On the Bright Side ...
Looking for a bright side to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim that Iran has achieved "uranium with the desired enrichment for nuclear power plants" on Apirl 9, 2006 (that's the 20th of Farvardin, 1385 for you old school types)?
One possible upside is that Ahmadinejad's claim that "Iran has joined the nuclear countries of the world" offers a face saving way to accept a negotiated compromise -- not that either Tehran or West seems particularly interested in that right now.
Several weeks ago two of my colleagues here at Harvard -- Abbas Maleki, director-general of the International Institute for Caspian Studies and a a former deputy foreign minister of Iran, and Matthew Bunn, a former nonproliferation adviser in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy -- argued that a negotiated compromise was feasible, if each side paid careful attention to the other's "bottom line."
For the United States and Europe, Maleki and Bunn argued, bottom line comprises no nuclear weapons in Iran; a broad and verifiable gap between the nuclear activities that would continue in Iran and a nuclear weapons capability; and full Iranian cooperation with the IAEA.
For Iran -- and this is where Ahmadinejad's statement comes in -- the bottom line is reliable civilian nuclear energy, defense of its rights under the NPT, maintenance of its pride and technological development, and assurances against attack.
Maleki and Bunn remark favorably on proposals to enrich uranium in Russia or under multinational control in Iran. Although it was much ignored in the Western press, Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki proposed the ...
... establishment of regional consortiums on fuel cycle development with the participation of regional countries which have already developed fuel cycle programs at the national level and intend to develop further their program for civilian purposes. Such consortiums would be jointly operated by the regional states and the costs and benefits would be shared by the participants. Of course countries outside the region may also participate in such regional arrangements based on the modalities agreed between the parties. The facility would also be jointly owned by the sharing countries and the work could be divided based on the expertise of the participants. The regional consortiums would be placed under IAEA safeguards which would be yet another contribution to strengthening the IAEA safeguards and increasing the scope of international cooperation in the nuclear field.
The suggestion that work within a consortium "be divided based on the expertise of the participants" creates the opportunity for Iran to play a subsidiary role in a future consortium while continuing to assert its place among the "nuclear nations" of the world.
All of this assumes, of course, that the Iranians want a deal. Given the sometimes contradictory statements out of Iran and the difficulty of maintaining unity among the United States, Europe, Russia and China, such a deal may be quite difficult to achieve.
A small chance of success is, still, a chance. As Maleki and Bunn argue, to "give the Iranian advocates of compromise a chance to succeed, the United States and the other major powers need to put offers on the table that will show the people of Iran that nuclear restraint and compliance will put their nation on a path toward peace and prosperity."
First, its Maleki not Malecki.
Second, the precise reason why the US won't accept any compromise offer from Iran, no matter how reasonable, is because nuclear proliferation is just a fig-leaf for a different agenda that requires aggression against Iran. The goal isn't to simply deprive the nation and people of Iran of their inalienable rights, its to remove Iran (and Iraq) as a potential strategic rival to Israel & dominate the regions resources. So, the last thing the US or Israel want is a way for Iranian "advocates of compromise a chance to succeed." The nuclear weapons "threat" is just how you sell this policy to the rubes, and that is precisely why several valid offers of compromise by Iran have been ignored and dismissed offhand by the US. See for example Javad Zarif's op-ed in the NY Times and Int'l Herald Trib which lists the steps that Iran was willing to take to ensure that a nuclear program in Iran would not be diverted to military purposes: www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php
April 17, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who, other than the US, is a stumbling block to such a deal? Although Mottaki's words are short on specifics, they seem pretty clearly drafted to provide room for a compromise agreement that would allow a well-isolated civilian nuclear program in Iran.
April 17, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, the "bottom line" of the Bush administration isn't that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons. Their stated bottom line is that Iran shouldnt even acquire the knowledge that "could be use to make nukes" even if it means depriving Iran of independent civilian nuclear energy, and the NPT be damned.
April 17, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
These offers have been made repeatedly by Iran. They have always been rejected by the US.
The US's STATED position from Roberts to ElBaradei is "not one spinning centrifuge."
This is also Israel's position.
"A small chance of success is, still, a chance."
Not with Bush and the neocons at the helm, it isn't.
"As Malecki and Bunn argue, to "give the Iranian advocates of compromise a chance to succeed, the United States and the other major powers need to put offers on the table that will show the people of Iran that nuclear restraint and compliance will put their nation on a path toward peace and prosperity.""
The Iranians already KNOW this. They have bent over backwards to put offers on the table. It's Bush that doesn't want to know this.
It's really pointless to even suggest any more than any of this is some sort of negotiable issue. The goal of the neocons is regime change. Period.
Deal with it. STOP THE IRAN WAR NOW! I've told you how in numerous posts here. Do it!
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 17, 2006 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the folks who say that Bush does not want to negotiate are correct. He has already determined to move forward in an attack on Iran.
Doesn't any of this sound familiar? Haven't you heard similar banging of the war drums just recently? The preparations are already in the works. The US special ops and CIA people are in Iran. We are allied with rebel groups in Iran and are paying them.
Ahmadinejad is no more a good guy than Saddam was, but war is not the only option, except, of course, to those who run the country. This is one more reason that Bush will not get rid of Rummy. Could he find other Secretary of Defense who would be mad enough to go along with the Iran plan, which includes the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike?
April 17, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace and prosperity? Why on Earth would we want Iran to be on a 'path to peace and prosperity'? This is fuzzy thinking that doesn't have a place in either the NeoCon or the Realists world view. Did we want the Chileans to be peaceful and prosperous when we toppled their elected gov't? How about Nicaragau's? Or Iran's in 1953?
We want their regime to crumble, their ideas of independence to be lost, and ideally return the Shah's son to the throne as a new puppet to serve our interests in the region -- a new Jordan, in short. We want them to sell us oil cheaply and not even potentially compete with us for the domination over their natural resources and the Persian Gulf region. We want them to consume our exports, and provide us with raw materials. We're in the business of getting rid of competitors, not wishing them well! And if we have to attack them and lie to the American people, so be it. Wouldn't be the first time . . .
April 17, 2006 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the sudden emphasis on Ahmadinejad? When reformist president Khatami was in power, the Iran Hawks insisted that the US should ignore his efforts at rapprochement with the US because they claimed that Iranian Presidents are powerless window dressing and not in charge of the military, intelligence agencies, or even the nuclear dossier.
Now that Ahmadinejad has come along and made some blustery speeches, suddenly he's touted as the "Leader" of Iran, as if he's running the place singlehandedly.
Ahmadinejad was elected in a surprise win for a 4 year term. At the end of the term, he'll be gone (unless re-elected.) He's not Kim Jong Il or Saddam. Nor is Iran is not his personal fiefdom.
April 17, 2006 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hass is entirely right. This is not about Iran's nuclear capabilities but about imperialism. After all, they knew Iraq didn't have WMD's. Both countries suffer from their location in a geography this administration wants to get its mitts on. As Gary Hart pointed out today in an interview, our intentions are made clear in the steel-reinforced-concrete "temporary bases" the US has built in Iraq.
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. Nice package.
I don't trust nuclear materials in anyone's hands, including the US's. In that sense, Iran doesn't scare me anymore than Bush&Co. does.
April 17, 2006 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The emphasis is because it suits Bush's plans. When a reformist was president we couldn't paint him as a bad guy. The ayatollahs are the real power in the Iranian theocracy, not the kooky Ahmadinejad.
Tom
April 17, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Hass. The saddest part of this whole debate is that we are making an enemy out of a people that could be our best friends anywhere, and not just the Mideast. Iranians know that an American gave his life in their Constitutional Revolution of 1911 -- how many Americans even know this?
I think this whole debate is missing what the ordinary Iranian thinks. I have lived in Iran and married an Iranian, so I am familiar with their culture. Though Iranians are extremely hospitable and hold honor, justice and family in very high regard, and though they make fun of themselves, they are also fiercely nationalistic and deeply proud people (heirs of the Ancient Persians, don't you know, who influenced us in innumerable ways...) Across the political spectrum, they are all deeply proud of their technological achievements, modest as they may be.
They also have deep resentments against new powers that tried to push them around (to this day the Iranians accuse the British of being clever manipulators, and the Russians of being bullies) America used to be considered as a benign force, who at worst American diplomats were seen as simple and easily manipulated by those Clever Brits. I am sad to say that though Iranians still like individual Americans, America is quickly becoming a dirty word there. This isn't just because of government propaganda, which most Iranians dismiss anyway. They were willing to overlook our CIA coup of 1953 as a case of the Clever Brits misleading the Simple Americans, but after our role in supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and the US Navy shooting down their civilian airliner in Iranian airspace in the Persian Gulf, our flirtations with the MEK (a terrorist group that sided with Saddam during the war) the mess in Iraq, and now the insulting demands that "Evil" Iran should not be "allowed" to have nuclear technology, whatever common good feelings exist in Iran towards the US is evaporating. They may like our jeans, but not our government or policies. We are becoming just another bully that they lived with for a time through their 5000 year history, like the Brits and the Russians before them. Iranians still like Americans genuinely, but more and more of the young are just writing us off. So I am actually surprised that the Iranian diplomats were still willing to make compromises with us considering how popular & nationalistic nuclear energy has become in Iran --- and we dismissed their offers! (a very significant faux pas in Iranian culture) That was a mistake.
This is so sad. I have to assume our politicians and Iran specialists know this. So who would want this relationship to get worse and who stands to benefit from this sabre rattling?
April 17, 2006 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Hold those good thoughts!!
Isreal of course is our "best ally" and we are morally bound to save it. Bush said so. Has to be true.
So we must occupy three Middle East nations, the West Bank and Gaza. Tall order but our national security is at stake, the danger "gathering and grave". The road to the peace of Jerusalme lies through Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran
So LET's ROLL! We've not a minuite to lose. . We're all Israelis now!
Policy Recomendations
1. Fire up the B-2's - nuke load
2. Gen Batiste and his Big Red One doing anything these days?
3. Repeal Bush tax cuts - add war tax 10% to all brackets
4. Windfall profits tax oil
5. Draft
6. All citizens on the look out for Middle Eastern looking folks - Notify FBI immediately and secure for terrorist attack
7. Each citizen to plant victory garden
April 17, 2006 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Having a single "bad guy" to present to the people makes it easier to direct their hatred to an identifiable enemy. Ahmadinejad fits the bill as a boogeyman. We like to portray our international conflicts as the result of the actions of single 'bad men' who is for a time 'Worse than Hitler!' (Osama, Saddam, Noreiga in Panama, Cedras in Haiti, Aidid in Somalia ecetera) rather than risk looking at the broader context of the conflicts, which may not be so clear-cut "good versus evil" as we'd like them to be.
Jen
April 17, 2006 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Iran, they change presidents through elections.
And they hope to be our friends!!
Don't they know? Have they looked at "our" friends in the region: all pliant autocrats. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt; they change heads of state, too. Through death, death, military coup, and ... oops they don't really change in Egypt.
Tha's the sick thing: Iran could be a good friend of the US. Young Iranians love America.
That Ahmadinejad is the Iranian Pat Robertson makes no difference. Khatami was no Pat Robertson. But the US wouldn't return his phone calls.
April 17, 2006 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK but the taxcuts must stay-just cut education or healthcare for the poor or those unable to contribute to the Republican Party. Cut the Veterans's Administration bloated budget. Put the war tab on the national credit card. You forgot to advise us to buy duct tape, preferably from the company in Ohio that produces half of the stuff sold in the US, and whose CEO is, incidentally, also a Bu$h Pioneer. The upside is another war, higher gas prices and a recession may (finally) wake up (some) of the most lamebrained kool-aid drinking dittoheads to realize they have been lied to, misled, and sold down the river. Maybe they would even become informed thinking citizens.
April 17, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We missed the opportunity of the century when we did not apologize for supporting the Shah.
April 17, 2006 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just looked thought my work e-mail and noticed that I've been using Maleki and Malecki with equal enthusiasm. I am going to have to buy Abbas a coffee at Algiers or something tomorrow.
Anyway, post is updated. Definitely Maleki.
On a more substantive note, I do worry that neither side is particularly eager to compromise -- that is discouraging. But it is worth noting that room for compromise does exist, if both sides are willing to drop extreme claims (not one spinning centrifuge, a full fuel cycle) in the interest of crafting a pragmatic solution. The idea that Iran is past what Israeli officials called the "point of no return" ought to be an opportunity for all sides to think again about what really matters in the end.
April 17, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say that "neither side is willing to compromise" when Iran suspended enrichment for 3 years, agreed to implement the Additional Protocol, allowed inspections that exceeded the requirements of the Additional Protocol at sites such as Parchin when other countries such as Brazil have refused to even countenance similar inspections, and Iran's ambassador to the UN just published an op-ed in the NY Times which contains an 10-point list of compromises?
(http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php)
The only thing that the Iranians aren't willing to compromise on is giving up entirely their right to have access to civilian enrichment knowhow which they are pefectly entitled to have. In fact, I find it somewhat ironic that none of the punditry have seen fit to even mention Iran's offers of compromise, consisting of the following:
"Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package:
1- Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put it in place pending ratification;
2- Permit the continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at conversion and enrichment facilities;
3- Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;
4- Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material;
5- Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;
6- Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;
7- Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;
8- Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light-water reactors;
9- Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program, like research and development, in order to assure the world of our intentions;
10- Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.
11- Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel-cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards."
Other governments, most notably the Russian Federation, have offered thoughtful possibilities for a deal. Iran has declared its eagerness to find a negotiated solution - one that would protect its rights while ensuring that its nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful.
April 17, 2006 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We did - sorta. Secretary of State Albright sorta apologized for the 1953 CIA coup, and the Iranian hostage takers sorta apologized for the hostage taking.
There's a whole lot that both sides need to apologize for -- but it can't be done when one side insists on regime-changing the other side instead of talkng to them.
April 17, 2006 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Iran's reformist president was also prevented by their own hardliners from reaching out too much to the US. However, that's no excuse for our actions now, and certainly no reason to go to war instead! According to former White House officials, the Iranians tried to reach out to the Bush administration in 2003 only to have the NeoCons sabotage the talks. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8778)
Before then, the Iranians assisted us in the war in Afghanistan and were talking to us -- then Bush turned around and called them an "Axis of Evil"
And before then even under Clinton, the Iranians offered a $1 billion contract to a US oil company (Conoco) as a gesture of goodwill, but pro-Israeli lobbyists sabotaged that too (and the Iranians awarded the contract to Total of France, which had underbid Conoco anyway)
See more:
"Bronfman leads lobby against Conoco deal with Iran
Matthew Dorf
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
03-13-1995
As the White House, State Department and Congress continue to turn up the heat on Conoco's $1 billion investment in Iran, Edgar Bronfman appears poised to pull the rug out from under the deal.
Bronfman, a leading Jewish philanthropist whose family holds a controlling interest in the Seagram's company, sits on the DuPont board of directors. Seagram's owns 24.3 percent of DuPont, which in turn owns Conoco Inc, a major Houston-based oil company..."
April 17, 2006 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole issue of Iranian uranium enrichment is a red herring. I think there are several plausible reasons for the sabre rattling.
One, of course is that there is a mid-term election in Nov and with Bush and the Repubs down in the polls they need to go to the well once again on the classic Rovian gameplan of rally around the war president theme knowing fully well that Dems with their triangulation could once again be stymied. So ratcheting up the threat perception and increasing the fear of a nuclear armed Iran is good domestic political strategy during the election season.
Second, Bush needs Iran to help sort out Iraq. So, pressuring the Iranians may be a negotiating ploy to prevent the Iranians from coming to the table with a long list of demands. They know the Iranians are wily negotiators in the Middle East, best to come to the table with a perception of strength. Zalmay may need the carrot & stick approach with the Iranians to bail him out of the quagmire in Iraq.
In the mean time the Iranians, Russians, Saudis and Chavez are laughing all the way to the bank with $70/barrel oil!
April 17, 2006 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
A major difference between the former Iraq leader and the current Iran leader is that the former Iraq leader actually had full power in Iraq. The current Iran leader doesn't, since the religious leaders hold most of the power there. Replacing Iran's president will have virtually no effect on Iran's beligerance, unless the religious leaders are also deposed.
There is too much money to be made by too many of Bush's backers for an attack on Iran to be stopped. It can't be stopped unless the Congress does it, and that requires far more patriotism than exists in that body. Congressmen also see how much money can be made in an attack on Iran.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 17, 2006 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not do this half way.
No nylons for American women for the duration of the war.
Gasoline rationing.
No aluminum foil for the duration of the war.
Nothing but short skirts for the women for the duration of the war. (See, there is always a bright side.)
All windows blacked out every night.
No new cars built for the duration of the war.
War is Heck.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 17, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nothing but short skirts for the women for the duration of the war. (See, there is always a bright side.)"
Andrea Corr may be Irish and a peacenik, but she's already doing her part to help the war effort by single-handedly bringing back the micro-mini as a fashion statement.
(Sorry, couldn't resist a plug for my favorite band!)
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 18, 2006 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So ratcheting up the threat perception and increasing the fear of a nuclear armed Iran is good domestic political strategy during the election season."
Unfortunately it's worse than that - they really DO intend to attack Iran. If they didn't, they wouldn't bother with the military buildup and just run the rhetoric into the ground.
People are missing the bottom line here - the issue is who will control the ME in this century - Iran or Israel. And the US is on the side of Israel.
It's that simple - but the politics and geopolitical strategizing that results is complex.
By the way, the Iranians can't "bail them out in Iraq", either. The only thing the Iranians can do is influence the Shia. The Sunni insurgency will remain an issue. It's doubtful Iran sees any real value in pressuring the Shia in Iraq to allow the Sunni equal power. I doubt even Iran could persuade Ayatollah Sistani - even if he is Iranian-born - to let the Sunnis have equal power - and the Sunnis won't accept anything less.
Iraq may or may not have a full-scale civil war, but it's hosed as a cohesive state unless one party manages to get overwhelming (non-US) military power to support it. The Baathists were it for the last three decades - now they're gone and THAT'S the real power vacuum.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 18, 2006 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
USA! USA! USA!\
Feel better now Little Patriots and BushWorshippers?
Good. Welcome to Hell
April 18, 2006 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Thanks CVille!
Keep one eye on the Lobby!
April 18, 2006 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink