And for anyone expecting a more conciliatory tone, or a willingness to engage Iran in negotiations regarding Iraq and/or Iran’s nuclear program, let me be the first to disappoint you(via Reuters):
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert used White House talks on Monday to turn up the heat on Iran over its nuclear program.
Bush, reasserting a central plank of his foreign policy after his party suffered humiliating losses in U.S. elections, called for the “economic isolation” of Tehran if it proceeds with uranium enrichment in defiance of international pressure.
Accusing Iran of “fanaticism and extremism,” Olmert voiced support for U.S.-led efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on Iran and said Tehran must not be allowed to “cross the technological threshold” to develop a nuclear bomb.
I’m not sure what Olmert means by the phrase technological threshold. It’s a phrase he used at various times in the recent past when describing the threat Iran’s nuclear program poses. That indicates to me that Israel has committed itself to attacking Iran at a point well before actual bomb manufacture.
The fact that Olmert made this statement (i.e., that Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be stopped before it crosses some vague line in the sand ) in Bush’s presence also indicates to me that our President has still not given up his desire to eliminate the potential threat of an Iranian bomb through the use of military force. It’s highly unlikely that an Israeli Prime Minister would issue a such a statement at a joint press conference that didn’t already meet with the President’s approval.
Obviously, Olmert visited Bush to shore up support for a policy of confrontation with Iran, rather than one of engagement and negotiation. And it certainly appears that Bush has obliged him in that regard. Bush’s statements clearly indicate that he will continue to take a tough stance toward with respect to the Iranian regime. But what other reason would Bush have for meeting with Olmert now, other than the reassuring an ally in the region? Well, there’s always politics:
(cont.)
Monday’s talks gave Bush a chance to shift focus after Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in the November 7 elections, widely seen as a repudiation of his Iraq war policy.
If it’s one thing the Bush White House does well, it’s distracting the media away from stories that do not fit the Bush narrative (e.g., the recent election results) toward those that do. In this case the danger of Iran’s nukes to our security (and to Israel’s) is a much better media narrative for Mr. Bush, and returns the talking head discourse back to what his advisors (Karl Rove, et al.) still perceive to be Bush’s strengths: Foreign Policy, National Security and the War on Terror.
Only this time, he may not have as much help from Tony Blair in pushing the Iran is dangerous! meme. It seems Mr. Blair has had a come to Jesus moment about the need to talk before you fight:
Tony Blair will tonight set out the terms for a “new partnership” with Iran and Syria as part of a new approach to resolving the crisis in Iraq.
The prime minister will accuse Tehran of backing terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine to thwart international efforts to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But, in his annual speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet in the City of London, Mr. Blair will claim that if it stops such support and abides by international obligations on nuclear non-proliferation, the west could work with Iran to secure peace in the Middle East.
“In that case, a new partnership is possible,” he will say.
Aides said that Mr. Blair’s challenge to Iran to play a more constructive role in the Middle East applies equally to Syria.
The offer is an example of what Mr. Blair calls the “whole strategy” approach towards the Middle East. He is urging George Bush to adopt a similar stance in the wake of last week’s midterm elections in America.
Oddly enough, engaging Iran and Syria in high level negotiations is also believed to be the favored policy of some in the Iraq Study Group (ISG) headed up by Bush Sr.’s consigliore, James Baker. Indeed, it is thought to be one of the new ideas that Baker’s colleagues in the ISG will present to the President as possible options for going forward in Iraq:
When he was secretary of State, Baker was open to talking even with US adversaries, to the point where he endured hours-long harangues from the late Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad. As commission co-chairman, Baker has already met with Javad Zarif, Iran’s ambassador to the US.
It is possible the Iraq Study Group may urge some sort of regional roundtable meeting on Iraq’s future that includes Iran and Syria – a recommendation the White House has previously opposed.
Former Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke, a Democrat, recently said that a regional conference similar to the one he used to craft an end to the Bosnian war in 1995 might be useful.
“This war is being waged on the ground by ferocious forces which aren’t necessarily going to be much interested in what regional and international players say,” Mr. Holbrooke, who is not an Iraq Study Group member, said in a Council on Foreign Relations analysis. “Still, I think it’s worth trying.”
I believe the chance of a real change in Bush’s policy toward Iran is unlikely. However, I’m also of the opinion that Bush and Cheney’s ability to engineer a military confrontation with Iran has been severely circumscribed by the results of the recent elections, and by the apparent defection of Tony Blair. Is it still possible before the end of Bush’s second term? Certainly.
But it is also much less likely to happen. The electorate told the GOP in no uncertain terms that they no longer support Bush’s policy of military adventurism in the Middle East. Thus, his own party is unlikely to support any call to arms for a new war absent an event that completely changes the political landscape. For now, Mr. Bush will just have to lick his wounds and endure lectures from Mr. Blair and his father’s old foreign policy team about the need to negotiate our way out of the mess Georgie has made. Bush may not like it, but he is effectively hamstrung in making any further aggressive military moves in the Mideast for the time being.
