NUCLEAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
The big shift
26-Jul-2008
The prospect of war over Iran's nuclear plans seemed to recede in mid-July 2008 after a marked change in United States attitudes to the country. This was signalled by the decision to hold direct talks with the Islamic Republic for the first time since the revolution of 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis that did so much to embitter relations between the two countries. The outcome of the discussions held in Paris on 19 July was disappointing to western hopes of concessions from Iran over its uranium-enrichment plans, but the fact of the meeting has been hailed as a positive step that diminishes what had seemed to be the escalating risk of armed confrontation.
Between this hope and a stony reality, however, falls a shadow. For even if the momentum in Washington has moved away from the planning for a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, the option of an attack by Israel is very much alive. In the complex strategic calculations of the three main state actors, therefore, the mild and provisional rapprochement between the US and Iran is only one counter that in itself does not eliminate the possibility of war (see "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point", 13 March 2008).
A static momentum
The shift in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of pressure from two branches of government: the state department, where influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over Iran; and the defence department, where there has been real concern over the possible consequences of a military confrontation. This has been voiced by a number of senior military commanders, most recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the joint chiefs-of-staff (see "Top US admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil", Reuters, 20 July 2008). Mullen has conveyed a pithy scepticism about the fallout of war with Iran ("This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable") with a sharp awareness of the limits imposed by the US's own military overstretch ("Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one"). At the same time, he is emphatic that Iran has to be "deterred" in its ostensible ambition of achieving a nuclear-weapon capacity (see "U.S. admiral calls for global pressure on Iran", Xinhua, 21 July 2008)
This element of ambiguity was reflected too at the 19 July meeting (which included representatives from China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany). Although the US was represented by under-secretary of state William Burns, the highest ranking US official to be in dialogue with Iran for many years, the sense of a process almost immediately stalled was palpable. The secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was critical of the Iranian delegation immediately after the meeting (see Matthew Lee, "U.S. says Iran not serious at nuclear talks", Baltimore Sun, 21 July 2008). Members of other delegations that took part were scornful of Iran's preparation and input, including the paper distributed at the meeting which outlined Tehran's core positions (see Elaine Sciolino, "Iran offers 2 pages and no ground in nuclear talks", International Herald Tribune, 22 July 2008).
A vengeful disillusion
The Paris dialogue may nonetheless have confirmed that the balance within the George W Bush administration has moved away from planning for war with Iran. This would be a cruel disappointment to those inside (vice-president Dick Cheney and his team) and outside (neo-conservative and other hawkish voices) the administration who have long sought to match action against Iran to the "axis of evil" rhetoric.
Indeed, the reaction of the analysts who have promoted a hardline agenda on Iran to Washington's change of approach is instructive. For many, it has evidently been a bad dream which has confirmed their sourness towards Condoleezza Rice and the state department but also introduced a new note of disillusioned disgust against the George W Bush administration as a whole.
The hardliners' unsettled mood is compounded by Barack Obama's lead in the opinion polls, amid a more general positive coverage of the Democratic candidate's campaign reflected in the blanket coverage of his overseas tour to Afghanistan, the Middle East and western Europe (see Dan Balz, "Obama Going Abroad With World Watching", Washington Post, 19 July 2008).
In addition, the agreement of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki with Obama's call for a major US troop withdrawal from Iraq is a serious embarrassment for the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has been making much of Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs (see Jim Lobe, "McCain knee-capped by Maliki", Asia Times, 23 July 2008). The widespread frustration of Republicans and conservatives at the Obama summer festival is reinforced by the apparent media sidelining of the campaign of the Republican candidate, John McCain (see Linda Feldmann, "McCain camp cries foul", Christian Science Monitor, 24 July 2008).
Yet the neocon focus on Iran remains central, with a rising sense of aggravation that Iran has been rewarded with serious diplomatic attention from Washington even though it has made no effort (and has expressed no intention) to cease its uranium-enrichment activities. Such a cessation had long been a pre-requisite for any change in the US's attitude; its abandonment opens the administration to that toxic charge: appeasement, only one step from betrayal.
Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute described Bush's reversal as "diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime" (see Michael Rubin, "Now Bush is Appeasing Iran", Wall Street Journal, 21 July 2008). Indeed, Rubin contends: "As Ahmadinejad begins his re-election campaign, he can say he has successfully brought Washington to its knees through blunt defiance, murder of US troops, and Holocaust denial."
This is strong stuff, but others are even harsher on the Bush administration. Stephen F Hayes, a regular commentator in the neocon journal the Weekly Standard, makes a direct connection with the Bush about-turn on North Korea (which included, on 26 June 2008, removing Pyongyang from the United States's list of state sponsors of terrorism). After North Korea's nuclear test in October 2006, Bush initially rejected calls for negotiations; yet in a matter of weeks he allowed the state department's Christopher R Hill to meet a North Korean delegation, with a further meeting in Berlin in early 2007. This rapprochement notwithstanding, Stephen F Hayes notes that North Korea assisted Syria in developing the nuclear reactor that was (on 6 September 2007) to be bombed by Israel.
Hayes goes on to argue:
"Despite all of this - despite North Korean nuclear aid to one of the world's leading terrorist regimes and despite its subsequent failure to account for its nuclear programs - in June the Bush administration volunteered to lift sanctions on North Korea under the Trading with the Enemy Act and, over the objection of our close ally Japan, decided to remove North Korea from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terror" (see Stephen F Hayes, "'Stunningly Shameful': The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran", Weekly Standard, 28 July 2008).
Another stern reproach for the administration's u-turn on Iran comes from the former under-secretary of state for arms control and United Nations ambassador in the Bush administration, John Bolton. Bolton focuses too on Israeli concerns about Iran's nuclear plans, and is straightforward in arguing that the Bush policy towards Iran has failed, and that it is reasonable to expect Israel to take military action. Moreover, he argues:"we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is a compelling logic to make it as successful as possible" (see John Bolton, "Israel, Iran and the bomb", Wall Street Journal, 15 July 2008).
A spreading unease
Meanwhile, Israeli sources report that Iran is about to get the first shipments of the advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile system which can track multiple incoming aircraft simultaneously and can attack up to twelve at a time (see Yaakov Katz, "Officials: Advanced S-300 on way to Iran", Jerusalem Post, 23 July 2008). Some sources indicate that a number of the missiles could be deployed around nuclear sites later in 2008 or very early in 2009, making any Israel attack far more costly (see Dan Williams, "Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 - Israel", Reuters, 23 July 2008).
In Israel itself, there is now far more talk of the need to take action before the US presidential election comes to a climax on 4 November 2008, or at latest before the new president is inaugurated 20 January 2009. The Israeli academic Benny Morris is among those arguing that an Israeli attack is highly likely:
"Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months - and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country's nuclear program" (see Benny Morris, "Using Bombs to Stave Off War", New York Times, 18 July 2008).
For their part, the western European countries may have been buoyed by the US's leaning towards dialogue with Iran, but the overall mood in at least some capitals has otherwise darkened notably in recent weeks. In contrast to the relief engendered by Washington's cautious reach-out to Tehran, there is mounting unease at the chances of dissuading the Israelis from using their perceived window of opportunity.
A conflict involving Iran is not inevitable, but the blunt fact is that it is more likely in the next few months than at any time in the last five years. Alongside the incalculable - but almost certainly very grave, and possibly catastrophic - security and economic consequences, at least one likely political effect is not what the conflict's architects would wish. This is that a singularly hardline presidential candidate would gain a much needed boost in a forthcoming election as his country falls into line behind him at a time of crisis; thus might Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in mid-2009 help ensure himself four more years in power.
First published in OpenDemocracy.net
ABOUT
Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001. In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here. Paul Rogers's most recent book is Why We're Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) - an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 era and why a new security paradigm is needed.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
PS ROSHANBEEN
by programmer craig on Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:34 AM PDTThe longer Bush administration waits, less they get .
Why do you think the IRI even wnats to negotiate with the Bush administration? He's a lame duck. The election to replace him is in 3 months. He's out of office in 5 months. I think you got it backwards... the longer vthe IRI waits, the less it gets. In fact, they have waited so long they are likely to get nothing at all. WHy do you think the IRI is even trying?
And all it takes to close a consular office is an executive order!
What do you think would happen to American di0plomats in Iran, if Israel attacked? What do you think the effect on American public opinion would be, if teh IRI *again* took American diplomats hostage, ROSHANBEEN? Is everything really what it seems?
ROSHANBEEN
by programmer craig on Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:29 AM PDTbetween Iran and U.S. through Swiss embassy. The longer Bush
administration waits, less they get . it would have been Grand Bargain
back in 2003, now they have to live with 6000 centrifuges.
No, we don't. We can live with a couple million dead Iranians instead. Is that what YOU want to live with? Your tone is offensive. I suggest you change it. And I certainly hope your attitude isn't a reflection of the leadership of the IRI.
Iran helped with Afghanistan, and was rewarded with title of "Axis of
Evile". They helped with Iraq(official title is "surge worked"), and
this time will be rightly rewarded. Negotiations will be long and
painfull, I hope not, it should be very simple though, respect and
dignity are the magic words.
No, I think when it come sto the IRI... lies, treachery and terrorism are the magic words. You would have the US "respect" that? lol.
And by the wya, this US President has 5 months left in office. Whatever deals his state department makes, can be easily reversed by the next.
I don't have much respect for you personally, ROSHANBEEN. You seem like an arrogant and dishonest person.
DEAL HAS BEEN WORKED OUT
by ROSHANBEEN (not verified) on Tue Jul 29, 2008 09:36 AM PDTbetween Iran and U.S. through Swiss embassy. The longer Bush administration waits, less they get . it would have been Grand Bargain back in 2003, now they have to live with 6000 centrifuges.
Iran helped with Afghanistan, and was rewarded with title of "Axis of Evile". They helped with Iraq(official title is "surge worked"), and this time will be rightly rewarded. Negotiations will be long and painfull, I hope not, it should be very simple though, respect and dignity are the magic words.
AAA
by programmer craig on Mon Jul 28, 2008 05:00 PM PDTCraig, for someone who is quick to give lessons about the structure of
US government over semantics, you sure seem to know little about your
own history.
The structure of the US government is not "semantics". The head of the Department of State and the head of the Department of Defense are the Secretaries of the two Dpeartments. They are both appointed by the president, and are in effect his employees. It's absurd for you of anyone else to claim otherwise.
If you study the last few months of the Nixon Admin, you will find that
the top military brass refused to carry Nixon's orders and had an
agreement with State Dept and Defense Dept that Nixon's military orders
were to be ignored unless approved by the said Secretaries outside of
the influence of Nixon.
Garbage. Where did you get that from? lol. You are talking about when Nixon was under criminal investigation by the US Congress, and when he was about to be impeached. Of course his powers in office weer greatly reduced becauyse he was about to be removed from office and charged with a few felonies. That has no bearing on the structure of the US government.
Do you know who Nixons's Secretary of State was at the tiime? Henry Kissinger.
Department of Defense at the time? James R. Shlesinger. This one here:
//www.csis.org/html/4schlesinger.htm
Before Schlesinger, it was... Donald Rumsfeld! :D
The reason given for this was that Nixon was
popping pills and boozing it and the top military brass did not want to
take orders from a man clearly under the influence.
No it wasn't. It was because he was being investigated for criminal misconduct. And was about to be impeached.
And all of this has no bearing on the structure of the US Government. When Bush is being impeahced, let us know. In the meantime, try to not to watse everyone's time with such blatant misinformation. Refusing to carry out the lawful orders of a superior is a felony in the US military. And the President is the boss of bosses. If Bush ordered Iran to be bombed tomorrow, Iran would be bombed tomorrow.
Craig is wrong
by AAA (not verified) on Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:00 AM PDTCraig, for someone who is quick to give lessons about the structure of US government over semantics, you sure seem to know little about your own history.
If you study the last few months of the Nixon Admin, you will find that the top military brass refused to carry Nixon's orders and had an agreement with State Dept and Defense Dept that Nixon's military orders were to be ignored unless approved by the said Secretaries outside of the influence of Nixon. The reason given for this was that Nixon was popping pills and boozing it and the top military brass did not want to take orders from a man clearly under the influence.
Bush has become smarter than he was
by Abarmard on Mon Jul 28, 2008 09:28 AM PDTPresident Bush has learned a lot since in office. I would believe that he would run this country better than John McCain, since McCain seems to have less clues as how to bring the US economy back on her feet.
I for one will not allow a man such as McCain takes us to the road of early GW's presidency. Those who vote based on party system alone will make that mistake.
War with Iran was not on the table. Many Israelis have been trying to lobby the idea, such as Lieberman who seem to be working for the Israeli government than the US. I believe it's time to kick those who don't care about the middle America and the population concerns out of the room. If we focus on what's best for the US, we will do what's best for the US rather than what's best for our allies.
With Obama I am beginning to feel like an American again, America that you can be proud of.
Peace
Deal or no deal?
by Shadooneh (not verified) on Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:02 PM PDTIn my haghir opinion it's a done deal. This author and others like him including one of Israel's intelligence "former" big cheeses, who has said an attack will have a 100-year effect on Israel, are clearly pointing out the dangers facing everyone involved. On the other side of the DEAL is Iran's potential for foreign investments, or full-scale operations, in the banking sector and other types of enterprises. Iran is going through one of the biggest PRIVATIZATION of state-owned enterprises programs since the one in Russia during Yeltsin and after him. Iran is any capitalist's dream. Iran has played a very high stake game and won. There will be "freeze" and the West will "approve" whatever number of centrifuges Iran is operating up to maybe 6000 and all will be forgotten. Just like the 70s the petrodollars or Euros will have to flow back to the extremely ailing US and EU banking system amongst a solid economic recession bordering on a full-scale depression. With so much red meat "on the table", the EU/US is salivating to join the biggest economic liberalizations schemes in the recent Middle East history.
The fact that a almost every politician in a position to influence the events is singling out Israel as the one who may "do" it, and then the US will be forced to defend Israel and so on. Israel's main problem is it may be the one holding the bag for "pushing" so hard. So Israel, justifiably, wants to know what Israel will get out of this new rapprochement between the 5+1 group and Iran. Israel sure doesn't want to be the only one facing Iran with its "allies" feasting in Tehran. Iran has publicly shown the way. Israel should solve the Palestinian "problem" fairly to the satisfaction of the Palestinians, then Iran will comply with the "will" of the Palestinians. Therefore Iran will not "oppose" Israel any more. Israel can effectively neutralize Iran just by solving the Palestinian issue, which is demanded from Israel by many UN resolutions. The path to Iran-Israel reconciliation is well defined and announced publicly by IRI. It takes political realism to choose that path in Israel, Iran and the US. The market forces have made many jingoists in the US, Israel and even Iran aware of the negative consequences of overt and covert military actions. The good news is both GW and Mahmoud are under adult supervision, and Olmert spends a lot of time with the Police in Jerusalem . I have always been of the opinion that the ones who would help the GOP at the time of utter need, like right now, would be the rulers of Iran just as they welcomed Ronald Reagan. This is another "great bargain" at the right time to hand GW some sort of "victory" and help the GOP. Iran is offering the West a deal it cannot refuse. Now that's a BIG DEAL.
Paul Rogers
by programmer craig on Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:46 PM PDTThe shift
in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of
pressure from two branches of government: the state department, where
influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over
Iran; and the defence department, where there has been real concern
over the possible consequences of a military confrontation.
For such an articulate writer, you seem to have a very crude understanding of the way bteh US government is structured! The Stae Department and teh Defense Department are both part of the executive branch, and report directly to the President. They WORK for him. There is no way to desribe them as "branches" of the US government.
Shirazie,
Bottom Line - GWB could not get anyone in Pentagon to Bomb Iran.
See my above comment. If Bush wanted to bomb iran, he would order that it be done. And it would be done. Period. The President is the Commander in Chief of the US military. he is at the top of the chain of command for all military personnel. They don't even get to argue with him about it. So if you want to give credit for an improved US stance towards Iran, give the credit where it is due.
Good Article till Wall Street Journel Referrenced
by shirazie (not verified) on Sat Jul 26, 2008 08:38 PM PDTWall street is the new Foxnews of Prints. I is not worth referencing or reading since the Aussie Goon has bought them. The right wing nuts are only getting our attention, not anyone else. Quite reacting to them
Bottom Line - GWB could not get anyone in Pentagon to Bomb Iran.
I guess the Military guys have more brain than civilian leadership in US