Iran"
Obviously, one should never underestimate Dick Cheney. But even so, this admission, from superhawk Robert Kagan, seems worthy of celebration:
Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone.
As Kagan goes on to argue, our ability to threaten strikes has essentially dissolved. We would be so isolated, and domestic opposition at home would be so intense, that it's an almost unthinkable turn of events. Which means that the Bush administration's primary tool and lever on Iran -- the specter of military action -- is now nearly worthless. If we want to make any further headway with Iran, our only option is, in fact, to talk to them. Indeed, the Bush administration could even use the NIE report as a victory, saying that talks are now conceivable because the evidence shows that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapon program. That would require a bit of diplomatic creativity from an administration that's shown very little of it, but it could, in some potential universe, happen.
December 5, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
So we all agree now that Liberal's constant questioning of the war, the way it was executed and attacks on our President during a time of war has hurt us strategically and has had serious national defense repercussions. I haven’t seen it mentioned here once but if they did give up the program, which we don’t know for certain they did and have continued to do, wouldn’t the timing seem to imply that Bush invading Iraq scarred the crap out of them and had something to do with it?
You also must give at least some small amount of credit to the war for Libya’s sudden atonement and change in policy. Two terrorist sponsoring nations abandoned nuclear programs at least partially out of fear of gun slinging Bush. We can no longer instill this fear in rogue nations thanks to the Democrats.
Thank you for making us all safer!
Posted by: Nate O | Dec 5, 2007 9:10:13 AM
That would require a bit of diplomatic creativity from an administration that's shown very little of it, but it could, in some potential universe, happen.
It won't happen in this one given this from Jackass: The President yesterday:
Q: Mr. President, a new intelligence report says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, and that it remains frozen. Are you still convinced that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb? And do the new findings take the military option that you've talked about off the table?THE PRESIDENT: Here's what we know. We know that they're still trying to learn how to enrich uranium. We know that enriching uranium is an important step in a country who wants to develop a weapon. We know they had a program. We know the program is halted.
I think it is very important for the international community to recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they could transfer to a clandestine program it would create a danger for the world. And so I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it. And the thing that would make a restarted program effective and dangerous is the ability to enrich uranium, the knowledge of which could be passed on to a hidden program.
And so it's a -- to me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community -- continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program.
Posted by: David W. | Dec 5, 2007 9:33:52 AM
Nate seems to be pushing the new line, which has developed over the past 24 hours - i.e. Iran has no weapons... because of the Iraq war! Nice, but I think it's too soon to push that line too hard, and in any case that's not why we invaded Iraq. And it doesn't solve the continuing problems in Iraq, nor does it make the blanket defense of everything we've done that conservatives like Limbaugh would want it to.
More to the point of Ezra's post, I think bombing or otherwise attacking Iran has always been further fetched than conservative sabre rattlers insisted, and I think the NIE serve as mostly the triumph of common sense over craziness - so yes, if I think this does slow the likelihood of us attacking Iran militarily, I'd point out the real likelihood of that happening was distant all along. Which, I think, shows how little skill the Bush folks have at anything that doesn't include military response - the failure to succeed with diplomatic efforts is theirs, not Congressional Deocrats'.
Posted by: weboy | Dec 5, 2007 9:36:30 AM
"And so it's a -- to me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community -- continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program."
Elsewhere, Secretary Rice drops her head on the bar and asks for another shot of whiskey.
Posted by: Doug H. | Dec 5, 2007 9:36:33 AM
Yes, Nate, those dead Iraqis are sure are exited, that they helped to stop Iranian weapons program.
Nate in short:
Iran should be punished when we think they’re developing nuclear weapons, and Iran should be punished when we know that they aren’t. Iran should always be punished. That pretty well sums up his views. One can imagine that he would say the same thing if Iran gave up the uranium enrichment altogether: “They might start up a program in the future, so they’re still a threat, if only in my mind.”
Posted by: sashal | Dec 5, 2007 9:41:00 AM
unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action --like the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a problem.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 5, 2007 10:19:16 AM
What power, exactly, is it that the NIE has that (for instance) the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and treaties like the Geneva Conventions do not? I simply don't understand Kagan's point - he seems to be writing about people who care what others think, and that's not Bush or Cheney.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Dec 5, 2007 10:38:42 AM
The new far Left buzz word for diplomatic negotiations is creativity.
What does talking to Iran entail? Any conditions? Was offering them normalized trade status and WTO membership in 2005 not "creative" enough?
The progressive style guide for diplomacy is really lacking in substance.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 5, 2007 10:42:22 AM
Kevin - Can't you read? These are from the SAME article you linked to:
"While Mr Bush resisted pleas from European leaders during his visit last week for the US to get involved in negotiations with Iran..."
and also:
"Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have been opposed to any concessions, convinced that only regime change would remove the threat the Islamic nation posed to the region."
How is this in any way "offering them" anything?
Posted by: BlueStreak | Dec 5, 2007 10:52:42 AM
What should also bother some is that for SuperHawks, evidence on the ground is solely used as a tool or indicator as to whether the US of A can influence American interests by attacking other countries. Instead of assessing the best course of action (poltical/military/economically/sanctions), the assessment is solely whether we can attack other nations, let alone whether we even should.
Posted by: Adrock | Dec 5, 2007 11:00:42 AM
I sincerely hope the intelligence in this report is right, this time. It is my fondest wish.
However, I worry that the intelligence is wrong, as it was last time, as every Senator believed after viewing the report (yes, the same evidence was available to them). Israel thinks it's incorrect.
If it's correct intelligence, we are all that much safer. If it's not, we will be the biggest dumbasses for letting them go nukular. I would like to remind youi that North Korea did the same thing in stalling us, lying to us and all of the wishful libruls believed them and then they turned around and said "We got the bomb".
The risk of blindly believing this single report is that the same thing will happen to us, and we will not be safer. I like the Reagan quote "Trust, but verify". We should herald this report and seek to verify it's accuracy. I fear instead, that those who wish so hard for it to be true will allow their better judgement to be clouded by their desire for a desired outcome.
Posted by: El viajero | Dec 5, 2007 11:24:11 AM
NATE O;
1) The lesson Iran and every other country learned in 2003 was "Bush is too chickenshit to invade any country that is nuclear armed."
2) Libya got one sweet ass oil deal.
Posted by: chowchowchow | Dec 5, 2007 11:41:20 AM
And that makes it "unthinkable" because...why?
Bush has about 30% support in this country. Do you think any of those folks---the Nate O's of our nation---would drop him because he dropped bombs on Iran? I don't.
I think war is less likely, but certainly not impossible.
Posted by: JoshA (sf) | Dec 5, 2007 1:52:44 PM
This report was issued by the same agencies that said Saddam had WMD. Why is everyone so eager to believe this report while acknowledging the report by the same intell agencies was completely wrong about WMD?
I guess it depends on what you want to believe.
For the sake of hypocrisy, let's say the report is correct. What was going on in the world in 2003 that would have motivated Iran to halt it's pursuit of nukes?
Maybe the 2003 invasion of Iraq scared Iran. It scared Lybia into giving up their nukes.
Posted by: abg | Dec 5, 2007 1:53:00 PM
" That would require a bit of diplomatic creativity from an administration that's shown very little of it. . ."
Ezra, I think to make that claim you have to assume that the administration had the same goals that you or I have. In fact, they have a great deal of diplomatic creativity and they've used that creativity to further malevolent ends. They were able to gin up enough phony evidence to persuade a critical mass of people that war in Iraq was a good idea, and they managed to undermine the credibility of the people who were actually right. They sent Powell to the UN in a context where the UN had to choose between being America's Yes Men or looking irrellevant, which achieved the dual goals of paving the way for war with Iraq and damaging the authority of the UN. And with the possible exception of this NIE, they've done an effective job of demonizing Ahmadinejad and fabricating a case for war with Iran. When the Bush Administration doesn't set up talks with Iran it won't be due to a lack of creativity, it will be because they're using their creativity to find a way around the NIE and continue paving the way for war. I'm not sure how they'll do it, but I suspect that it will involve having declared the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization and ratcheting up the accusations of Iranian "interference" in Iraq.
Posted by: Galen | Dec 5, 2007 1:53:16 PM
For all you people saying Libya was scared into suddenly giving up their weapons program, please read this
by Flynt Leverett of the Brookings Institute
Money quote "The lesson is incontrovertible: to persuade a rogue regime to get out of the terrorism business and give up its weapons of mass destruction, we must not only apply pressure but also make clear the potential benefits of cooperation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has refused to take this approach with other rogue regimes, notably Iran and Syria."
Posted by: Zach | Dec 5, 2007 2:19:46 PM
"The lesson is incontrovertible: to persuade a rogue regime to get out of the terrorism business and give up its weapons of mass destruction, we must not only apply pressure but also make clear the potential benefits of cooperation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has refused to take this approach with other rogue regimes, notably Iran and Syria."
If that reasoning is correct, and the intell report is true, then why did Iran give up their nuclear weapons program in 2003?
Posted by: abg | Dec 5, 2007 5:23:46 PM
And from my understanding, Iran was offered incentives, but first they had to give up their WMD program.
But why is this report correct and the report on Iraq so completely wrong? Both reports are by the same angencies who have lost credibility because of 9/11 and Iraq/WMD.
Posted by: abg | Dec 5, 2007 5:27:04 PM
I haven’t seen it mentioned here once but if they did give up the program, which we don’t know for certain they did and have continued to do, wouldn’t the timing seem to imply that Bush invading Iraq scarred the crap out of them and had something to do with it?
It is my understanding that the recent intelligence report says that the invasion of Iraq was, indeed, a factor in Iran's decision to give up the program.
Posted by: El viajero | Dec 5, 2007 6:11:51 PM
This report was issued by the same agencies that said Saddam had WMD. Why is everyone so eager to believe this report while acknowledging the report by the same intell agencies was completely wrong about WMD?
In other words, if our intelligence says they have WMD we should go to war and if our intelligence says they don't have WMD then we should go to war. Anyone up for a game of heads I win, tails you lose?
Posted by: DMonteith | Dec 5, 2007 10:31:01 PM
