Iran’s building next-generation centrifuges and has just formalized the construction of 10 new nuclear sites. Those 10 new facilities were supposed to lock in their “isolation” according to the White House. Instead Obama will push back the so-called drop dead date for a third or fourth time. I don’t think anyone’s under any illusions any more. This is what it is:
Obama has long proclaimed a Dec. 31 deadline for cooperation or retaliation of some unspecified kind. But Iran and, before it, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, has confidently counted on years of international dithering on enforcing printed sanctions. So naturally on ABC’s “This Week” this week, George Stephanopoulos asked Obama adviser and ex-newspaper reporter David Axelrod about the approaching Obama deadline. Axelrod started to say something about talking but checked himself and spoke instead of “consequences.” But, as often occurs in diplomatic-speak — and politics-speak too, come to think of it — it’s what you don’t say that’s often more important than what you do utter. Axelrod declined to reiterate the Dec. 31 date.
Now you might think that Iran officially settled on confrontation months ago when Mottaki confirmed the “no” that had been coming from every Iranian lawmaker. Certainly his his followup – “we’ll only accept the kind of swap where we don’t have to really swap anything” – was seen as a diplomatic non-starter.
But what you don’t understand is that Iran has actually been very secretly demonstrating a clear willingness to negotiate. Here’s how it probably went down. First Iran decided to export their radical ideology and expand their sphere of influence by broadly and continuously supporting a Shiite insurgency in Yemen. Then we gave them a super-secret signal that we would look the other way by having a State Department Undersecretary announce at a conference that we don’t think they’re involved. Then Iran didn’t do something that our experts retroactively decided they had been planning to do, which was a covert signal back from the mullahs that they were interested in negotiations.
Or maybe it happened differently. Maybe the signal was our continued inaction in response to Iran’s bloody interference in Iraq. We didn’t do anything. Then they invaded Iraqi territory. Then we still didn’t do anything. Now they’re staying on Iraqi territory. And that’s a sign that they’re open to low-level confidence building measures. Because why else would they grab territory except as a setup for making concessions during negotiations?
And if that sounds moronic on any number of levels – how did the Iranians know those were signals, if they did know why aren’t they reciprocating, if we’re really giving them northern Yemen isn’t it the literal historical definition of appeasement – it’s only because you’re not sophisticated enough to understand. The group of people advising Obama about Iranian intentions – they’re sophisticated enough. Why can’t you be more like them?
Listen. There’s going to be a war in the Middle East. Barring a Green Revolution, sooner or later of course there’s going to be a war in the Middle East. And the Iran Lobbyists who surround Obama – the ones who are manufacturing excuses about Iranian political disorganization so they can compensate for decades and decades of flawed policy analysis – they’ll have bought Iran the time to build its arsenal, until today it can very likely plunge the region into nuclear war.
They’ve slid effortlessly between “we should engage because Iran will reciprocate” to “we should engage because Iran won’t reciprocate and that’ll get Russia and China on board for sanctions.” They’ve spent a decade making up one pretext after another about why Iran won’t or can’t build nukes – political will, contaminated uranium, primitive centrifuges – which coalesced into the quasi-putsch that was the 2007 NIE. Each and every one of their predictions and prognoses and prescriptions has turned out disastrously wrong.
And the morning after Iran tests, they’ll be telling us that we never could have done anything anyway.
References:
* Iran producing new generations of centrifuges: official [Xinhua]
* Iran names project manager for 10 new nuclear sites [Press TV]
* Iran’s nuclear plans a sign of isloation -W.House
* Obama aide Axelrod fudges Dec. 31 deadline for Iran on nuclear weapons [LAT]
* Minister Says Iran Won’t Ship Uranium Abroad [NYT]
* Iran agrees to nuclear fuel swap, with caveats [AP]
* Clenched Against Yemen, Funding And Inciting Civil War [IIFSC]
* Clenched Against Yemen [IIFSC]
* U.S. says has no evidence Iran backs Yemen rebels [Reuters]
* ‘Subversive’ Iran accused of undermining Iraq and causing deaths [Guardian]
* Clenched Against Iraq, Still On Iraqi Territory [IIFSC]
* The “Iran Lobby” Moves Into The White House [MR]
* Obama: We’re Giving Iran More Time Because Of Their “Unsettled Political Situation” [MR]
* Smug Liberal Sophistication Untroubled By Undeniable Evidence That Hardliners Are Winning In Iran [MR]
* Liberal Foreign Policy Experts: This Ahmadinejad Reelection Was Just So Unpredictable! [MR]
* Obama DOD: Iran’s New More Accurate Solid Fuel Missile Is No Big Deal (Plus: Developing An H-Bomb?) [MR]
Related Mere Rhetoric Categories:
* Iran
* Foreign Policy Experts
* Engagement
