Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Buying Time for Iran

Expand Messages
  • Beowulf
    Updated: Wed., Sep. 30, 2009, 4:05 AM home Buying Time for Iran By AMIR TAHERI Last Updated: 4:05 AM, September 30, 2009 Posted: 2:11 AM, September 30, 2009
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Updated: Wed., Sep. 30, 2009, 4:05 AM home

      Buying Time for Iran

      By AMIR TAHERI

      Last Updated: 4:05 AM, September 30, 2009

      Posted: 2:11 AM, September 30, 2009

      DIPLOMATS call it President Obama's first major interna tional test, while
      pundits see it as a diplomatic version of the gunfight at the OK Corral.

      "It," of course, is tomorrow's meeting in Geneva between Iran and the 5+1
      group -- the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.


      Yet the meeting will likely be far less dramatic than the hype.

      To start with, it's not quite clear what the meeting is about.

      Iran's chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, insists he's going to Geneva to talk
      about a range of issues: eliminating world poverty, saving the environment,
      shaping a better future for mankind. (Apparently, there wasn't room on the
      agenda for saving the whales.)

      European Union foreign-policy "czar" Javier Solana, meanwhile, sees the
      encounter as the latest in a series of "exchanges with Iran" that started 30
      years ago.

      Yet Obama has a more modest goal: He wants Iran to use the occasion to
      "demonstrate its peaceful intentions." He says he's "committed to building a
      relationship with Iran" and that his offer of "a serious, meaningful
      dialogue" remains open.

      In other words, the talks may cover everything except what they really
      should be about: persuading Iran to comply with three mandatory Security
      Council resolutions.

      With the advent of the Obama administration, it has become impolite even to
      mention the resolutions that order Iran to stop its uranium-enrichment
      program and honor its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.


      The administration is developing a habit of setting itself the lowest
      possible foreign-policy goals -- and then failing to achieve them. (On the
      Arab-Israeli issue, for example, Obama's goal was a freeze of Jewish
      settlements in the West Bank -- an objective he's had to abandon.)

      Thus, if we listen to Obama, tomorrow's talks are not about the Islamic
      Republic's compliance with the UN resolutions but about persuading it to
      show "significant cooperation" in the next three months.

      But how to measure that "significant cooperation"? Obama's answer is simple:
      By year's end, Iran should open its newly declared "secret" center for
      uranium enrichment to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy
      Agency.

      Hmm. The IAEA inspectors are in Tehran right now, and the site is just an
      hour's drive away. Why do we need to wait three months for them to have a
      look? Do we need to give Iran the time to "sanitize" the site to ensure that
      the inspectors find nothing incriminating?

      It is clear that both sides want to buy time.

      Iran is happy to drag out the process, with three-month tranches if need be,
      until it has assembled all it needs to build the bomb. A recent editorial in
      the daily Kayhan, the chief organ of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it
      all in its headline: "Talking for the sake of talking."

      The more talks there are, the more time Iran will have to complete a program
      that, it argues, is perfectly legal and peaceful.

      Obama, meanwhile, has already given Iran an extra year during which the
      number of Iranian centrifuges for uranium enrichment will reach the magic
      figure of 10,000, compared to just 800 when he took office. Yet he is still
      anxious to buy time -- because, having distanced himself from the UN
      resolutions, he can't return to them without offering a strategy for forcing
      a defiant Iran to comply.

      The administration's confusion about the issue is illustrated by Defense
      Secretary Robert Gates' recent remarks: "Iran has the intention to build a
      nuclear arsenal," he says -- but adds that it isn't clear that "the decision
      to build the bomb has already been taken."

      How does he expect Iran to prove that it doesn't have "the intention" to
      build the bomb?

      Iranian leaders have always said they have no such intention. And Iran has
      supposedly already shown its intent by signing the Nuclear Non-proliferation
      Treaty almost 40 years ago.

      Six years ago, Iran also promised to adopt a set of new protocols to
      strengthen that treaty. But Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled
      the promise -- because he realized that the 5+1 lacked the backbone to
      impose the UN resolutions.

      Obama faces a terrible dilemma.

      He must know that, if Iran doesn't stop enrichment in accordance with the UN
      resolutions, there's no guarantee that it won't become a nuclear-armed power
      whenever its leaders so decide.

      At the same time, he knows that if Iran refuses to scrap its enrichment
      program, the United States and its allies may have to use force to impose
      the UN resolutions.

      Obama has a dire choice: Accept a nuclear-armed Iran, or go to war to
      prevent it.

      Paradoxically, his perceived softness (symbolized by his willingness to
      ignore the UN resolutions) may have encouraged those in Tehran who argue
      that the 5+1 is all bluff and that the Islamic Republic must stick to its
      own nuclear strategy.

      To cover the expected failure of the Geneva talks, the president is already
      talking of imposing "new and tougher sanctions."

      Talking of sanctions, of course, is one way of admitting your failure to
      persuade an adversary to do what you want through talks and/or threats. A
      sanctions policy is really a stall -- a way to seem to be addressing an
      issue when you can't figure out what meaningful action to take.

      In short, we already know what we'll "learn" from tomorrow's meeting: Iran
      has an excellent chance of becoming a nuclear power on Obama's watch.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.