- FEBRUARY 10, 2010
-
-
IRAN
Green: The Color of Freedom
-
NATIONAL SECURITY
Where is NSA Jim Jones?
-
OBAMA'S BUDGET
How the Deficit Threatens U.S. Power
On the horizon: Obama must decide on matters of war
Posted By Peter Feaver
Monday, November 23, 2009 - 4:27 PM
Share
By Peter Feaver
After a long autumn of fits and
starts, the world is waiting for President Obama to reach a final decision on a
grave matter of war and peace. The decision will likely have to be
reached and announced in the week after Thanksgiving.
That intro applies, obviously, to Afghan Strategy Review 2.0. But I was actually thinking about the decision on Iran.
Throughout the past year, the Obama team has been pretty consistent in
describing their Iran policy as: 1) an unconditional offer of direct diplomacy
which the Iranian regime must take up by October followed by 2) a
trajectory-reversing bargain that the Iranian regime must accept by December or 3) Obama will shift and push for "crippling" multilateral sanctions.
By their own accounting standards, the Obama team cleared hurdle No. 1 and are
stuck on hurdle No. 2. The messages coming out of Iran have been pretty
consistent that the regime is unwilling (unable?) to accept even the modest
bargain offered by the world community in September (a bargain that does not
resolve the dispute, by the way, but merely, in the most optimistic of
readings, buys another year to find a diplomatic solution).
By their own accounting standards, then, the week after Thanksgiving is the
time for Team Obama to signal that they are implementing the next phase of
their Iran policy: the rapid pursuit of crippling sanctions. They may
have already sent that signal. However, the prospects look dim for this policy since Obama apparently made little or no headway with China on the issue during his
recent summit. The only positive spin one could offer is that China has
not immediately and publicly and irrevocably rebuked the idea of sanctions
while Obama was on Chinese soil.
So in the first week or two of December, our commander-in-chief will announce
his most consequential decision in what he considers to be his central front in
the war on terror (Afghanistan) and he will likely announce his most
consequential decision regarding a conflict that has not yet escalated to armed
combat but might in the coming year (Iran). That is more than enough
deciding for any White House, let alone a White House that is preoccupied with
an utterly unrelated battle royal over health care.
From my distant perch, the White House team looks tired and desperately in need of a Thanksgiving vacation (and not just to me ... other erstwhile supporters are concerned, too). But I don't think they, or the country, can afford for them to take a very long one. Their policy plates are too full to allow much of a break for the more traditional turkey-related plate-filling.
MANPREET ROMANA/AFP/Getty Images
Obama's foreign policy team is showing its strange mixture of inexperience in critical positions (SofS, POTUS), region czars with their own agendas and PR teams (Holbrooke, etc.), bad ambassador picks (Eikenberry, etc.) and the cherry on the cake - a VP brought on to the ticket to shore up this very issue, but who is mostly known for being a well-informed gadfly with lots of zany ideas (3 Iraqs, etc.).
They promised the moon in a difficult world full of nations that make decisions based on national interest, not popularity. Now reality has set in. NATO nations will not up their troop commitments no matter how high the president's polls, at least not as long as the US can't make a solid commitment of its own. Iran is an intransigent nation bent on nuclear weapons and regional domination. Russia is barely a legal entity, growing more dangerous as oil revenues plummet. China is powerful and growing, and knows it, using soft power to build influence in places we do not go. Pakistan is terrifyingly unstable and the ISI, army, and political leadership all have different goals (Oh, and they have nukes). Al-Queda is dangerous and has not gone away. And finally, of course, the North Koreans are crazy.
Yes, Iraq was a mistake and Afghanistan was bungled and under-resourced. But every one of these other problems has existed since 1993 or so...
I want the administration, and this nation, to succeed. But they had better grow up, and fast.
Obviously Russia and Iran are pushed by their self interest, China is a rising power, ect ect. That doesn't mean that cooperation with these powers isn't hugely helpful. Nobody said cooperation would be easy, but it's a hell of a lot better than trying it alone.
Also, as far as an effective decision-making process goes, this is the most mature administration I've seen. Obama has had, what, 10 months to get his diplomacy to work? He can't just make the Chinese and Russians listen to us overnight. He has to offer them tangiable benefits for agreeing with us, and we need to give him time for diplomacy to work. He will probably get a nuclear disarmament deal from Russia for one later this year, and if we're lucky, Copenhagen will go well.
Lastly, you're downplaying very real diplomacy successes during the financial meltdown.
The offer to enrich Iranian uranium and process it into fuel rods appeared to be a win-win solution and a confidence building exercise for better relations between the US and Iran. Iran's apparent refusal to discuss Russian or French reprocessing is to me an indication of how threatened and vulnerable the Tehran regime must feel internally.
Even a partial increase in sanctions by the European Union and the US would have a crippling effect on the Iranian economy and would move Iran in more of a direction like North Korea. Obviously, there are differences between the two countries. But assuming that the Obama administration is more than willing to apply sanctions, this will free up attention for other badly needed US foreign policy initiatives that have been on a back burner as a result.
The US desperately needs to apply more pressure to Israel on its West Bank settlement building. And Iranian intransigence should make it easier to eventually withdraw from Afghanistan. I hope that the Obama administration moves in these areas, as our foreign policy stature with the rest of the world has been less than stellar lately.
Iran is not the problem, Israel is
The US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency? Then Israel better be just as transparent.
Is the Us trying to dictate to India or any other country that has nuclear capabilities how to run their program? No. Iran is sovereign state and is allowed under the NNPT to enrich uranium. Would the US or Israel tolerate another country dictating to them the terms of their program? No? Why should Iran?
Obama knows that the ‘Iranian threat’ is being used by Israel in the same way it has used other ‘threats’ in the past either to justify what it wants to do or what it does not want to do. We fought your war in Iraq and that is enough.
Israel will not even deny or admit to its truly “clandestine” nuclear program. If you want to talk about nuclear ambiguity, look to Israel.
Demonizing and warmongering Iran to protect Israel is wrong. Again, the Iranian ‘issue’ is 100% Israeli.
Unlike Iran, Israel simply has way too much to hide and wants to keep it that way.
When is Israel going to sign the NNPT and allow IAEA inspections ? Which Iran has done.
Silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric towards Iran’s nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is an example of the kind of outright double standard BS that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.
When will Obama hold Israel to the same standards that Israel is demanding of Iran and anyone else who threatens Israel’s hegemonic agenda? Level the nuclear playing field or get rid of it.
It is telling that President Ford, in 1976, encouraged Iran (then under the US-backed shah) to build both uranium enrichment as well as plutonium processing plants. How is it that what was permissible then under the 1970 NPT, has now become forbidden – under the very same treaty?
It’s not Iran that preemptively invades, threatens, taunts, and warmongers their neighbors. That’s Israel
"Iran is sovereign state and is allowed under the NNPT to enrich uranium. Would the US or Israel tolerate another country dictating to them the terms of their program? No?"
Iran is allowed to have a nuclear program -- but under the NNPT that means that it needs to be out in the open, follow certain protocols, and not be used for weaponization. Should Iran be allowed to use the NNPT to (1) gain nuclear technology (as it may under the treaty) to then (2) develop nuclear weapons with it (as it may not) it would destroy the whole value of the treaty altogether. That is the issue, which you either don't know, or conveniently ignore.
"Demonizing and warmongering Iran to protect Israel is wrong"
Right, we shouldn't be demonizing a country that executes homosexuals, forces women to wear veils, denies religious liberty to Sunni Muslims, oppresses Sunni Arabs, discriminates against non-Persians (about 48% of Iran's population), has sham elections, and shoots pro-democracy activists... it is a much better idea to demonize the one middle eastern country where homosexuality isn't considered a crime, has universal healthcare coverage for all its citizens regardless of ethnicity, and gives women equal rights.
"Silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric towards Iran’s nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is an example of the kind of outright double standard BS that the United States has been following in its foreign policy."
Except that Iran signed the treaty and got nuclear technology on condition that it met certain procedures -- or do international treaties not matter? You sound like Dick Cheney finding a novel way around the Geneva Convention's prohibition on torture. Ignore or twist customary international law and treaty obligations to suit whatever it is you think is important.
"It’s not Iran that preemptively invades, threatens, taunts, and warmongers their neighbors. That’s Israel"
I can't recall years and years of Israeli officials declaring their intention to wipe Iran off the map, or Syria for that matter, or Jordan, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia...and Israel was in a pretty desperate struggle in its 1973 War - but for some reason, did not unleash its nuclear arsenal against its neighbors. Pretty restrained for a "nazi apartheid warmongering State". Where are the official rallies where tens of thousands of Israelis are shouting "Death to Iran" or to any country for that matter? Can you show me clips from Israel's publically calling for Muslims to be slaughtered or comparing them to viruses, monkeys, pigs, etc.? (yes, I am sure you could find racism from Israelis -- vile racism is everywhere, especially among the supersiticious, er, religous -- I mena official broadcasts). I sure could show you official media from the Muslim world doing that toward Jews. But I understand, in a world where China occupies Tibet, Russia kills 100,000 Chechens and gays in the Arab world stay in the closet for their whole lives --- it is just so much more fun to knock on the Jews.
This made me laugh heartily.
So, if you are Iran’s president, do you (a) Develop any and all weapons systems in order to protect your country from screaming lunatics, like you, in America who invade countries at the drop of a hat, along with their messianic allies Israel who believe God has specifically granted them the middle East to be kings of
or (b) not have any weapons because you might be attacked for having them?
Seems you’re damned if you do and vice versa. I'd rather be able to mount some defense of my country than suffer american “liberation” or Israeli “defense”
1)Doesn't matter what Iran is doing. If Israel is calling for Iran to be transparent and adhere to certain protocals then Israel needs to do the same. Iran can do whatever they want with their nuclear program. If Israeli hegemony wasn't at stake this would be a non issue.
Your ignoring the fact that Israel obtained their nuclear inventory illegally.
During the Kennedy years,Israel allowed American nuke scientists to make ‘visits’ to Dimona but these proved to be so ineffective they were eventually discontinued.
When the scientists were allowed into the plant they were rushed through and never allowed to see what they needed to see to confirm that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons.
Of course, a full inspection of the Dimona plant would have revealed that this was exactly what Israel was doing.
2)The issue is nukes. If you want to start accusing a country of all their other faults look no further than apartheid Israel. The equal rights you are talking about do not exist in Israel. But of course you knew that didn't you?
3)International treaties? International law? Israel is a prime example of ignoring all of those. Perhaps you did not read my original posting in full. I'm not twisting anything, these are the facts.
President Ford, in 1976, encouraged Iran (then under the US-backed shah) to build both uranium enrichment as well as plutonium processing plants. How is it that what was permissible then under the 1970 NPT, has now become forbidden – under the very same treaty?
4)Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for a democratic one-state solution for the Middle East conflict, which means that that Israel as a “colonial entity” or a “racist state” will be “wiped off the map” and replaced by a state where Jews and Arabs live side by side peacefully and equally.
But Israeli officials and their media pundits, AIPAC et. al., and people like you, keep misquoting the Iranian president, who has recently suggested that he even accepted the two-state solution, if it brings justice to all Palestinians.
It is worth remembering that Iran, under the Shah, was an ally of Israel against their mutual enemy, Iraq. And, prior to the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Iran had a democratically elected leader named Mossadegh.
We destroyed the democratic, secular leadership of Mossadegh with a CIA engineered coup so that we could install a brutal puppet and extract the oil we coveted. You’re surprised the Iranians don’t like us?
Israel’s “security” demands that Iran not further its nuclear ambitions, peaceful or otherwise are bullshit. It is once again in their best interest to let the US do the killing.
Former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, wrote in his 2006 book, “Target Iran,” “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and no where else.” That war will both inflame and unite the Arab world against Israel and the US.
Since 1979, the Islamic republic has gone to war only once, to defend itself against attack by Iraq in 1980, whereas Israel has invaded Lebanon twice (1982 and 2006), has attacked Syria once (when it bombed what it claimed was a nuclear site in September 2007) and Gaza many times, culminating in the three week onslaught beginning in late December 2008. To this list must be added its undercover operations, including assassinations, in the occupied territories, Syria and Lebanon.
Iran is not the problem, Israel is.
In his master-of-the-universe mode, Feaver writes that "Obama has extended to Iran "an unconditional offer of direct diplomacy which the Iranian regime must take up by October"-- not recognizing, as just about every other sentient being would, that the October cutoff is ... well ... a condition. The rest of this sentence simply and clearly degenerates into gibberish.
What Feaver writes is interesting but does not encourage me to want to do business with him, or ask him to explain anything much.
well, i think we should introduce our moslem enemies to our friend "MIRV"..every hostile capital, from Damascus to Teheran, Islamabad, even Riyadh..settle it with 1 brutal stroke. given the oppurtunity, they would kill us in a heartbeat, so nuking them would be a good thing. we take thier oil, round 'em up and ship 'em back where they came from..pakistan should get a double dose coz they are DOGS, playing both sides, nuking the FATA, and the NWFP would eliminate the talibs and aq. wat a wonderful world it would be...caliphate? yup, i got yer caliphate RIGHT HERE HADJI...
as 'old is suddenly Cheap Ed Hardy Belts new,' thus Ed Hardy Tops Sale fashionable. The Ed Hardy Shoes Sale term "fashion" is Ed Hardy Jeans Sale frequently used Ed Hardy Hoodies Sale in a positive Ed Hardy T Shirts Sale sense, as a Ed Hardy Swimwear Sale synonym for glamour, beauty Ed Hardy hats Sale and style[citation needed]. In this Ed Hardy caps Sale sense, fashions are Ed Hardy Kids Sale a sort of communal Ed Hardy Sunglasses Sale art, through Ed Hardy Bags Sale which a culture examines Ed Hardy SPECIALS Sale
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
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(10)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE