Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 2:23 PM

By Peter Feaver
Secretary Clinton's recent visit to Moscow provides another opportunity to do a midcourse assessment of Iran policy. The assessment is bleak. Very bleak. The "mission accomplished" banners that Obamaphiles were unfurling when the Russians hinted at a greater openness to sanctions look a bit more faded and ironic today in light of reports that the Russians are back to their old script of opposing sanctions as an impediment to negotiations.
I argued earlier
that the key intermediate objective of the negotiations with Iran was getting
Russia (and China and the European in-laws) on side to impose tougher economic
pressure on Iran. Without such leverage, negotiations were very unlikely to
succeed.
Of course, the overall objective of those negotiations is to get the Iranian
regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The Obama team, like the Bush
team before it, believes that the only way the Islamic Republic will do so
peacefully is if the United States can exert serious economic leverage over the
regime so a compromise deal looks attractive -- hence the urgency of the
intermediate objective of establishing such leverage.
From the beginning, the diplomatic track has been stymied by two stubborn facts. Fact 1: The U.S. cannot unilaterally generate the sanctions leverage it needs to give diplomacy a chance. Fact 2: The Russians, the Chinese, and sometimes the European in-laws all believe that diplomacy is an alternative to sanctions (and vice-versa) rather than understanding that sanctions are a necessary component of the diplomatic track. In other words, sanctions are what you resort to when diplomacy has failed rather than something you resort to in order to help diplomacy succeed.
The "shocking" news that the Iranian regime had been misleading the international community with a hidden second enrichment program provided a one-time opportunity to bring the international community on side, impose sanctions, and then pursue negotiations. Instead, the Obama team contented itself with the rhetorical support for sanctions the Russians offered -- the vague suggestion that if the Iranians kept up their bad behavior stiffer penalties might follow -- basked in the glow of praise for its deft diplomacy, and launched negotiations.
With Secretary Clinton in Moscow, the Russians sprung the trap. We can't do sanctions, the Russians explained, because that would undermine negotiations. As long as the negotiations are ongoing, the Russians will block sanctions. All the Iranian regime has to do to keep sanctions at bay is to string the negotiations along. As was foreseeable, Team Obama is trapped negotiating with the Iranian regime without significant leverage and without much prospect of additional leverage. This does not guarantee failure, but it does guarantee that the Iranian regime has the strongest possible hand and that the U.S. hole card, the evidence of Iranian duplicity revealed at the U.N. General Assembly in late September, has been played to minimal effect.
ALEXANDER NEMENOV/AFP/Getty Images
Dr. Feaver-
In saying that the US misplayed its hole card you suggest that there was a better play. Presumably you mean to restate your position that the US should have pushed for sanctions to take effect before starting negotiations.
The notion that this approach would somehow have yielded a better outcome strikes me as simply absurd. There is no evidence that Russia was ever open to advance sanctions.
I will also repeat my call for you to stop muddying the waters around the real issues. The goal of the talks is not "get the Iranian regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program" since we cannot say for sure that such a program exists (I think the very strong suspicions that the IAEA and others have are fully justified). The goal is to reach agreement on a set of safeguards relating to Iran's nuclear activities and to get assurance of Iran's willingness to comply with those safeguards.
Using your terminology it is impossible to tell whether you would accept low-level enrichment, power reactors, medical reactors or none of the above. If the latter, this has no legal basis and is doomed to failure. If otherwise, please specify.
wolfboy; Sorry bud; but you are wrong. This article has it very right. Bush and a few European countries tried to talk to Iran for at least 6 years. Sanctions of any teeth in the UN was non-existent totally. It didn't work. Obama is now also trying to talk to Iran with zero sanctions with teeth. It won't work. Period. One would think the USA learned from past fiascos with Clinton and N. Korea and with Iran, that these rogue dictatorships will NEVER tell the truth. Oh sure; they will certainly sit down and talk to you as anything they sign means zero. It's never meant anything, so talking to them is their way of winning the debate no matter what you and they talk about. They kick the can down the road and buy any amount of time they need to keep on keeping on with the nuke stuff. They will not stop unless or until the USA finally gets a spine to make them stop.
The only way I see Iran stopping is to establish a blockade after something like Gas is sanctioned. If only half of Iran's gas needs gets through to them, that's a big success. The Iranian people would never agree to being cut off from energy needs. All gas could be blocked from coming in via ships. Along with that, you block anything outgoing from Iran as well. Russia could still send gas to them over land, but not nearly enough for the people of Iran. Not close.
Obama will NEVER get a spine. December will come and go and we will still be talking. Iran has the upper hand and they know it. There is a reason why most of the world applauded when the morons in the USA voted for Obama. They knew over there what type of administration we would have, even before Americans had a clue. People were too damn starry eyed to see things clearly. Some of us saw all of this coming however. It turns out that those "right wing lunatics" like Hannity and Limbaugh had it exactly right in the year leading up to the election. Not so nutty after all.
My hope is that our country is not too far gone by the time we can get a real President in 2012 to stop all of this and bring the USA back up to the status it was when Bush was President.
I'd rather be feared as President than both liked or loved. At least when feared, you are also respected. When you are liked, you may not be respected, but you are never feared.
Your rationalization in characterizing Iran as a rogue nation is void of any rational anyone can use here.
It is quite evident you have been influenced by too much rhetoric in Media and your comment here is absent of any meaningful challenge to article but full of confabulations.
May I recommend the NI where these infantile mentalities are more pleasing and receptive by its exclusive readers!
Faramarz Fathi
Wait what status was the USA at when Bush was in power?It was a joke, as was Bush, nobody feared or respected him, he was and always will be a mockery.
Why should we fight Israel's battles?
I don't like sending 13.6 million dollars to Israel every DAY.
Israel has nukes that it can protect itself from the Iranian Low Enriched Uranium of 3.5%.
The problem in the middle east is not Iran but Israel.
Get rid of their nukes FIRST!
The author is repeating ad nauseam to "get the Iranian regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program". I think it is deceitful to keep repeating this lie when the agency (IAEA) that has the tools to verify whether or not the Iranians are telling the truth said the contrary. Iran does not violate any law by enriching uranium. Iran cannot trust the great powers' promise to supply the much-needed uranium for its power plant. They reneged on their promise before and did not complete contract that were already paid in full. The Busherh NPP should have been completed decades ago had the German delivered on their promise.
At this point in time, it is absurd to keep that bellicose line of putting "crippling sanction" on Iran while a diplomatic approach is being considered. Is a war with Iran in the interest of the United States? As the Latin saying goes. Cui Bono? Aren't we already bleeding to death in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don't we remember how many Iraqi children died as a result of sanction?
If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, please at least be specific.
Let me tell you where you are wrong:
1. Bush never tried to talk to Iran. He could have talked to Iran at any time, but insisted on preconditions that he knew Iran was unlikely to accept.
2. A unilateral US naval blockade would be an act of war that unite the now deeply divided Iranians and would face opposition from nearly every country in the world. This would instantly give Iran the upper hand.
Sanctions may work if we use them on Russian Oil Companies too. Then Sanction them and Iranian Oil and Energy Markets too. This would be Approachable by the Impending War which may occur if there are no other means of settling this Matter before Hand! Then if they persist we could Sanction all Military and Nuclear operations of Both Iranian and Russian Markets also for their Participation in the Protections of The Extremist Operations of the Iranian Regime as well as The Russian Elements of Fabricating Help case scenarios of Military support for Iran too!Which were actual to my understanding.When the Iranians will verify their Operations to The Full Effect that they have Given the I.A.E.A. Inspectors Full access to Every Site that we suspect and all records to Date which I don't see they will ever do! Then maybe there will be a Good argument not to sanction the Iranians or The Russians as well as Fight the Impending War which Will Come Shortly!
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE