Iran’s uranium enrichment program is a complicated subject, as is the subject of nuclear non-proliferation efforts in general. I find it nearly impossible to write about in a blog format. Yet, I support nuclear non-proliferation efforts, including crippling sanctions on Iran’s economy aimed at reaching a deal that will allow Iran to have a domestic nuclear energy industry but which also satisfies everyone that Iran will not be joining the club of nuclear-armed nations. If Iran is ready to have one-on-one talks with the American government after the election, then I consider that as evidence that the president’s policy has worked very well so far.
The idea is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability without having to resort to war, and to do it in a way that the international community believes in. That means that we need constant verification that Iran is complying with the agreement, but it also means that countries are satisfied that we’re not just trying to effect regime change or revolution in Teheran. It means that we recognize Iran’s right to have a nuclear power industry. And the principles we use must be applicable on a broad scale, not just for Iran. A successful nuclear policy vis-a-vis Iran should be part of a broader, international effort at nuclear disarmament, including in the USA, Russia, China, and Israel.
Within these broad outlines, the Obama administration has been successful without having any kind of breakthrough. Iran has never been so isolated, their currency is in free-fall, their best ally Syria is a mess, and now Iran wants to talk.
The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.
Of course, the foreign policy debate between Obama and Romney is on Monday, so this announcement is fortuitous and creates real problems for Romney in terms of what kind of tone he wants to take. The Iranians have agreed in principle to meet with Romney, too, should he win the election. Would he blow up that opportunity to score cheap points in a debate?
Don’t believe the Times.
The administration issued a full public denial and a walkback to multiple other media outlets.
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE89J0GB20121021?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
It’s possible that something’s stirring in some dark backchannel, but it’s more likely somebody was talking out of turn.
It’s possible they are fucking with Romney’s head.
I didn’t see a “full public denial” in your link.
The two reports mostly seem to support each other; there is an agreement in principle to have one-on-one talks, with the U.S. holding out the possibility of accepting a civilian energy program, but the Iranians will first wait and see what happens in the election.
People are leaking stuff aspirationally. We’ve seen this a hundred million times.
When something is ever actually agreed to, it will be impossible to keep secret, and every newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic will have it simultaneously. Not just the Times based on “anonymous officials” with knowledge of “a document in circulation.”
I think you are right about the “leaking aspirationally” part.
The statement looks carefully-worded, to deny that talks have been set, when the question is whether there is an agreement in principle about having talks.
Nobody is confused about both sides having each other’s phone number, so to speak.
There will almost certainly be serious negotiations in 2013 before the next Iranian election, and when they happen, they will not be secretive or their existence in dispute.
The NYT writers (and Booman) who got giddy over what this could mean for the election are frontrunning events on the ground.
Yet, I support nuclear non-proliferation efforts, including crippling sanctions on Iran’s economy aimed at reaching a deal that will allow Iran to have a domestic nuclear energy industry but which also satisfies everyone that Iran will not be joining the club of nuclear-armed nations.
Just like Cuban sanctions, they don’t hurt the rulers, they hurt the 99%.
Or Iraq.
But Americans are so exceptional that even “liberals” support “crippling sanctions” on countries that fail to do as we say.
For the record that 500,000 Iraqi children included ONLY children under five years old, the most vulnerable population. It did not include the deaths of children over five years old.
Albright later clarified that she didn’t agree with the premise, about there being half a million deaths caused by the sanctions, and was considering the actual, non-inflated, non-imaginary cost when she said it was worth it.
This is one of those zombie lies that never dies, because it’s too good to check.
It’s not a “zombie lie.” She said what she said. You’re free to accept her later “clarification.” I choose not to because her first statement was an honest reflection of the US foreign policy that she was fully on board with. Sort of like Romney’s 47% comments were honest and his later “clarification” was dishonest.
And she clarified what she said, too. But you lie about that, and pretend that the quote she disavowed represents her actual opinion.
“I choose not to because…”
That’s the way zombie lies work; people choose to believe them because they fit what they’ve already decided they want to think.
You actually believe that the Secretary of State of the United States of America – a career diplomatic professional of such accomplishment that she worked her way to the pinnacle of that profession – intended to say that she believed American policy had killed half a million children under five, and that she thought it was worth it.
You choose to believe that. Good for you.
marie2 is extremely naive, and extremely prone to extreme comments.
Surely a career diplomatic professional of such accomplishment that she worked her way to the “pinnacle of that profession” is smart, skilled, and professional enough in her use of language to avoid saying things she does not mean. She was asked a very clear and very direct question, and she gave a very clear and very direct answer, and now we should believe she, a career diplomatic professional of such accomplishment that she worked her way to the pinnacle of the profession meant something quite different than what she clearly said.
All there is to go on are her words and the context in which she uttered them. She was asked a direct question, and she gave a very direct answer. If she didn’t really mean what she said, then one has to wonder whether she was really all that hot at her chosen profession after all.
What she tried to do far too late in the game was to walk back her unfortunate statement by denying the very same premise she had implicitly accepted when she made the statement in the first place. She would have been better off not saying anything more about it ever agai.
And the sanctions killed many times more than a mere half million Iraqis.
The sort of agreement that will defuse this whole issue is one that ends with a renormalization of relations between the US and Iran. The nuclear issue is less an international reality and more a US domestic political issue. And the real sticking point is transparency. And where the issue lies is American exceptionalism. The US (and likely the Russian Federation as well) are not obligated to receive IAEA inspections to ensure that they are not proliferators. As legacy nuclear powers, they have no obligations of transparency. Which is why the START talks with Russia are key to all nonproliferation efforts. But that, like much else, has become a GOP political football in the game of obstruction.
The Iranian clergy has been clear all along that they do not see the actual possession nuclear weapons as a viable international strategy. Being able to ramp up production in the event of an existential war is another matter.
I have thought all along that there were several levels of negotiations going on, even when the nuclear talks bogged down to the point of having only the technical folks talks to each other. And I have thought all along that the GOP and Likud lobby in the US have used Iran as a distraction from Israel’s consolidation of a single-state solution for the territories it occupied in 1967. And Netanyahu has played US domestic politics with the issue. And so has Romney.
Both of these issues are potential flashpoints for a future war. It is good that Hillary Clinton’s team has seemed to make some progress on Iran; I hope that it is not illusory.
Can we balance the toppling of Mossadegh with the Reagan October Surprise and call it even. Haven’t our two countries done enough damage to each other?
I doubt the EU is pushing these sanctions just as hard as we are because of American Exceptionalism.
Nobody wants Iran to have nukes; that is an international reality, just as much as a domestic political reality.
Despite the history you mention, this isn’t a spat between the U.S. and Iran. Although the people around Mitt Romney might want it to be, opposition to Iran nuclear proliferation is not merely a pretext for regime change.
Is the EU pushing the sanctions on the merits or because of hardnosed US diplomacy?
The issue never appeared before the Bush administration labeled Iran as one of the “axis of evil” countries and Cheney sabotaged the CIA effort to keep track on the proliferation of nuclear material to Iran. Since Netanyahu was elected, the drumbeat of war with Iran has been constant. Seymour Hersh was predicting US intervention in 2006.
My reading of the situation is the Obama and Clinton are juggling US domestic politics and US-Israeli relations while trying to renormalize relations with Iran. And Ahmedinejad has been undercutting these efforts while Khamenei has emphasized actual Iranian policy.
Because of the complicated domestic politics in the US and Iran, things have not been straightforward diplomacy.
There will be a regime change next year. Ahmedinejad is not running for re-election. And that’s what this is likely setting the table for. But I think that the idea of one-to-one talks is unlikely soon. And the nuclear issue is likely to still be handled multilaterally.
Hardnosed American diplomacy? Towards Europe? Show me some.
Since Netanyahu was elected, the drumbeat of war with Iran has been constant. Seymour Hersh was predicting US intervention in 2006.
Yes, a lot of people have been dead wrong about the direction of American policy towards Iran. One could say that we have a bit of an Iraq War Pundit problem here on the left – the people who were so wrong keep being treated as serious voices. Remember when the strikes were going to happen in 2011, so we could give Israel fly-over rights in Iraq before we left?
My reading of the situation is the Obama and Clinton are juggling US domestic politics and US-Israeli relations while trying to renormalize relations with Iran.
This administration has been taking nuclear proliferation seriously since it came into office. Obama restarted nuclear arms reduction talks with the Russians, even canceling the anti-missile bases in Eastern Europe to give them a boost. He’s also greatly ramped up the efforts to secure loose nuclear material – Rachel Maddow used to run stories about this all the time, such as the team that sailed from Chile with nuclear material just a few hours before the earthquake hit.
Leaving out nuclear nonproliferation out of an analysis of their motives regarding Iran seems like a major oversight.
Since before “they” took office actually, that was the basis for awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, partly promise and partly his commitment on his record. Booman wrote about this. I tried to search the archive for Booman’s post on it, but all I learned is that I don’t know how to search the archive. (advice welcome) Obama talked about this in Sept 26, 2008 debate
Maybe you’re looking for this post?
Use the Google. Works so much better.
Thanks, he wrote a longer one, writing about Obama’s senate record. I tried the Bing (the Google and I don’t get along, I don’t like its Big Brother “helpfulness”
.
BooMan’s story – Obama’s Vision and Foreign Policy [July 15, 2008}
See my new diary on topic – Obama’s Speech on Foreign Policy in 2008
I’m thinking of a post after the Nobel Peace price was announced, must be fall 2009, about the decision to award him the peace prize.
Maybe this one? BTW, found it using the evil Google…
that was the time period, but it was specifically on nuclear disarmament iirc. here’s something in that vein but only talks about his presidency, not earlier.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obam
a-the-prize/
but you inspired me, I’ll look some more using the slightly less evil Bing
The information discussed in the post is in this item I found from Media Matters
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/04/09/right-wing-media-mockery-ignores-obamas-nuclear/163014
– started working on nuclear non proliferation early in Senate term; fact finding trip to former Soviet Union, working with Lugar etc
p.s. if you have advice how to search the archive for fall 2009, I’d very much appreciate it. i tried inputting topics to no avail, but maybe there’s a better way to do that also. Thanks!
Obama had not earned the Nobel Peace Prize when it was awarded to him, and he sure as hell hasn’t earned it in retrospect. Awarding it to him devalued it seriously.
I have to agree. It looked to me like the Nobel Committee was expressing their extreme revulsion at Bush, but it was wrong to issue the prize on the basis of what Obama might do.
Especially given that what he HAS done has been distinctly not Peace-Prize-worthy in any way.
By the way, are you aware that GWB and Tony Blair were nominated for the Peace Prize?!
Given the wide range of those that can submit nominations, it’s not unusual that many unacceptable people are nominated.
It wasn’t awarded based on what he might do.
It was awarded because he restarted the process of negotiating nuclear arms reductions, after Bush had so dramatically ended them and repudiated our past agreements.
The significant of nuclear arms reduction negotiations was a central principle among the American and international left…right up until Barack Obama was recognized for his contribution to that cause, at which point it became utterly meaningless.
No, he hadn’t done anything public at that time. IIRC, he hadn’t even taken office.
It was Nobel 2009. Link below talks about his anti-nuclear work in Senate. Nobel committee said it was based on his disarmament work (which would include his Senate years), not that his foreign policy was “not Bush” – here’s link
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obam
a-the-prize/
OK. Conceded. I was going on memory of MSM saying he didn’t do anything yet. Shows you the power of the MSM
Well, it’s like Joe from Lowell pointed out – once Barack was awarded the prize for his work on nuclear disarmament, the subject was ignored.
here’s a post that covers his Senate period antinuclear
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/04/09/right-wing-media-mockery-ignores-obamas-nuclear/163014
Thank you for those links.
I remember when nuclear arms reduction was considered an important goal on the left.
This was roughly the period between Hiroshima and Barack Obama being awarded the prize for his efforts towards that goal.
Very very interesting observation. which reminds me, there’s an interesting post at the Orange place about “angry black man”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/21/1147255/-What-an-angry-Black-man-really-looks-like
I don’t see how Obama “cheapened it” when plenty of other people have been given it in the past, including Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Kissinger, and Arafat/Perez/Rabin. I think there were more deserving candidates, but to think that Obama cheapened it all of the sudden is bullshit.
Seabe, I didn’t say that Obama cheapened it “all of a sudden”, or that he is the only recipient to have cheapened the Prize.
Among other things, as one of his first acts as President, within just a few hours of taking the Oath of Office he signed off on several bomb attacks on Pakistan that killed a number of women and children. Hardly a good beginning, and that alone should have disqualified him, but it was only the beginning.
But he wasn’t given it for those acts, he was given it for his push for non-proliferation as joe described. Roosevelt was a monstrous war monger, but he received it for brokering peace between Japan and Russia.
Look, you and I agree on virtually everything foreign policy related, but I tire of people jumping all over Obama’s dick over this. The Prize has always been political, and it’s frequently gone to people who were less deserving than other nominees. Obama wasn’t the first, or even close to it, nor will he be the last. He has been, however, the most criticized over it, and it’s a bit annoying given the Prize’s history.
Oh, I don’t think he has been the most criticized over it. I’d say that honor falls on Yasser `Arafat, who deserved it far more than Perez, or even Rabin.
On the other hand, he undermined his own negotiators by engaging in a secret deal in which he gave away far more than they were prepared to, not to mention he got scammed.
Anyone from the Occupied Territories engaging in a deal with Israel, especially of the corrupt Fatah — unless the world community sans US is involved — is going to get scammed. 🙂
Have you read Hanan Ashrawi’s book, This Side of Peace? Provides interesting insight into the parallel talks she and others were involved in while Arafat was busy behind their backs selling Palestine to the Israelis for a few pats on the back from the West.
Thank you, TarheelDem, for a very realistic analysis of the Iran situation, and a excellent recommendation.
For the record, the United States and Europe do not have a right to give Iran permission to have or not have a domestic nuclear program. That is Iran’s right as a signatory to the NPT. And given that Iran has been under a completely unjustifiable existential threat you cannot realistically blame the Iranian government for considering doing what Japan, which has not been under such a threat, has done with impunity.
Might makes Right. It’s as American as Apple Pie.
Yep, and exerting that is going to keep right on biting the mighty US in the butt until someone wakes up and smells the coffee!
Empires are never wrong until they fall. And they never voluntarily surrender power. We are on a pre-determined course ever since WW II. There is no climbing ff the tiger’s back.
emptywheel’s tweet about it
“ A successful nuclear policy vis-a-vis Iran should be part of a broader, international effort at nuclear disarmament, including in the USA, Russia, China, and Israel.“
Oh, yeah! They’re going to hold Israel to the same standard that they hold Iran when hell freezes over.
Oh, wait! Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means it is not subject to inspections, and can wink and lie deny it even has a nuclear weapons program, let alone a major arsenal of nuclear weapons, and the World simply ignores it. In the meantime, Iranian is under sanctions threats up to and including annihilation despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Hypocrisy is a constant.
Minor nit. If you aren’t a signatory, it’s not hypocrisy.
But you are exactly right about the need for Israel to come clean and join the NPT. India and Pakistan as well.
No problem with the nit picking, but for the record, it was not Israel’s hypocrisy I was referring to, it was the hypocrisy mainly of the United States government. From a real-world perspective Israel is a far, far greater nuclear threat than Iran is likely to be in the foreseeable future.
It is also very worth pointing out again and again that Israel is one of the most militarily aggressive countries in the world while Iran has not attacked or invaded another country in nearly 300 years.
.
Good to see your contribution here @BooMan. Please come more often, your voice needs to be heard.
India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan all have to be dealt with in their own way. But the fact that those countries have nukes should never be used as an excuse to give up on nonproliferation. And part of keeping the movement alive is reducing the stockpiles of the big nuclear powers, including Israel. That will NEVER happen if Iran is ruled by revolutionary mullahs and they haven’t come to some understanding that is satisfactory to the international nonproliferation movement.
Is the domestic politics in the US and Iran such that the US can take “Yes” for an answer? The idea of Iran and revolutionary mullahs is a generational timewarp similar to Romney’s seeing Russia as the US’s major geopolitical enemy. Khamenei is not Khomenei. And unlike the US revolution, the Iranian revolution always saw itself as domestic not international.
If the American public supported Reagan’s arms reduction deals with the Soviets, then they’ll support deals with the Iranians.
Remember, there were troglodytes in the 1980s, too. The day after Reagan signed the Reykjavik Accords, George Will wrote in a column that “yesterday will be remembered as the day America lost the Cold War.”
part of keeping the movement alive is reducing the stockpiles of the big nuclear powers, including Israel.
So, when are those who are sooooo sincerely dedicated to nuclear nonproliferation going to stop putting all their energy and focus on a country with no nuclear weapons, no known nuclear weapons program, and no modern history of military aggression? When are you and your fellow nonproliferation enthusiasts going to start holding Israel to account?
“ That will NEVER happen if Iran is ruled by revolutionary mullahs and they haven’t come to some understanding that is satisfactory to the international nonproliferation movement.“
Sounds like you’re talking, at least in part, about regime change. Well, why not given how well that worked out for everyone in Iraq.
I do love the potentially self-destructive logic of putting on the front burner Iran, which has 1) no nuclear weapons, 2) no known nuclear weapons program, 3) no modern history of aggression, and 4) no apparent intention of obtaining nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future while keeping potentially dangerous nuclear powers such as Israel, Pakistan, and India virtually out of sight.
TarheelDem is absolutely right. It’s all about domestic U.S. and Israeli politics and has no connection to reality whatsoever.
BooMan: and they haven’t come to some understanding that is satisfactory to the international nonproliferation movement
You: Sounds like you’re talking, at least in part, about regime change.
It’s unfortunate that BooMan’s statement about policy chance sounds like regime change to you.
Nuclear arms deals with the Soviets never involved regime change.
4) no apparent intention of obtaining nuclear weapons
Apparent to whom? Not to you, obviously, but is there any chance ever of you not making up your mind on a question by taking the side opposite the US?
Not different from all the federal budget noise about the need to reform Social Security. The one component of the federal budget that isn’t now a problem and if it ever becomes one, that day is decades into the future.
Scaremongering over Iran and Social Security is done for two reasons. First, our elected government is incapable of managing real and present present social, economic, and security issues and to hide that failing they drag out scapegoats. Second, US voters are too stupid not to fall for the bait and switch.
Iran represents what scares a lot of people in the U.S. which an Islamic theocracy. I’m sorry it true. Why it replaced the shah is because the U.S backed a dictator and the people took control. But they had to use religion to gain power. Here we only remember the hostage crisis and the Ayatollah I don’t think the U.S. will ever be able to get passed that. Its legend now.
I think Israel is a neighborhood bully. Unfortunately they have substantial influence on politics in the U.S. they have the
religious rightRepublican party and its nominee under their spell. That in turn forces Obama and Biden to pretend that they can stand Bibi Netanyahu. Believe me they hate him.In the end i think it would be best if Iran stops enrichment or puts a moratorium on it for a year. Do something else to calm the air. Never the less I think Ahmadinejad is on his way out. At least that’s one big mouthed idiot out of the picture if only Bibi was moving on.
Of course Iran wants to talk…their beginning to realize that Romney just might win this election, and their scared shitless…
Who do you think Iran’s government wants to win this election? Maybe they figure this will help Obama.
It’s 1979 all over again.
Sorry…”their” should read “they’re”…
You do realize that North Korea developed nukes while a militarily belligerent Republican administration was in power, don’t you?
Takes some brass.
It’s entirely possible that North Korea developed nukes because a militarily belligerent Republican administration was in power.
Who do you think Iran’s government wants to win this election?
The last time the Republicans were in power, Bush removed Iran’s strongest competitor for them, and replaced with a government that has turned into a strong Iranian ally.
In addition to allowing the North Koreans to develop nuclear weapons.
Who does Iran, a country that wants to expand its power in the region and develop a nuclear deterrent, want to win the election? I’m going to guess that they want the party that helped them out so much last time to win the election.
Good point. And who has been most belligerent about the personal destruction of militant Islamic leaders as opposed to the destruction of the countries? Obama. If I was a mullah I would give deep thought to that. Unless I really believed the 76 virgin crap. Oh, do I get a death doom for saying it’s crap?
“Would he blow up that opportunity to score cheap points in a debate?”
Popes. Bears. Death and Taxes.
And Republican opportunism.
.
Getting a scoop is a higher priority than getting the facts, a dangerous game in today’s politics on the Iranian nuclear issue. Press lies, so Mitt can continue to quote and lie. Obama has to be as convincing in the debate as he was on the Benghazi attack by Romney.