Krauthammers take on the Iran "negotiations"

[Ed]

Amusing and sad and frightening ....

Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700893.html

But at least they were talking, that's the important thing, right?

Maybe sanctions ....

Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs.

At least they have showed us the value of some good old fachioned jaw flapping.

 

[aerocontrols]

Good thing we're working on those bunker-busting nukes.

 

[Ed]

Good thing we're working on those bunker-busting nukes.

Pity we may need them.

 

[Euromutt]

Krauthammer, as usual, doesn't have a sodding clue what he's on about. The diplomatic approach failed, yes, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been tried before resorting to sterner measures. And no, it did not give Iran "time to clandestinely advance its program"; while those seals were in place, the Iranian program was suspended.

Then Krauthammer goes on to argue that sanctions wouldn't do any good anyway. Of course, he doesn't acknowledge that, if correct, that might have been a reason for the EU countries to be hesitant about going straight for that stick without trying a carrot or two first. Rather, the futility of sanctions is also the Europeans' fault, though exactly how that works, he does not deign to make clear.

Then he goes on to argue that halting, let alone rolling back, the Iranian nuclear program by means of military action would be extremely difficult, which is somehow caused by supposed European timidity, never mind that the Iranian nuclear program was initiated eighteen years ago and--we may assume--was thus designed to be difficult to disrupt by the likes of Saddam Hussein. And yeah, maybe the Europeans are concerned about a possible Iranian backlash in the event of airstrikes; Krauthammer puts that down to cowardice, but I would say that's just common sense. I remember the last time the Iranians tried to put a blockade on the Straits of Hormuz, firing Silkworm missiles at shipping, and how hairy that got, and that was while Iran was embroiled in a war with Iraq. Without that distraction, it'll be tougher.

And who's going to provide the cavalry? In case Krauthammer hasn't noticed, the US armed forces are a little too heavily extended right now to add open conflict with Iran to their "to do" list. And things were no different two years ago, so there's no point pretending that the suckiness of the timing is somehow the Europeans' fault as well.

Honestly, why that man has a job is entirely beyond me.

 

[Darat]

There is also the fact that once again the USA, Russia and China's involvement in the negotiations have been ignored. This was not an "EU 3" unilateral thing - they fronted the negotiations because they had better access then some other countries and there have been various levels of support from the USA, China and Russia throughout.

Also since all this came out I've been reading some very worrying facts - Iran holds 10% of the world's oil reserves, it exports about 3.5 to 4 million barrels a day and most experts agree that at best only about half of of that could be made up by other producers (also there are concerns about Nigerian supplies at the moment). Attack Iran or impose sanctions that reduces those oil exports and oil prices are going to rise which will have a knock on effect for the whole world, oil at $100 per barrel could even lead to a world wide recession.

Unfortunately the mad man may have the world over a barrel at the moment and "our" real options may be a lot more limited then we like to bluster about.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
And who's going to provide the cavalry? In case Krauthammer hasn't noticed, the US armed forces are a little too heavily extended right now to add open conflict with Iran to their "to do" list. And things were no different two years ago, so there's no point pretending that the suckiness of the timing is somehow the Europeans' fault as well.

*snip*

Two years ago the likes of Krauthammer were still convinced that there would be peace, quiet and utopia in Iraq pretty soon, so they were probably (beneath all the cowboy talk) dang glad someone kept the situation from deteriorating until they were ready to deal with it. And, face it, when it comes to solving situations without resorting to violence, the Bush administration isn´t exactly the first choice.

 

[Darat]

The USA government position on Iran (all from http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/):

Rice: ... "[military action] is simply not on the agenda at this point in time."..

Rice: "...We believe this is a time for diplomacy,..."

Rice: "...The message that we are giving to Iran: We do have diplomatic means at our disposal, we are doing this bilaterally as well as multilaterally, and I believe that a diplomatic solution is in our grasp, if we can have unity of purpose, unity of message with the Iranians and if the Iranians understand that the international community is quite serious about it living up to its obligations...."

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

We had our chance with Khatami, and we flunked it. Sanctions may be precisely what Ahmadinejad wants: nothing better to rekindle the faltering Revolution short of a war.

 

[Tricky]

Good thing we're working on those bunker-busting nukes.

I'm hoping this was intended to be ironic.

 

[corplinx]

RTFA. (read the "fabulous" article)

The article talks about people declaring the strategy a success but it was instead a failure.

The article then goes on to point out how we can't sanction Iran because of their oil supplies.

Stop jerking those knees and read more than just the quoted blurbs plz.

 

[Darat]

Looks like Rice is making a new statement along the lines of "time for negotiation is at an end". (Which means the USA wants it referred to the SC as the next step.) I'll link as soon as I find an article or someone else beats me to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Krauthammer, as usual, doesn't have a sodding clue what he's on about. The diplomatic approach failed, yes, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been tried before resorting to sterner measures.

The objection isn't that diplomacy was tried, but that it wasn't even tried seriously. It's been over 900 days since the IAEA discovered that Iran had violated the conditions of the NPT, and the IAEA has yet to refer the matter to the security council. That is not taking diplomacy seriously, that's AVOIDING taking it seriously.

And no, it did not give Iran "time to clandestinely advance its program"; while those seals were in place, the Iranian program was suspended.

No, it wasn't. That's where you've been deceived. The actual enrichment activities were halted, but construction of facilities and capacity to DO that enrichment proceeded apace. And THAT has been what really mattered, since increased enriching capacity was really what they needed. They bought time, and you bought the lie hook, line and sinker.

Then Krauthammer goes on to argue that sanctions wouldn't do any good anyway. Of course, he doesn't acknowledge that, if correct, that might have been a reason for the EU countries to be hesitant about going straight for that stick without trying a carrot or two first. Rather, the futility of sanctions is also the Europeans' fault, though exactly how that works, he does not deign to make clear.

Not quite. His argument is that nothing short of sanctioning Iranian oil exports would have any effect, and Europeans are unwilling to even consider such a move (as are many Americans).

And who's going to provide the cavalry? In case Krauthammer hasn't noticed, the US armed forces are a little too heavily extended right now to add open conflict with Iran to their "to do" list.

Not so. The conflict Krauthammer envisions would be mostly naval and air, not ground forces. Our naval forces are NOT tied down in Iraq, and at this point neither is most of our air power.

 

[Darat]

The objection isn't that diplomacy was tried, but that it wasn't even tried seriously. It's been over 900 days since the IAEA discovered that Iran had violated the conditions of the NPT, and the IAEA has yet to refer the matter to the security council. That is not taking diplomacy seriously, that's AVOIDING taking it seriously.

Out of curiosity why do you think the USA, EU, China and Russia pursued this course of action then?

No, it wasn't. That's where you've been deceived. The actual enrichment activities were halted, but construction of facilities and capacity to DO that enrichment proceeded apace. And THAT has been what really mattered, since increased enriching capacity was really what they needed. They bought time, and you bought the lie hook, line and sinker.

Again why do you think the USA, EU, China and Russia continued down this route?

Not quite. His argument is that nothing short of sanctioning Iranian oil exports would have any effect, and Europeans are unwilling to even consider such a move (as are many Americans).

As is the USA government, the EU, Russian and China - in fact are there any major governments that aren't against sanctions on oil from Iran? (Or until at least this week weren't against them?)

Not so. The conflict Krauthammer envisions would be mostly naval and air, not ground forces. Our naval forces are NOT tied down in Iraq, and at this point neither is most of our air power.

Why has the USA consistently ruled this out during the negotiations (see above quotes from Rice from just last Friday and Monday)?

 

[Ziggurat]

Out of curiosity why do you think the USA, EU, China and Russia pursued this course of action then?

What course of action? Not refering the mater to the security council? That's something the IAEA has to do, and while we can exert some pressure on them, we (even collectively including the EU, China and Russia) do not actually control the IAEA.

Again why do you think the USA, EU, China and Russia continued down this route?

I think the Europeans got suckered. I think the Russians never really cared that much, as long as they could sell the Iranians weapons. And I think China wants access to Iranian oil badly but really doesn't give a damn if they go nuclear, since it's not THEIR problem.

As is the USA government, the EU, Russian and China - in fact are there any major governments that aren't against sanctions on oil from Iran? (Or until at least this week weren't against them?)

I don't think the possibility has even been seriously discussed among those groups. And I'm not sure the US government actually is opposed to such sanctions, I think it's more likely that we're just realistic that we cannot get them.

Why has the USA consistently ruled this out during the negotiations (see above quotes from Rice from just last Friday and Monday)?

First, I don't think she has exactly ruled out military action (and in fact, the administration has consistently refused to state that it will not consider military strikes). Not being on the agenda NOW doesn't mean it can't be down the line. And second, the military scenario Krauthammer discusses is largely what would happen if we instituted an oil embargo and Iran RESPONDED militarily to shut off the Persian gulf. The US military response to that is not something we would be discussing at this point - even if we were considering an oil embargo (something the US cannot do alone), discussions of the military implications wouldn't be something we'd want to highlight.

 

[Darat]

What course of action? Not refering the mater to the security council? That's something the IAEA has to do, and while we can exert some pressure on them, we (even collectively including the EU, China and Russia) do not actually control the IAEA.

The negotiations and also not using the security council mechanism to refer the matter for the IAEA to look into.

I think the Europeans got suckered. I think the Russians never really cared that much, as long as they could sell the Iranians weapons. And I think China wants access to Iranian oil badly but really doesn't give a damn if they go nuclear, since it's not THEIR problem.

And the USA who has supported the negotiations through out?

I don't think the possibility has even been seriously discussed among those groups. And I'm not sure the US government actually is opposed to such sanctions, I think it's more likely that we're just realistic that we cannot get them.

There have been high level (ministerial) meetings by the EU-3, the USA, China and Russia throughout these negotiations. On the whole all the groups involved in the negotiations have shown a publicly united front - all with the aim of not letting Iran develop the technology.

I've been amazed so far of the level of agreement of all the security council members (and Germany).

First, I don't think she has exactly ruled out military action (and in fact, the administration has consistently refused to state that it will not consider military strikes). Not being on the agenda NOW doesn't mean it can't be down the line. And second, the military scenario Krauthammer discusses is largely what would happen if we instituted an oil embargo and Iran RESPONDED militarily to shut off the Persian gulf. The US military response to that is not something we would be discussing at this point - even if we were considering an oil embargo (something the US cannot do alone), discussions of the military implications wouldn't be something we'd want to highlight.

I can't see how Rice could have been clearer " ... "[military action] is simply not on the agenda at this point in time."..".