I was interested to read Condoleeza Rice’s remarks about Iran which flagged the possibility of the US joining the European “Group of Three”‘s so far futile talks with Iran about that country’s nuclear weapons program. While answering questions from reporters, Ms Rice seemed to imply that there was some sort of ‘understanding’ with Russia and China on this issue:
QUESTION: To follow on that, do you have agreement then from Russia and China that if you got to that point, having made this overture, sort of, taken the last best hope here for diplomacy, that if it fails at that point they would be willing to back what they have been thus far unwilling to do?
RICE: I think there is substantial agreement and understanding that Iran now faces a clear choice. This is the last excuse, in some sense. There have been those who have said, “Well, if only the negotiations had the potential for the United States to be a part of them, perhaps then Iran would respond.”
So now we have a pretty clear path. We have negotiations if Iran is prepared to suspend. If Iran is not prepared to suspend — and by the way, this an understanding that comes out of New York — that there is another path.
RICE: And while we have worked to get agreement on what had been some tactical differences, I think you can be sure that our friends and our partners understand the importance of the step and the importance that the Iranians must now see of making a choice and making that choice clearly.
I think we have very good understanding with our partners about that.
A very good understanding, huh? I can not imagine what understanding that the United States could come up with that that would compensate Russia for oil being north of $70 a barrell.
Needless to say, Iran has accepted the US offer with conditions of its own, namely that it will continue its business with nuclear research at its own pace. The slow slide towards US surrender on this issue is starting to gather a momentum of its own.
Peace in our time!
It would be interesting to know what the Israelis plan to do about Iran if, as now seems likely, the US does nothing.
I would suspect they have a plan…
Re: (what) would compensate Russia for oil being north of $70 a barrell.
Avoiding nuclear proliferation among states to the south of the former Soviet Empire; a process that may end with the Chechens getting their hands on one.
The ideal outcome for Russia is Iran with a nuclear power programme with a controlled fuel cycle reliant on Russia for low-enriched reactor fuel uranium.
The ideal outcome for China might be the gradual extrusion of the US from Eurasia while avoiding an oil price/supply crisis & global economic slump that would wreck their economy.
This is just another step (and a clever one) in the diplo-dance leading to either (a) collapse of the mullocracy or (b) war initiated by President (Rodham Clinton/McCain/whoever) in spring 2009.
Well, there’s still a fair bit of time before Iran gets the bomb, by most accounts of the intelligence avaliable publically. Allowing the EU to continue their futile jaw-jaw and thus run down the clock may be a risky strategy, but Ahmadinejahd has been rather free with provocative statements and gestures. The only way the US will get any international support to take out the Iranian program is if the Europeans are literally staring down the barrel of the gun. If getting that support means waiting on hands a while longer, giving the Iranians enough rope to hang themselves, so be it. Russia and China will never publically support US action, but European sanction would reduce the political and diplomatic costs enormously.
Of course, such sanction could never come, if it becomes apparent that Iran is on the verge of completing a nuclear weapon. The simple fact is that by lashing out vigorously against the threat of Islamism early on, Bush dealt the phenomenon a series of defeats. But the US, nevermind a decadent Europe or a hostile world, is simply not ready to really confront that challenge it faces. It may be that surrender to an Iranian nuclear power, kept in line only by the threat of overwhelming nuclear response, will be the end of an exhausted policy of “premature anti-fascism”. The consequences of this will be devastating, but so were the consequences of not stopping Hitler at the Rhineland in 1936. Europe in particular and the West in general is even weaker in willpower and self-confidence than at that point, which makes confrontation all the less likely. And it is that weakness and supine pacifism that is the real problem, absent which Islamism could never be a threat to the West, and which will remain a mortal threat even if we do muddle through the War on Terror…
By appearing reasonable and multi-lateral, the US gains time and avoids alienating completely the other actors involved in the situation.
This is similar to the multi-lateral approach to N. Korea. It recognizes China’s importance while serving to isolate NK from potential support from those antagonized by a harsher, unilateral strategy.
The Iranian case is similar. The house of cards the mullahs have constructed is slowly collapsing. Ethnic unrest and resistence by students and others stifled by the relentless repression of the regime continues.
Russia is the one on the hotseat here, just as China is in the NK situation. They have set themselves up as allies and protectors to these rogue regimes.
If the rogues collapse, who loses? Not the US.
If things progress to the point military action is required, the inability of the protecters to save their clients is their embarrassment, not the US’.
If the client does blow something up and has to be destroyed, it the Russians and Chinese who lose their investments, not the US.
I’m afraid I don’t find all this hysteria and negativism at all justified. A nuclear Iran is still an impotent, disfunctional mess. If it is stupid enough to strike out at someone, the problem disappears—literally.
It has been several decades since the US really, truly decided to take someone out. An object lesson, however unfortunate, serves the purpose of reminding certain people who live in fantasy worlds that, in the real world, screwing around with the US is a very dangerous business.
A few square miles of green glass where Tehran used to be would bring that point home very clearly. And clarity is always a valuable asset when making decisions about the possible life or death of whole nations and peoples.
If this analysis sounds very hard-hearted and cynical, it is. I am a romantic, not a sentimentalist.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
I think there is a delicate dance going on here which we won’t get a peek of for some time now. If we nuke the mad mullahs, who would step into the power vaccum?
I recall in 2001 – 2003, the agonizing slow motion run up to taking Uncle Saddami out. Even then with all the cards thought to be in place, look how long it has taken the Iraqis to form a government, even after three elections!
erm?
Wouldn’t Russia be very happy about high energy prices, they have massive reserves and supply much of Europe with gas, which there would be a higher demand for if oil got even more expensive.
Olmert’s recent confab with Bush (for five hours, compared to Hu Jintao’s one hour) he indicated Iran was less than a year from the bomb, while, typically, the abysmally ignorant CIA is still predicting 3-5 years (which they’ve been saying for the past 3-5 years).
I don’t think that this is the slippery slope to surrender by the US on the issue. This is a last effort by the US at diplomacy demanded by Russia and China as a condition for their support of stronger global sanctions. The chattering classes will, of course gnash at Bush’s “unilateralism” at getting Security Council support for sanctions….
One reason for increasing iranian support for shiite militias in Iraq is to delay US ability to respond militarily before they are able to produce a bomb.