In what he calls “diplomatic progress,” QandO’s Jon Henke is on board with the “package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran” that “includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium—a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.”
Writes Henke:
If properly negotiated, this could be a significant diplomatic achievement. We would have given up nothing we were not already legally obligated to give, while Iran would have agreed to inspections to pursue the nuclear program they were already legally allowed to have and encumbered themselves with additional disincentives to create tension in the Middle East.
Jon provides a list of considerations that he notes must be met for this solution to work, while noting that our other options to stop a potential Iranian nuclear weapons threat (assuming Iran hasn’t alread developed the necessary technology)— potential military action or additional economic sanctions—are unlikely to work.
I’m on record as saying I’m not sure what our best options are with respect to restraining Iraq—though I believe it crucial to the balance of power in the middle east (and even, to a lesser extent, Western Europe )—that Iran not be permitted to get nuclear weapons.
All of which is a roundabout way of asking you for your thoughts on Henke’s argument. Can this diplomatic package work in the long term? What are the drawbacks? My biggest concern, from a practical perspective, is that I don’t have a lot of faith in the fidelity of some of the international monitoring agencies And I fear that some future US administrations might not be as aggressive as others in their insistence that the mandates Jon outlines be followed to the letter.
But I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. You can read the rest of Jon’s essay here.
I’m with you Jeff. Israel wants action now and we just have to keep hammering away on how international monitoring agencies are failures. I mean look at Israel, they built their bombs right under the nose of inspecting busybodies. We can’t let anymore of those crazy Middle Easterners get their hands on such toys. Look what despots it’s turned little Israel into.
I say we do what we’re doing to the Palestinians, put those good for nothing Iranians on a crash diet while we put the nukeseal to the entrances of the Iranian research bunkers.
Crash diets destroyed Iraq long before this latest invasion rolled in and it will contain Iran quite nicely too. We don’t need their oil. We just have to keep it out of the hands of the Chinese.
Israel wants Iran whacked and I think we should give it to them. They’ve been patient and taught us a practical thing or two about getting those Iraqi Arabs to kneel and beg.
I like the sly way you play your hand JG, but I’m too impatient to fake restraint and temperance.
How about we offer the incentive of a nuclear Kurdistan? I haven’t paid too much attention to who hates whom, but I figure there’s bound to be a mortal enemy of Iran around that area that’d provide a counter-balance.
TW: And if anyone is still living in the MidEast in five years, that’d be a bonus!
The only lengthy perspective I read on the matter was this: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007141.php#comments
There is so much that is not known to me that it would be foolish for me to mouth off on what the correct path to resolving this conflict would be. So I’ll just say that I believe the above link accurately summarizes the intentions of the administration and I hope they’re not wrong. It seems that the diplomacy is a back and forth effort to present the opponent with a situation that would make clear their intentions either way. Or, in other words, to give them a problem with no good answer. It seems that we have presented Iran with something like that, which would indeed be a minor victory.
I support every effort to diffuse the situation diplomatically….however, if diplomacy fails, Kev’s head will explode about the time the first Israeli bomb hits the first Irani nuke site.
I repeat (for the hearing and reading impaired): Israel will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Their very survival depends on that not happening.
Their view is: A ground war with conventional weapons – advantage Israel. A nuclear war – advantage Iran. I think they opt for the latter.
Iran has been clearly presented with a case which makes diplomacy favorable and the rejection thereof unfavorable. Rejecting the generous terms with which the US is proposing to approach the negotiating table would only demonstrate Iranian pigheadedness in front of an international audience, and make as much of a foundational case for war as we can hope to get out of them.
I think our people knew, on some level, that Iran does not really WANT to negotiate their way out of nuclear armament; the only way we can prove that conclusively to the rest of the world is to offer Iran the technology to facilitate a peaceful use of nuclear power, and allow them to watch as Iran rejects it and throws another one of its kill-the-infidel tantrums.
I have no doubt we are going to war with Iran; the point is that we do not want to go alone, and we have to make out case before a gang of useless paper-shufflers. The UN treats us like lepers enough as it is; God alone knows how obnoxious they could be once we declare war – unless we say “Well, do you remember THIS resolution?”
Errrr!!! That should be “I think they opt for the former.
Oh sure, let just GIVE the Iranian’s nuclear technology and all sorts of other aid while we stick our thumb up our ass and hope that the UN or ElBaradei or the IAEA manage to verify that we’ve actually accomplished keeping nukes out of the hands of the mullah’s that have clearly stated intention of nuking Tel-Aviv. After all, that strategy worked SO WELL when Billy-Jeff and Madeline Halfbright used it on the North Koreans.
Maybe we can get Madeline to reprise her little waltz with “Dear Leader” Kim Jung-Il (twin brother to Kim Jung Mentally-Il) as part of the deal. I’m sure Ahmadinejhad is breathlessly awaiting his chance to take a turn on the dance floor with an over-weight, appeasement-minded jewess.
That should be easy.
I swear I heard this exact same thing during the debates in 04 said by the guy who didn’t get to be president. Lots of people laughed at him. Others used it as proof he’s not the one to trust with our national security.
I think it was the “Global Test” that was that guy’s problem with National Security. Of course, National Security was just one of the issues that that guy had a problem with.
“to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium”
Then they resume enriching uranium, and we’re at square one, minus one.
We can make bad things happen in Iran from the air. On an ongoing basis. For decades, if necessary.
Nothing is ever as complicated as it can be made to seem.
Or, as I tell my eldest daughter: even if he has a gun, never get into the car.
Global test was a different topic. I’m talking about the reaction from the right when he said that we should sell them energy grade uranium so they won’t have to enrich uranium on their own which conveniently hides their pursuit of weapons grade uranium.
We’re not at square one, we’ve gained position on them. We’ve called their bluff in front of the whole world. They can no longer hide behind the ‘peaceful uses’ excuse if they reject our offer to give them peaceful use uranium. Its called diplomacy.
On the one hand, diplomacy is always nicer than explosives and projectiles. On the other, the last time we played this game it ended in a whackjob head of state with the bomb.
The question is really whether the Iranians will drop their pursuit of the bomb. Agreements mean nothing to them. Disincentives might help, but it’s still a crapshoot.
It’s entirely up to them whether they’re going to continue violating the NPT. Hooray for Iran if they cease. Someone is going to stop them if they don’t.
So, Lucy, you feel like holding the old pigskin for me so I can practice place kicking?
A welcome flip flop. Though it sucks to lose elections, it does make it better when the position you wanted to win gets adopted.
Or wishful thinking.
Negotiating at this point is a good way to make them reveal their pretences. If we go halfway and they still won’t cooperate–and they won’t–it will help dispense with some of the resistance we’re likely to encounter from those in the international community who believe in talking the issue to death. Ultimately, it may save a little time.
It may also help clarify some issues internally among the Iranians who hate the mullahs and are vacillating before committing themselves to action. When negotiation reveals the intractable nature of the government’s position, perhaps enough pressure will build within the country to break its stranglehold. Basically, it must be forced to crack from within.
Nah, I think he lost me with that trip to Paris to chill with the Viet Cong honchos. Consorting with the enemy does it for me every time.
Oh, and that pic of him duck hunting.
1) Iran will get nuclear weapons whether we want them to or not. There are too many loose nukes for them to not acquire one.
2) Iran in the grip of a totalitarian regime is not the Iran we want to have nukes.
3) Cheap energy is key to moving people from the Dark Ages to Thoroughly Modern Millies.
4) Give them cheap energy, get the population placated with cheap energy, they will be less likely to support nutbags.
That’s my 10,000 foot view.
He lost me everytime he opened his mouth.
So far Iran is right on schedule:
1) Bluster and sabre rattle in anticipation of any negotiation, making as frightening and outreageous proclimations as possible, including denying your opponent even the right to exist, and promising to destroy him if he doen’t capitulate to your demands, discarding any demands he may make as rogue and without any basis.
2) Fake acceptance of a possible bi-lateral aggreement, while continuing preparations, or proceeding with whatever actions brought on the conflict in the first place.
3) Stall for as much time as possible, while you gather your strength and consolidate your forces.
4) Meet in negotiations, sign aggreements, then wait a few weeks and attack.
– This is the standard for all Islamic “negotiations” with the Western infidels. the last time it was called the 6 day war.
The Paris Peace Talks? Its wrong for the leader of the anti-war movement to go to the peace talks? Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy, Kerry was trying to end the fucking war. You can disagree with his methods but acting like he was being treasonous is dishonest.
I don’t think the Iranians will accept the deal. If they do, they won’t live up to it. So, I don’t like the proposed deal. Not with the current government in Iran.
I think they have invested too much in the idea that they can become the center for Islam, and too much on the promise that they will destroy the Jews to obtain that title.
I think it will be war. But then I’m all about the spreading of joyful thoughts.
Of course I hope that I am wrong.
Under the laws of the country in which he was a uniformed officer of at the time? You bet your ass it is.
I think we’re just going to have to live with a nuclear Iran. They haven’t done enough to justify invasion, and their democratic protestors aren’t strong enough to overthrow the mullahs.
On the plus side, the Europeans may suddenly decide “Hey, maybe missile defense is a good idea after all.”
Oh, and Iran is going to pull a N Korea. They’ll take the carrots, build the nukes, and laugh at the stick.
One thing to consider is the strategic effect of giving away technology to countries that annoy us enough. If we make bluster lucrative, we have only ourselves to blame when we get a lot of bluster.
Didn’t nixon offer stuff to the RVN in the run-up to the election?
It doesn’t matter whether we or you think what he did was good, or evil, or wrong or righteous. He met with the enemy, in an act of insubordination against his supperior officers, and the codes of military law, of the UCMJ, and in direct defiance of the allegiance he made to his country.
Its that simple. You can wave your arms, and natter about higher purpose, endlessly, but as citizens of our country, we don’t get to pick and choose which laws we will obey, and which we will ignore or defy.
He paid the price with a dishonorable discharge, which also was instrumental in costing him the Presidential election.
Deny all you want, those are the facts. Down that path lays madness. Any electorate that would elect a man who thinks that’s proper and right, or a party, whos members would argue for treason, would also be mad.
I think the offer to the Iranians has one great virtue, which is that they will never accept it.
It is, in my view, a purely diplomatic (hypothetical) concession on our part to which they will never agree. It has the added benefit of making us look good in the eyes of Europe, which does not see that the Iranians will reject the deal, and therefore increases our stock with them. It will make it harder for them to oppose us when we eventually move to sanctions, which are, in my view inevitable.
I see it as a diplomatic maneuver and nothing more. It’s a skillful one.
As long as the Iranian regime is in power (and from what I can tell, nothing’s addressing change in this area), my expectations are that they will game the U.S. and the international community, playing all sides to their middle. It’s a game they’re very adept at playing.
But, I must give Rice credit for getting things this far, getting consensus where I thought it was impossible, and at least getting a positive nod from the regime. As well, it will only increase the positive impression that native Iranians have of the U.S., a fact that is not widely known or reported. If Ahmadinejad flys off the handle, and suddenly starts claining that we did not offer enough, he will only further damage his already poor reputation with a majority of his people.
Who knows how it’ll all play out, of course. but I think it’s a net positive for the West.
– Yes…The Socialists are in a minor panic, since the latest polls coming out of the Eurobloc indicate the tide of public opinion has shifted from 60% for, to 64% against Irans position in this issue.
– As a PR opportunity, as far as it goes, it can be useful, as long as we never forget that Islam’s absolute rigid position, no matter what they say, is to never give in in any way.
– Aside from their own lunacy, and religious fevor, the Imams are barely holding on as it is. they would see it as unthinkable to give room in the smallest way. They honestly believe if they can’t achieve nuclear weapons they will be toppled. We won’t change their minds.
– As far as Isreal is concerned, as another poster put it, they will not permit Iran to achieve nuclear capibility. Which means eventually if Iran follows the classic line that every other ME totalitarian regime has in the past, it will come to armed conflict eventually, and we’ll have no choice but to settle it. Isreal will not wait while we fiddle.
Diplomacy only works when your fully willing to use the other option. When Iran tells them to piss off. No one in Europe will be willing to start the bombing.
You said it, not me.
– When looking at this from Irans position you have to consider what they see as the general conditions, and direction of flow of ME politics.
Pakistan under a basically stable, benevolent Dictatorship, as is Egypt and Jordon.
Lybia the same now, even more stable
Afghanistan, an envagled, if minimally stable, faux democracy.
Lebonon sueing for independence, again under a mixed bag of moderates/extremists.
The Palestinians, under Hamas, seeming to try for statehood, and at least for the moment toning down the conflicts with Isreal.
The UAE dogedly Westernized, as is Saudi Arabia, as long as the Royal family holds forth.
Iraq ploding toward something similar to afghanistan, although there will never be peace there completely.
Iran and Syria see themselves as being isolated, and the last fully engaged members of the dreamed of Celiphate.
They are surrounded in their minds, and the net is closing. Iran is constantly engaged in subduing internal conflicts, and a growing restlessness within the society.
The Euroblock in the long run, has little say in this process, and as a result of complacency, now only serves as a possible secondary target in Irans ambitions. You have a fundementalist extremely paranoid, and worried, hard core of Imams that see the clock ticking, and think nuclear arms is their only salvation.
That can’t bode well for things in the future.
Yes, it does look an awful lot like the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea.
The strategy of “See, they took the free peaceful nuke plant and went back to enriching uranium!” worked so well that time….
Still, this administration has proven that not taking the military option off the table means just that. Maybe this time.
For KevK: We *want* China to have Iraqi, and possibly Iranian, oil. We want Russia, India and Japan to have some too. An assured source of energy for these growing giants is one of the only things that will ensure peace into the future. If you want China to become a “peer competitor” and a danger to its neighbors, the short path would begin with isolating them from world petroleum sources.
Save your breath RTO – he ain’t here for argument or persuasion. Snark and run.
Are you back with TF Phoenix yet? Or whatever they are calling you now…
Is Rambo still at the front gate?
Setting aside the discussion of whether we will be able to ensure verification for any such compromise (although I am unconvinced that we will be able to do such), I worry about what such an agreement says in the greater scheme of US-Iranian relations. By accepting this deal, aren’t we suggesting that the previous sins of the Iranian government are merely venial in comparison? By demonstrating our willingness to compromise here, will not the “international community” expect similar compromises (or rather abstainment from reaction) if Iran were to begin to more forcefully support Hamas and Hezbolla? Engage in even more rash violations of human rights against their own citizens?
While the diplomacy seen here may be politically prudent, it is hard to see the idealism in this proposal.
– Well you pays your money and takes your choice. If we’re going to be the worlds keepers, and it doesn’t seem likely anyone else is going to step up to the bar, we either continue taking down asocial regimes, and footing the bills in terms of human loss on both sides, and repatriating/rebuilding their countries, or we try the best we can to drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
– Doesn’t seem to be any third option, once they embark on a dangerous and destructive path. at least the second choice, which seems like charity too some, and appeasement too others, has the benefit that just maybe you’ll gain a fruitful productive society from it, less resources will be needed, and fewer people will most likely die.
– Multicultural constructs will be forever problomatical. Its just the nature of the beast.
Not sure if I read it here, but what about the recently much-discussed theory that Iran’s loony poster prez was actually inviting Bush to convert this country to Islam to or risk righteous Islamic wrath.
I’m always impressed with measured, reasoned responses to nut-cases. And I’d love to believe this is a brilliantly conceived diplomatic strategy. On the other hand, it may be time for a Team America sequel to let both the State Department and Iran know what we expect from them.
Pablo,
I’ll see your duck-hunting pics–and raise you a clip of the ol’ faux-medal tosser togged out in his duds sayin’ for the camera: “Is this where I can get me a huntin’ license?”
Wonder how that would’ve gone over in Paris.
tw: need
to erase that memory
He’s at his best when he’s line jumping at the Wakfield WalMarts….Did I mention he severed in Nam….
I’d say more like magnet and plastic.
If you look up gross naievete in the dictionary you see a picture of a liberal assuring us that the Persian nuke program is for peaceful purposes only. I know that if I had so much natural gas that it was to much of a nuisance to sell it, so I just burned it off, my first move would be to invest billions in a nuclear powered generating station.
”…Kerry was trying to end the fucking war…”
He was pretty adroit at ending his part in it, so you may have a point.
Or not.
I don’t know if anyone is still up, but apparently Zarqawi(sp) has been killed by U.S Special Forces.
Burn in hell, cockroach.
(Piss be upon him).
yeah, was trying to drift off to sleep…. w007!
tw: my husband swears he’ll find OBL…. soon.
Zarkmeister has been exterminated. Hooray!
Burn in hell evermore, you pig-fucking bastard!
Yeeeeeeeehad!
Conspiracy theory from Moonbats (U.S. atrocities taken off the front page by Rovian plot, Whaaaghhh!) in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
TW: The Z-man is taking it up the ass by a fiery pig-demon as we speak.
The moonbats will be saying he is hanging out at Crawford, Texas. He is chilling with Osama and the rest of the Big Oil Mafia.
To hear Nick Berg’s father tell it, Zarqawi only beheaded a couple of dudes, while George Bush is responsible for 100k’s of deaths in Iraq.
odd.
I think my invitation to the Berg/Sheehan wedding got lost in the mail.
I don’t understand. How are they going to book him, take a mug shot, set a trial date, and appoint a public defender if he’s been exterminated?
And the last two gov’t positions in Iraq were filled….
What a nice morning.
I suspect we will hear in the next day or two regarding Zarqawi that, although his death is something of an acomplishment, it is but one grain of sand on the beach of insurgency and civil war and cells operate without a central leader and so on and so on. While partially true, it is unclear whether the fact that GWoT supporters made the same arguement regarding Bin Laden and our not having captured/killed him will cause even the briefest twinges of hypocritical pain.
Kerry ran for Congress as an anti-war candidate and lost. He then decided to conduct surrender talks with the enemy in Paris. Sounds like a Benedict Arnold politician to me. Why won’t he release his military records?
It is already happening. I surfed through the sewer at Kos (bleeech!) and affirmed that you are indeed a great prognosticator.
AL ZARQAWI AND TOP AIDES DEAD IN BASRAH AIR STRIKE!!!!
Uh … Nixon was President of the US. The President is Constitutionally mandated to conduct negotiations with foreign powers.
Kerry was a very junior officer in the USNR. He had no authority from anyone up his chain of command to conduct negotiations. Read the definition of treason in the Constitution.
Just as an aside … Is your head up your ass for the warmth, or do you just like the taste you find there?
TW: figure … actus is acting like a disingenuous moron … go figure.
Thank G-d. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall in the room where he has to explain to his maker why he had been such a murderous prick?
I heard several terrorism experts this morning claim that Z’s death is a much bigger deal than the media is allowing it to seem. Basically, Zarqawi, while scum, was an operational genius with contacts all over and the ability to lead men. There is no number 2 and certainly no substitute for Zar’s evil skills and leadership ability. The same experts further opined that while his death would not end the terrorism in Iraq, it is likely the operations will be signficantly less organized and/or effective.
Personally, I hope his virgins come with rows of razor sharp teeth.
To be somewhat fair to Actus, I think he may be refering to the accusations (I won’t make any claims on their veracity, other than to note a cursory sketch of the evidence is offered in The Trial of Henry Kissenger by Christopher Hitchens) that Nixon via Kissenger undermined the ‘68 peace discussions in Paris.
This is correct. The latest (and likely last) package of concessions from Bush is his response to Iran’s call to Islam. Both sides are playing their “see, I did everything I could” cards, which really fucking sucks.
From the Ranting Sandmonkey – priceless.
So much for Henke’s requirements on what has to happen to keep this round of appeasement from being . . . appeasement.
In fact, he said he’s not going to do anything to stop enrichment, ever, no backsies.
Waste of time.
I’m guessing there was plenty of number 2 in Zarq’s trousers when they pulled him out of the rubble.
jg:
Extract your head from your ass, please. Forget what your professors told you.
I was at university when Kerry was doing his anti-war thing. I was old enough to vote.
It was treason. Believe me.
– The Democratic leadership is generally stuttering through the morning, trying to fence sit, timidly calling it a “good move forard”, and of course wanting to bloviate “now is the time to call for troop reductions”. In other words the prime directive among the moonbats is “can we leave yet”…
– Fucking pussies. Hope our dear “friends” of the loyal anti-American Jihadist loving “patriots” all grow damn ulcers….
– Ding Dong their witch hero is dead….
That’s what they get for hiring the consulting firm of Under & Dowd.
– The irony is that Kerry’s idiotic “opportunism’s”, trying to inject himself into some position of importance had not a damn thing to do with our finally terminating the war. Nor did the rapacious nonsense of all the “hippy” gaggle, and its uncivil actions, in the late 60’s and early 70’s. They had a great time raising hell and avoiding military “doodie”, getting laid, and scoring tokes, but it ment nothing. Its a testimony to their own delusional mindset that they still think they did.
– The State Dept. and DoD just kept on effecting the containment policies iniatiated by Eisenhower and Kennedy, and when the time came that the nuclear sub fleet could finally be deployed in ‘73, MAD assured basically unassailable, then we could get out of Nam.
– That would have happened, regardless of the mess in the States and press, and anything Kerry thought he did.
– So it was all for nothing Mr. Katchup Sluts boy toy.
I think that we could have bagged Z for weeks, but BushCo waited so they could draw media attention off the YearlyKos.
Boy, Rove proves over and over again that…
So we should expect a Zawahiri final goodbye around Labor Day? Eclipse Eschacon 2, or does the sun burn too brightly for the dark lord there?
way behind the ball on this but given the state of our own civilian nuclear energy infrastructure, I think this is a great deal. They bought the rolex, man.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Considering all the ‘nuke Israel’ rhetoric Ahmadinejad has been spouting I’d be very surprised if he takes this deal. He’d lose too much face with his supporters and he doesn’t appear to have any supporters to spare.
If he takes the deal he’s politically weakened, if he refuses it he makes his intentions absolutely clear, at least to anyone who’s not willfully blind. It looks like we’ve got him backed into a corner. And just when we’ve got some nice airplanes loaded with 500# bombs available. Sweet.