Iran and the UN
My friend Bruce Jentleson says he is "taken a little back" by "some of [his] pro UN-colleagues backing off UN sanctions against Iran."
Bruce is one of the best writers on multilateralism, as readers of America Abroad have come to know. But like the "other big powers" Bruce criticizes in his post, Bruce seems to want to "have it both ways" in his response.
Bruce's post implies that pursuing a transatlantic track is somehow "anti-UN." At the same time it suggests that to pursue joint US-EU sanctions, instead of UN sanctions, is a sign of weakness -- somehow "backing off."
The use of labels is understandable in the shorthand world of the web, but it is a little unhelpful. I'm not sure, for example, what it means to be pro- or anti-UN in this context. The issue is how to get back on a negotiating track with Iran in order to have a chance at containing its nuclear weapons program. If that requires that the United States and Europe work together, so be it. That is hardly anti-UN, and it is hardly unilateral. And it certainly isn't "backing off."
In truth the EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany) preferred the US-Europe track over going the UN route. It was Washington, not Brussels, which insisted on going to the Security Council. The U.S. decision to seek Security Council sanctions reflects division and strategic confusion in the White House about how to approach Iran.
The threat of targeted US-European sanctions against Iran won't let China and Russia off the hook. It would, instead, signal seriousness and carry important messages. To Iran it would reaffirm European and American unity. To Beijing and Moscow it would say, If you are not prepared to walk Bruce's multilateral walk then you won't have a place at the table. Elsewhere Bruce has helpfully labeled this kind of approach "tough-love multilateralism."
Again, UN Sanctions on Iran for what, exactly? For NOT having a secret nuclear weapons program? FOr insisting on obtaining their "inalienable rights" under the NPT? Seems to me that the Iranians have a better record of abiding by their NPT obligations than the US.
December 13, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
exactly. you take it as a given:
a) iran is building a bomb
and
b) iran is a threat to us
and
c) a time where we're trying to find the least bad outcome in iraq. it's essential to the US (and the UN) somehow, to isolate iran.
i thought the neo-cons lost.
December 13, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
where was all this alarmism when pakistan was running a nuclear bazaar, when UAE was funding al qaeda? oh yeah, back then, the 'liberal hawks' were busy trying to convince themselves that iraq wouldn't be the strategic blunder of our generation and they'd better get on board. i'd almost forgotten.
December 13, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish we could all back off from the view that the UN is supposed to be a club used to bludgeon other countries into doing what we want them to do. It isn't, and wasn't set up to be that. Iran is not threatening to invade any other country, is not a threat to our country, is not violating any treaties regarding nuclear activities, and has a democratically elected President. We all (speaking of nations) should just pipe down and take a deep breath. Once we stop hyperventilating maybe we can come to the realization that nuclear physics is not an exclusive property of any nation or set of nations. It is a science combined with some engineering, available to any nation that choses to go that direction. And, inevitably more and more nations will make that choice.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 13, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We get one after another this sorry collection of foreign policy experts, taking for granted that the Iranian threat is clear to all. This is disturbing and they should be held account. Not one is willing to discuss seriously and honestly, the nature of this threat. and explain why they think it is so serious. It is enough that it is the conventional wisdom prevailing in Washington. And we all know how well that works for us.
It is no wonder not one of them stood up and stated clearly that the Iraq aggression was a disaster-waiting-to-occur. Not one of them. Like Bush, who is not content with the scope of the disaster in Iraq, these experts are not yet content with the consequences now of the wisdom they accepted then. So once again instead of explaining the nature of the threat, they deal with methods for handling the threat. If it is so hard to explain the nature of the Iranian threat, maybe it is not as bad as these experts make out.
December 13, 2006 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a communication gap here between the writers and commentors. The problem, I suppose, is that the writers discuss "US interests" as if they were somehow separate and distinct from the intentions of the Bush Administration. Conversely, the commentors hear these proposals and interpret the writers as advocating for an Administration with approval rates near 30%, a war that may be the greatest strategic disaster in American history, and a conniving leadership structure that has lied and misled its way through the last six years.
I don't think the "Sanctions on Iran" writers are trying to advocate on behalf of the Bush Administration. I think they are trying to convey the notion that America's longterm interests transcend the Bush Administration, and that action must be taken to halt Iran's nuclear program regardless of the malignant presence of the Bush Administration. Of course, none of them has bothered to say that. So I'm only guessing.
As I've said several times, I think the tone and tenor of this discussion would be different it there were a Democratic presidential administration in the White House, or even a Republican administration that had shown itself to be a fair dealer on the international stage. Unfortunately for all of us, we have neither.
What is missing from the writers' posts, I think, is an acknowledgment of the corrupting influence of the Bush Administration -- the admission that things like sanctions against Iran do not exist in a vacuum, independent of the neoconservative worldview that currently dominates official Washington. Speaking for only myself, I need to be convinced that sanctions are needed against Iran despite the Bush Administration. Talking about slapping sanctions on Iran without acknowledging the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration's lack of trustworthiness, and the neocons' historic lust for regime change in Iran makes you seem like you're either out of touch or, well, a neocon. At best, it displays the kind of linear, compartamentalized thinking that allows otherwise bright foreign policy experts to be led around by the nose by a dishonest and manipulative White House.
I am not a pacifist. Having watched the world for the last three years, however, I think the best foreign policy at this time is one that contains and limits the Bush Administration's ambitions and war-making capacity. Period. Implicit in this belief is my understanding that resisting all White House "defense" initiatives involves certain risks, including the expansion of Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. In other words, I understand that Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous and bad for America (and Israel, as well as our Sunni allies in the Middle East). I just think that allowing the Bush Administration to continue to set America's foreign policy agenda is more dangerous.
Needless to say, I am nobody. You don't need to convince me of anything. But if you decide it would be fun to try, start by acknowledging how destructive the Bush Administration is and will continue to be, then convince me why taking action against Iran is so important that we should still throw our support behind the Bush Administration in order to do so.
December 13, 2006 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Table? What table?
China is growing at a 10% clip with US$1 trillion
in the bank and is signing a $100 billion oil contract with Iran and is essentially taking over Africa while no one's paying attention.
Russia is finding its second wind with high oil prices and newfound stability. Meanwhile the American Century is making a quick exit in Mesopotamia and hell will freeze over before Europe puts any real pressure on Iran.
So again, Lee, what table are you talking about?
December 13, 2006 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I came to the conclusion that Iran is indeed a threat.
On the other hand, it is a limited kind of threat, because they really cannot "project force". But they seem to feel that opposing Israel is the ticket for influence in Arab world and domestic prestige. I am not oblivious to Israel fate, and since it is also a majority position in USA, so we can assume that the fate of Israel is within the scope of our national interest.
Any discussion on "what to do with Iran" has to start from the admission that Iran has uniquely advantageous territory. In the north, the strategic position of Iran compels Russia to seek good relations, in the south there is Strait of Hormuz and the credible threat to choke that Strait if push comes to shove, to the east, Iraq with friendly Shia population, to the west, ethnically related Afghanistan and markets of Indian subcontinent. Afghanistan and Iraq have crumbling western military presence where American and NATO military forces are "sitting ducks".
There is no way to close trade routes of Iran. Given its robust finances, economic sanctions would be annoyance at best.
Iraq is as good as fallen into Iranian zone of influence. We can delay it, I do not see how we can prevent it.
Once Iraq is securely alied with Iran, they are joined by Syria which becomes immune to threats from Israel, Turkey etc, "Regime change" in Syria can only make things worse -- our menu seems to be limited to Hezbollah- and Hamas-like alternatives.
What we can do is to give Syria what Iran cannot: peace with Israel, access to EU and American markets, investments by technologically advanced companies. While religiously aligned, leaders of Syria belong to a secular movement that is not naturally aligned with Iran -- this aliance reflects the necessity and lack of other options.
Once Israel is secure, Iran cannot do much that would threaten our interest. It may attempt to "project force" across the Gulf, but i doubt it. If anything, it would force Gulf Arabs to be even more reliable allies than they are now.
December 13, 2006 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me see if I understand you. Iran is a threat, but it is limited. I think I would rephrase then and say "potentially Iran is a threat". Do you agree? Or is any country currently really threatened by Iran. Isn't China also a "potential threat". Wouldn't it make more sense to try to build relations with the Iranians who seem eager for this? Don't we follow that type of strategy presently with China? In terms of Israel, Iran's growing power, and Hezbollah's clear fighting abilities (not unrelated, but I do not think it is puppetmaster and puppet) certainly weaken Israel's dominance of the region. It probably is a forlorn hope, but might not the growth of a counterbalance to Israeli power possibly encourage less rejectionist forces in Israel? In any case, I find it hard to understand the current view, that Iran is a threat to US or world peace just because it is an emerging power; apart from Ahmadejeddin's inflammatory rhetoric the Islamic revolution is now what almost 30 years old and Iran hasn't been waging wars of aggression by my view. Do you disagree?
December 13, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or does it seem like the current bout of international turmoil over Iran was sparked by Ahmadinejad's election in 2005? Consider this: if Khatami had been allowed to stay on as President, or Rafsanjani had won the 2005 race, would we be in the same situation today with Iran? Ahmadinejad strikes me as Iran's George W. Bush. I'm not qualified to answer this question, but I do wonder if Ahmadinejad would've even won if Bush had not included Iran in his ridiculous "axis of evil".
So as others have said, I simply do not see what positive long-term influence sanctions would have. The prediction is that a "show of unity" by the US and Europe in favor of sanctions would somehow persuade Iran to back off its program (or its rhetoric). What is the basis for that prediction? Perhaps Iran will actually take it as even more incentive to prove its independence and dig its heels in even more.
We've had a sorted history with Iran, and the US has made its fair share of sorted moves in the past. I think it's in the interest of the *people* of Iran and the US to begin an open dialogue and prevent future military conflict as much as possible. Enough of this pissing match.
December 13, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Often, labelling Country X a "threat" and taking actions based upon this label becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you call them a threat enough, and take actions against them based on this label, they often "become" they threat you first labelled them as. Not because they were a threat in the first place, but because of your own labels and decisions based on your own belief in the label. See Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech.
Just a thought.
December 13, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. See Venezuela as another example. In a different U.S. Administration, we would now have good, solid, productive ties with Venezuela. We do not precisely because of U.S. actions and statements -- not Venezuela's. Chavez' UN comments were a response to US hostility -- not the cause of them. Cause and effect is linear and noncommutative. Often you get exactly the "threat" and "enemy" you asked for.
December 13, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that the US did everything it could to undermine the Khatami reformist camp and undermine its credibility, thus paving the way for Ahmadinejad.
December 13, 2006 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am unclear why you don't think Iran is a threat. You don't believe their desire to spread their version of the Islamic Revotion or you support it?
Is their desire for nuclear materials not ultimately about weapons, or it is alright that they have them?
Iran has not funded acts of terrorism around the world?
You do not take Iran as a threat to both Israel and Saudi Arabia as one to be taken seriously or one that the U.S. should care about?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 14, 2006 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Khatami was president and was reaching out to the US, we were told that he should be ignored since Iranian presidents are nobodies.
When Ahmadinejad was president and says outrageous things, all of a sudden he's characterized as "The LEader of Iran"
Hmmm.....wonder what explains that.
December 14, 2006 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last "act of terrorism" attributed to Iran was the US Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon - and technically, since the targets were not civilians but armed members of a military present on foreign soil during combat, that's not terrorism.
Now, compare that to the US funding of terrorism (nun-raping death squads) and not to mention Israeli shelling of picniking palestinian families on beaches, not to mention the overt and repeated threats of nuclear first strikes issued to Iran and the arming of Saddam with chemical weapons and the shooting down of Iranian civilian airliners etc, then ask yourself who is really a "threat" to whom?
December 14, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
crazy me, i'm more suspicious of the saudis than of the iranians. i wonder why that is. maybe because iranians have never attacked the united states nor fostered/financed the wahabbist ideology that caused those attacks. with friends like the house of saud, sho needs enemies?
December 14, 2006 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your reply. The Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, after the brutal and despicable Shah of Iran, the American client-ruler was overthrown by largely Democratic forces. The Iranian Revolution was taken over by largely reactionary religious figures led by Khomeini. Since that time they have not invaded any country, they have fought a war, fomented to a large degree by the US, which was more than a little disturbed by the removal from our control of one of the great sources of oil in the world and by the creation of a large counterbalance to the American interests in the region represented principally by Israel and Saudi Arabia. In the almost 30 years since the revolution occurred, I do not believe there has been a concerted effort by the Iranians to spread their version of the Islamic revolution. Their rhetoric has been disturbing but mostly understandable given the US/CIA intervention in their country subverting the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government (Mossadegh) and replacing him by the repressive, despicable autocrat, the Shah, whose family and friends grew wealthy personally with petro-dollars (much like the Saudi dictatorial royal family) while the mass of the population suffered serious privation.
I cannot be certain, but like you, I believe the Iranians want at the very least access to technology that would enable them to assemble nuclear weapons, if not possess the weapons themselves. This IS a potential threat. So are the nuclear weapons possessed by the US, France, Britain, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and, as Olmert has just this week announced publicly, Israel. These are threats to all of us. The people in control of these weapons (witness Bush) are not necessarily the brightest or the wisest or the most morally responsible. The only way to blunt the drive towards nuclear weaponry is to lead the world towards reducing nuclear stockpiles; while Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is disturbing it is NOT a greater threat than the possession of nuclear arms by the Soviets or the Chinese or the North Koreans or the Pakistanis or the Israelis or even by us. I believe you, like me, lived through the period of the cold war where much more powerful adversaries possessed nuclear weapons, and diplomacy, negotiation, treaties, mutual recognition of grievances on both sides got us through periods of great anxiety and danger, despite the calls of the right wing on both sides, that you could not negotiate with THEM, that they only understood force, that diplomacy was tantamount to surrender, etc...
I am not sure what you are referring to when you say Iran has funded terrorism. I think it is related to your Israel-centric view of the world, but please spell it out.
As for your last question let us separate the two countries and the "threat" that Iran poses. Iran is a powerful country, made more powerful by the actions of the US (in Iraq), and by Israel (in its recent ill-advised over-reaction in Lebanon). As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, I detest the reactionary rulers and I do hope they are replace by democratic movement. Do you? Or is the only criterion the price of oil and the support to American domination of the region? I hope oil revenues are much more equitably shared among the Arab masses, instead of going to support the obscene life-style of these self-absorbed reactionary despots. You may fight to defend the Saudi rulers; I will not cry one tear over them if they are overthrown.
Israel is for me a very different matter. I have relatives there, refugees from the Nazis, and I think I understand deeply the historic role and importance of its founding and continued existence. Having said that, I do not see how Iran threatens Israel's existence. I believe having a counterbalancing force (which is surely not the equal of Israel, but is not insignificant) is healthy in that the only real solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must come from negotiation and there is no motivation on the Israeli side if it believes it can dictate terms based on its military predominance. That belief till now, has been reinforced by the crazy right wing encouragement of Israel to engage in very risky and costly military initiatives instead of turning to the much more difficult but in the long run more enduring diplomatic initiatives.
December 14, 2006 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink