Monday, March 13, 2006
More on Iran
Last week we learned that:
“Iran on Wednesday threatened the United States with "harm and pain" if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.” Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
In response,
“the Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran.
and that the U.S. Campaign Is Aimed at Iran's Leaders.
Responding to Iran has its own challenges, of course, as the Washington Post helpfully explains:
“But as the administration gears up, the struggle with Iran remains shadowed by Iraq. The botched intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons has left a credibility challenge in convincing the public and the world that the administration is right this time about Iran. After alienating European allies in the rush to war in Iraq, the administration is following a slower, multilateral approach. And with U.S. forces stretched, analysts wonder how feasible a military option would be if it came to that.”
When you use phrases like “botched intelligence’, “rush to war” and “right this time”, you have likely crossed from reporter to pundit thus putting me on notice of a probable bias in the report.
Let’s put a few things into context: our “botched intelligence” was a collective intelligence, drawing on British and German sources to name a few. Just about everyone of note, going back to the Clinton Administration, believed Iraq had a WMD program. Not all European allies were alienated; the British have certainly played the part of an engaged co-advocate….and the French, Germans et al? Please, they’re in a perpetual state of alienation, no matter what we do. Finally, the “rush to war” was, in reality, a culmination of over a decade of Iraqi flouting of UN-provisions imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War.
So, I think most people agreed on the basic scenario Iraq presented at that time, it was the debate as to what was the appropriate response that generated the most significant differences.
I laid out a brief timeline of getting Iran to the UN Security Council in an earlier post but the WaPo apparently sees things a little differently:
“The administration got to this point after a year of deliberately staying on the sidelines. After the United States took the lead on Iraq, the British told Bush administration officials that Washington should let the Europeans go first on dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
Actually, France, Germany and the UK had been working with Iran on this matter since at least 2003 (see IAEA - October 21, 2003 Statement by Iran & visting EU Foreign Ministers)
“During her first trip to Europe as secretary of state, in February 2005, Rice was surprised that most questions from European officials concerned Iran, not Iraq, and was sobered by the realization that they viewed Washington as the problem, not Tehran.
“When Bush went to Europe a few weeks later, French President Jacques Chirac and then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany pushed him to support a British-French-German diplomatic effort dubbed the EU-3. Bush agreed, and Rice announced the decision a year ago last weekend.”
Huh? If we were the problem why would they want us more actively involved? Well, left out of this timeline summary is what was going then between the EU-3 and Iran:
“Representatives of the IR of Iran and the EU troika (Germany, France, Britain) concluded their fourth round of breath-taking talks earlier Friday evening in Geneva, Switzerland, having achieved no further progress compared to the 3rd round…. The talks that ended on Friday in Geneva were the fourth round of their kind in last three months,…”Fourth round of Iran-EU talks concludes in Geneva without tangible progress (March 11, 2005)
Then:
“According to another report, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is going to announce Washington’s viewpoints on Iran-EU talks at press conference a few hours from now.”
And here is Secretary Rice on that same date:
“And we, for our part, have decided to more actively back those diplomatic efforts of the EU-3 by removing our objections to spare parts and to WTO application -- and I want to emphasize application -- by the Iranians, because it exposes where the problem is. If the Iranians can't come to agreement with the Europeans, it exposes what all of us suspect, which is that the Iranians don't want to come to agreement. So it puts the spotlight back on the Iranians, not on, well, what is the United States willing to do or why aren't you supporting the diplomacy and so forth.” (emphasis added) Embassy of the U.S. London: Iran: Rice Says Recent EU, U.S. Actions Put Spotlight on Iran (from an interview with The Washington Times)
So the Washington Post reports that in February 2005 Secretary Rice was “sobered” upon learning that European viewed the US as the problem and not Iran – this despite the fact that the EU-3 was about to embark on their 4th fruitless set of talks with Iran in 3 months. If the EU-3 really did consider us the problem, then I can only guess that Secretary Rice was “sobered” by the realization that her European diplomatic counterparts were morons. If, on the other hand, this is just mere conjecture by an observer, then the failure to apply even a little bit of skepticism takes me back again to my point on reporters crossing over to pundit.
For now, whatever you read about Iran is just speculation as our options there range from not good to worse and nothing is obvious. But look at the bright side, so far Jimmy Carter isn't involved.
“Iran on Wednesday threatened the United States with "harm and pain" if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.” Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
In response,
“the Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran.
and that the U.S. Campaign Is Aimed at Iran's Leaders.
Responding to Iran has its own challenges, of course, as the Washington Post helpfully explains:
“But as the administration gears up, the struggle with Iran remains shadowed by Iraq. The botched intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons has left a credibility challenge in convincing the public and the world that the administration is right this time about Iran. After alienating European allies in the rush to war in Iraq, the administration is following a slower, multilateral approach. And with U.S. forces stretched, analysts wonder how feasible a military option would be if it came to that.”
When you use phrases like “botched intelligence’, “rush to war” and “right this time”, you have likely crossed from reporter to pundit thus putting me on notice of a probable bias in the report.
Let’s put a few things into context: our “botched intelligence” was a collective intelligence, drawing on British and German sources to name a few. Just about everyone of note, going back to the Clinton Administration, believed Iraq had a WMD program. Not all European allies were alienated; the British have certainly played the part of an engaged co-advocate….and the French, Germans et al? Please, they’re in a perpetual state of alienation, no matter what we do. Finally, the “rush to war” was, in reality, a culmination of over a decade of Iraqi flouting of UN-provisions imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War.
So, I think most people agreed on the basic scenario Iraq presented at that time, it was the debate as to what was the appropriate response that generated the most significant differences.
I laid out a brief timeline of getting Iran to the UN Security Council in an earlier post but the WaPo apparently sees things a little differently:
“The administration got to this point after a year of deliberately staying on the sidelines. After the United States took the lead on Iraq, the British told Bush administration officials that Washington should let the Europeans go first on dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
Actually, France, Germany and the UK had been working with Iran on this matter since at least 2003 (see IAEA - October 21, 2003 Statement by Iran & visting EU Foreign Ministers)
“During her first trip to Europe as secretary of state, in February 2005, Rice was surprised that most questions from European officials concerned Iran, not Iraq, and was sobered by the realization that they viewed Washington as the problem, not Tehran.
“When Bush went to Europe a few weeks later, French President Jacques Chirac and then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany pushed him to support a British-French-German diplomatic effort dubbed the EU-3. Bush agreed, and Rice announced the decision a year ago last weekend.”
Huh? If we were the problem why would they want us more actively involved? Well, left out of this timeline summary is what was going then between the EU-3 and Iran:
“Representatives of the IR of Iran and the EU troika (Germany, France, Britain) concluded their fourth round of breath-taking talks earlier Friday evening in Geneva, Switzerland, having achieved no further progress compared to the 3rd round…. The talks that ended on Friday in Geneva were the fourth round of their kind in last three months,…”Fourth round of Iran-EU talks concludes in Geneva without tangible progress (March 11, 2005)
Then:
“According to another report, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is going to announce Washington’s viewpoints on Iran-EU talks at press conference a few hours from now.”
And here is Secretary Rice on that same date:
“And we, for our part, have decided to more actively back those diplomatic efforts of the EU-3 by removing our objections to spare parts and to WTO application -- and I want to emphasize application -- by the Iranians, because it exposes where the problem is. If the Iranians can't come to agreement with the Europeans, it exposes what all of us suspect, which is that the Iranians don't want to come to agreement. So it puts the spotlight back on the Iranians, not on, well, what is the United States willing to do or why aren't you supporting the diplomacy and so forth.” (emphasis added) Embassy of the U.S. London: Iran: Rice Says Recent EU, U.S. Actions Put Spotlight on Iran (from an interview with The Washington Times)
So the Washington Post reports that in February 2005 Secretary Rice was “sobered” upon learning that European viewed the US as the problem and not Iran – this despite the fact that the EU-3 was about to embark on their 4th fruitless set of talks with Iran in 3 months. If the EU-3 really did consider us the problem, then I can only guess that Secretary Rice was “sobered” by the realization that her European diplomatic counterparts were morons. If, on the other hand, this is just mere conjecture by an observer, then the failure to apply even a little bit of skepticism takes me back again to my point on reporters crossing over to pundit.
For now, whatever you read about Iran is just speculation as our options there range from not good to worse and nothing is obvious. But look at the bright side, so far Jimmy Carter isn't involved.
