Are
supposed negotiations with Iran the “October Surprise” intended to win
the election for President Barack Obama, an Iranian trick for buying
time, or both? The answer is both. It’s an incredibly transparent ploy
though with the cooperation of the mass media such a gimmick might well
have some effect.
Here’s
the scenario we are supposed to believe: Obama’s sanctions (the tough
Obama) have severely damaged Iran and so Tehran is looking for a way
out. At the same time, though, Obama’s flexibility in dealing with
possible enemies wins them over (the empathetic Obama). Thus, Obama’s
greatness as a statesman might solve this problem of Iran’s nuclear
drive short of war.
Let’s
note some of the evidence that this ploy meets the needs of both sides
in the conflict. For Obama, it is a potential electoral gain at the last
minute in a hard fought election in which his foreign policy has come
under severe questioning. For the Iranian regime the development buys
even more time as it continues to go full-steam ahead with its nuclear
drive.
If the Iranians are really sophisticated about American politics they understand the advantages for themselves:
--There will be pressure against new sanctions for the next
six months or more since it could be said in the United States that these would damage a promising initiative.
--It
might help reelect Obama who is significantly softer on Iran. If the
Iranians believe that a President Mitt Romney might launch a U.S. attack
or support an Israel one—I don’t believe this but probably they do—that
makes helping Obama win a top priority.
--Since
the talks wouldn’t be until next year, Iran has to give up nothing to
make the initiative. Note, too, that during the last five years Iran
has repeatedly proposed different diplomatic formulae both in terms of
meetings and potential compromises only to retract them or make clear
that
Tehran’s terms are going to be unacceptable.
According to the Times the
agreement is “a result of intense, secret exchanges between American
and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President
Obama’s term.” In other words, nothing has happened for four years and
suddenly we have a deal. Sound suspicious?
pot.com
------------------------
Barry Rub
All
this involves then is an Iranian offer to start talks, talks which
could break down in a few hours or go on for years without result. Of
course, the first Iranian demand will be for easing the sanctions.
Note,
too, that the Obama Administration officially denied the report—hey,
we’re not playing politics with foreign policy!—and then leaked that it
was true to its friends in the media.
The new
situation can also be used to paint Republican candidate Mitt Romney as a potential war-monger. In the words of the New York Times:
“It
is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go
through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has
repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and
failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear
threat….
“Moreover,
the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an
awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to
any level — a concession that experts say will probably figure in any
deal on the nuclear program.”
One
key issue is the difference between the U.S. and Israeli positions. The
Obama Administration says that Iran can have all the fixings of a bomb
as long as it doesn’t build one or that Tehran must be stopped short of
having everything in place. The problem with the first option, of
course, is that Iran could secretly or quickly assemble bombs (including
those that might be delivered by terrorists); the second
option is tougher to enforce, less likely to be negotiated, and more
likely to bring military action.
As the Times rightly
points out, for Romney, “The danger of opposing such a diplomatic
initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk
another American war in the Middle East without exhausting
alternatives.”
The story continues:
“It
would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such
discussions,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as
under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.”
So
in other words, the U.S. government is under pressure to talk as long
as Iran wants, even if Iran is moving ahead on its nuclear program at
every moment during the long, drawn-out, and inconclusive chatting.
There
is, of course, no solution. Sanctions won’t stop Iran from building
nuclear weapons and long-range missiles able to deliver them onto
targets. Diplomacy won’t work, except possibly for the fig leaf of
having Iran own all the pieces for those weapons and simply promising
not to assemble them. War is unattractive for the
United States and, despite all you’ve heard, Israel, too.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
--
No comments:
Post a Comment