Sanctions

Robin Wright reports that new sanctions on Iran are still rolling through the UN process: "The proposal indicates that there is still an appetite for significant new punitive measures against Iran even after the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last week concluded that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, according to officials from several countries." Kevin Drum remarks:

"The international community is not being dissuaded by the NIE," says an unnamed European diplomat. Perhaps so. Or perhaps the NIE is actually making things easier?

I'd say probably easier. The fact of the NIE's release seems like a decisive signal that the really nutty war faction inside the Bush administration has been defeated and that policy is being driven by people who are worried about Iranian nuclear activities, but who also have a basic grip on reality. American officials like that are the sort of officials that diplomats around the world are prepared to work with. Foreign officials weren't, however, interested in being used as dupes who were supposed to provide a veneer of cover for an insane military adventure. I bet that if you saw a new administration with a clearer commitment to laying out a path for improved US-Iranian relations, you'd see even more willingness on the part of the international communtiy to contemplate punitive measures if Iran is unresponsive.

The underlying principle is simple enough: the US secures more international cooperation when people see us as acting rationally and responding in a reasonable manner to events around the world. Acting frightening and erratic, or paranoid and hysterical, isn't helpful.

Comments

Exactly right, Matt--and what's deeply disturbing to me is that the capital beltway journo elite shows virtually no sign of being sophisticated enough to understand even this basic diplomatic logic. They're all devastated that the macho war-monger clique has been denuded of the rationale to continue ranting insanely about Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons program. Therefore the press as a countervailing force to out-of-control lunatic ideas has essentially ceased to exist.

Posted by elle loco | December 11, 2007 9:53 AM

Time to re-evaluate Kyl/Lieberman? Maybe Durbin et al knew what they were doing when they strengthened Gates's hand. And maybe Webb was a little off base.

Posted by tib | December 11, 2007 10:23 AM

This is foolish. The first thing I would do after sanctions were proposed for doing what I have evert legal right to do is to begin building atomic weapons to use as blackmail. Surely, if obeying the law still gets sanctions imposed, but behaving like North Korea gets you everything you want, what tactic would you implement?

Posted by soullite | December 11, 2007 10:38 AM

But Tom Friedman said it WOULD be helpful....

Posted by Viskovitz | December 11, 2007 11:40 AM

An Iranian exile group claims that the Iranian Government restarted their nuclear program in 2004. Obviously, the Iranians have pulled he wool over our eyes. Now's the time to stop diddling around take out their nuclear facilities once and for all.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847311372&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | December 11, 2007 11:40 AM

"unnamed European diplomat"

Could simply be a diplomat representing France or the UK who's trying to save face for their governments futile efforts in getting more sanctions placed on Iran.

Posted by tg | December 11, 2007 11:57 AM

The Zionist neocons want to wipe Iran off the map because Iran supports militant groups opposing Israel's occupation, an occupation Israel has no intention of ending, as witness new Jewish homes going up in Arab East Jerusalem.

Posted by J. E. Dundee | December 11, 2007 12:06 PM

Re J. E. Dundee

For the information of Mr. Dundee, the militant groups opposing Israels occupation consider that the State of Israel itself constitutes an occupation of Arab land, as Mr. Amadinejad has made abundantly clear.

Posted by SLC | December 11, 2007 12:11 PM

Re: SLC Your thesis that those opposing Israel's occupations will never accept Israel is typical (and convenient) propaganda for those who wish for never-ending occupations. However, when the final status Annapolis negotiations (starting tomorrow) finally delineate the nature of a Palestinian state, and this is subjected to a referendum of all Palestinians (as promised by Abbas), we will see how many accept it. I believe that if it is a fair solution, (unlike Clinton's), only a small number will want to keep fighting, and these can be easily subdued.

Posted by Eleanor Lambertson | December 11, 2007 2:48 PM

Re Eleanor Lambertson

Ms. Lambertson, like all the other Israel bashers on this blog is totally full of crap. The Palestinians are not now and have not ever accepted the thesis that those currently residing in refugee camps will not be resettled in the State of Israel, which is their idea of a fair solution. The resettlement of Palestinians in refugee camps is unacceptable to the Government of Israel and the overwhelming majority of its citizens. Therefore, it ain't going to happen. Any Israeli government accepting such a proposition would be removed from power within 24 hours.

Posted by SLC | December 11, 2007 3:01 PM

And what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn't it?

Posted by Alex | December 11, 2007 5:13 PM

(sigh) Unending cluelessness from Matt and everyone else.

No, Matt, a push for sanctions now is completely insane.

1) It will go no where, as Russia and China have new ammunition from both the NIE and the IAEA meetings with Iran to torpedo those sanctions - at least in the UN.

2) There has been NO "decisive defeat" of the war faction. The NIE was released to COVER the war faction by declaring that Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program with zero evidence.

3) At this point, further engagement with Iran is required. This is precisely what we are NOT getting from the morons in Washington who are pushing for enhanced sanctions. These morons are promoting the spin of some people that sanctions and international pressure is what persuaded Iran to "stop" its (non-existent) weapons program in 2003.

What this actually means is the NIE offers cover for those who intend to ratchet UP the confrontation by imposing MORE sanctions on Iran in order to - as Bush put it today - "come clean" on its (again, nonexistent) weapons program.

In other words, "prove a negative" or we sanction you. When the sanctions don't work, we'll bomb you.

How is this different from yesterday, Matt?

Once again, somebody throws Matt a bone and he immediately rolls over and puts his paws in the air while pissing all over himself in desperate efforts to ingratiate.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 11, 2007 5:50 PM

as long as terrorists in the IDF have nukes (200? 300?, who knows, the outlaw regime refuses to abide by international norms and divulge how many they have) the Iranians would be suicidal to relinquish their perfectly legal and rational right to enrich uranium.

and no matter what the the Bush regime might try at the UN, America's Banker, Hu Jintao, will see to it that the Iranians face no sanctions for any nuclear activities they are allowed to conduct under the NPT, a treaty that the terrorists in Tel Aviv refuse to sign.

PS to SLC: how's that eliminationist project of yours coming along?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | December 11, 2007 5:50 PM

Meanwhile, we have SLC parroting the Israeli and neocon line - which the NIE was issued to cover by claiming that Iran had a weapons program - that Iran has restarted said program (with zero evidence.)

Not only that, but the Israelis summon one of our top military people down there - like a dog being called to his master's side - to explain to him that Iran has restarted its (again, nonexistent) program and that we should rethink policy.

This however is merely a dog-and-pony show for the public's benefit. In reality, they want him to go back to Cheney and say, "Hey, we want YOU to attack Iran. We don't want to be blamed for this - even though we're the only ones who'll benefit from it. Sure, you bribed us with a $30 billion arms package, but we're gonna hold you up for more."

As for China, it just signed a two billion contract with Iran to develop one of its oil fields. They expect to pay Iran $100 billion over the next 25 years for a 51 percent stake in the field.

Alex: "nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn't it?"

Nope. First of all, Iranian support for Iraqi "terrorists" is minimal and will have no effect in the long run on the outcome there. Bush may be stupid enough to believe that, but Cheney doesn't.

Second, Cheney doesn't give a shit about that stuff - he wants the oil in Iran and the war profits of an Iran war. Period.

Third, increasing sanctions now is NOT a method of REDUCING confrontation with Iran. It's a method of INCREASING confrontation.

Why people don't seem able to understand that simple point is beyond me.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 11, 2007 6:02 PM

Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari

"as long as terrorists in the IDF have nukes (200? 300?, who knows, the outlaw regime refuses to abide by international norms and divulge how many they have) the Iranians would be suicidal to relinquish their perfectly legal and rational right to enrich uranium."

If the IDF was really a terrorist organization, as the muslim whore Ms. al-jafaari contends, the Palestinians would have been subjected to Hama Rules a long time ago. Like the US military in Vietnam, the IDF is prevented from making its opponents cry uncle by the absurd notion of avoiding collateral damage. The best way to bring the Palestinians to heel is the application of Hama Rules.

Re Alex

Given the incompetence of the Bush administration, such a deal would not be beyond the realm of possibility, even if the Iranians are not to be trusted. However, it sounds like Norman Podhoretz paranoia to me.

Re Richard Steven Hack

Well, Mr. Hack is finally starting to get it. The entire US policy in the Middle East is about oil and the access to it. Everything else is secondary; that's why we put up with the assholes in Saudi Arabia. However, Chinas' dealings with Iran are short term because Iranian oil is a dwindling resource. By the way, what is the basis for Mr. Hacks' claim that Iranian support for Shiite terrorists in Iraq is minor?

Posted by SLC | December 11, 2007 7:22 PM

By the way, how come the Israel bashers here haven't jumped on this one. Lots of fodder there.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3481578,00.html

Posted by SLC | December 11, 2007 7:27 PM

The grown-up pundits seem to disagree. Gideon Rachman at the FT, Hitchens at Slate, and Dennis Ross at TNR all think that the way the new NIE will make another round of sanctions less likely, and will increase the chances that Iran goes ahead with enriching enough material for nuclear weapons.

Posted by Fred | December 12, 2007 12:43 AM

If we sit down with the Iranians without the leverage of a global coalition ready to impose tighter and tighter economic sanctions — should Iran not halt enrichment — we’ll end up holding a stuffed animal. The peculiar (obtuse?) way the N.I.E. on Iran was framed has deprived all who favor a negotiated settlement of leverage.

Hu Jintao to Tom Friedman: Suck.On.This.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | December 12, 2007 2:52 AM

"By the way, what is the basis for Mr. Hacks' claim that Iranian support for Shiite terrorists in Iraq is minor?"

The fact that the US hasn't caught or held more than a dozen or so Iranians in Iraq that they can show any evidence are doing anything other than legitimate diplomacy or commercial business dealings. In fact, just about every Iranian the US has picked up in Iraq so far has been released.

All the babbling about "seized caches of arms" has not been able to specify any that were clearly authorized by the Iranian government or even identified as to when or where they came from.

There's not doubt that Iran has agents in Iraq. The number of those is speculative. Pat Lang thinks "hundreds of thousands" which I consider to be a gross overstatement since Iran's IRGC doesn't have hundreds of thousands available to be wandering around Iraq. Of course, if you throw in the Basiji, maybe you could get those kinds of numbers.

My guess is a few thousand, maybe ten thousand, Iranian agents wandering around Iraq at any given time. Why would you need more? They're not doing any fighting - they're just getting the GPS coordinates for US bases, passing over money and suggestions to the Shia militias they support, and observing how things are going. Senior people talk to the Shia government in meetings in Iran and Iraq. Less senior people talk to the heads of Dawa and SIIC and occasionally with al-Sadr (who is a nationalist, not an Iranian puppet like Dawa and SIIC.)

It's extremely unlikely than any Iranian is talking to the Sunni insurgents, let alone Al Qaeda. They might be supplying some Sunnis via a false-flag operation - but why would they? They support the Shia in the Iraqi government - the Sunnis don't. There's no percentage for Iranians to support the Sunni insurgents shooting the US troops when they also shoot the Shia militias Iran supports. That's common sense.

As for supporting Shia "terrorists", the Shia militias don't need any particular Iranian "support" in terms of manpower or weapons. They are the Iraqi government. They have all the support they need from the US. And as I mentioned, al-Sadr doesn't need it and probably doesn't want it either.

The primary enemy of the US on the Shia side is al-Sadr. One big reason the US has had reduced casualties over the last few months is because al-Sadr stood down his militia in order to regroup, rearm and tighten up the organization so it will be stronger the next time he decides to start violence against the US or the Sunnis. And he will because he is determined that the US be driven out of Iraq completely.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 12, 2007 7:18 AM

Fred: Since when is Hitchens considered a "grown-up"?

Last I heard, he was considered a drunk.

As for the NIE, yes, Russia and China will use it to block further sanctions. All that will do is persuade Bush and Cheney and their poodles in Britain and Europe to push forward unilateral sanctions.

As I predicted, the spin being put out by Bush, the Brits, the Israelis, and the Iranian dissidents yesterday and today is that "Iran re-started or will restart its nuclear weapons program." No evidence is provided because none is considered necessary once the meme is set in stone that Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program - which is precisely what the NIE was intended to do.

As for enrichment, Iran will continue to enrich to energy grade, not weapons grade. If it started NOW to enrich to weapons grade - which it can't because it's P-1 centrifuges can't do it - it would take another five or ten years to get enough weapons grade material to make ONE bomb based on the number of centrifuges they have.

In other words, Iran is STILL at the same "five years to get a bomb" that it was five, ten, fifteen and twenty years ago in US intelligence assessments.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 12, 2007 7:27 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

"Fred: Since when is Hitchens considered a "grown-up"?

Last I heard, he was considered a drunk."

At least he's not a convicted bank robber and graduate of 8 years in the Federal birdcage in Leavenworth.

Posted by SLC | December 12, 2007 8:21 AM