12/16/09

In a sign of increased frustration with Iran’s unwillingness to accept America’s “outstretched hand,” the House of Representatives moved yesterday to approve broad sanctions legislation targeting Iran’s petroleum industry.  For its part, the Iranian regime remained defiant, pledging continued opposition, even as it struggled to contain the persistent rifts that have emerged in the wake of last summer’s election crisis.  Attention now shifts to the Senate and ultimately to the Obama administration, which supports measures aimed at pressuring Iran that receive international backing, a key ingredient for those measures’ success.  They are joined in this view by a wide array of national security experts, who in addition to arguing for a multilateral diplomatic approach, have pushed for targeting sanctions on specific key regime figures and entities, as well as fitting any future steps within an overall strategy that continues to keep engagement on the table.

As the Obama administration and progressives move to a new phase with Iran, neoconservatives have run off the rails, pushing threatening policies that have not only failed to change the Iranian regime’s behavior and ignored the dramatic internal Iranian political dynamics underway, but that also move the U.S. in a dangerous direction at an especially delicate time.  Despite the bipartisan consensus rejecting their approach, these individuals remain bent on pursuing a course that would cause dramatic damage to American interests in the Middle East and beyond. Going forward, the Obama administration must resist this dangerous pressure, staying focused on achieving its objectives with Iran in accordance with American, regional, and global interests.

With Congress moving on broad sanctions, Iran situation continues to evolve. The Associated Press reported: “The House voted Tuesday to impose new economic sanctions on Iran as lawmakers cast doubt on Iran's willingness to respond to diplomatic efforts to curtail its purported nuclear arms program. The legislation, approved 412-12, would end access to U.S. markets for foreign companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran or helping that country develop its petroleum capacity…”  However, as Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin noted yesterday, “But the real action over Iran sanctions behind the scenes is focused on Sen. Chris Dodd's package of Iran sanctions bills, which is currently the subject of negotiations between the administration and key senators.”  According to a letter sent to the Senate by Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, the Obama administration is entering a “critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran,” based on an understanding that internationally-support action aimed at pressuring Iran stands the best chance of succeeding.  Secretary of State Clinton stressed this point in an appearance earlier this week, in which she observed that a recent interdiction of North Korean arms trafficking would “not have been possible without strong action of the United Nations, and I think there's a lesson there for people around the world to see when it comes to Iran,” reported The Cable in a separate piece.

In the face of ongoing negotiations over the parameters of American-led efforts to pressure Iran, the Iranian regime remained defiant, even as Iran’s opposition movement made new moves to undermine Iran’s rulers.  Reuters reported: “Iran's hardline rulers sent uncompromising signals to foes at home and abroad on Wednesday, warning of possible legal action against opposition leaders and testing an upgraded missile that could reach Israel.”  Reuters went on to note how “Internal tension has increased since student backers of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi clashed in Tehran last week with security forces armed with batons and tear gas in the largest such anti-government demonstration in months.”  According to the Century Foundation’s Inside Iran Project, “Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei escalated his attacks recently on the opposition movement,” accusing the “demonstrators of defiling the image of the founder of the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, during protests on December 7th,” a move which may point to an emerging contest over the legacy of the Iranian revolution.  [AP, 12/15/09. Foreign Policy’s The Cable, 12/15/09. State Department Letter, 12/11/09. Secretary of State Clinton, via The Cable, 12/14/09. Reuters, 12/16/09. InsideIRAN, 12/15/09]

Progressive experts offer pragmatic solutions to address Iran’s nuclear program:

Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment, who has called for multilateral sanctions targeted against the regime, told Politico’s Laura Rozen that "I would prefer to see targeted, multilateral sanctions on the institution of the Revolutionary Guards... They are the ones amassing an economic fortune, managing the nuclear project, and brutalizing the population. I think we are better off trying to weaken the Revolutionary Guards, rather than trying to deny Iranian people gasoline and heating oil." [Karim Sadjadpour via Laura Rozen, 12/15/09]

Suzanne Maloney testified yesterday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, saying that sanctions must be part of a broader diplomatic strategy.  She said, “At best, they [sanctions] represent one component of an integrated diplomatic strategy that retains both a short-term and a long-term set of objectives for dealing with an Iran that is currently in the midst of dramatic change... To maximize their effectiveness, the following principles should be foremost in the minds of American policymakers.  1) The objectives of sanctions should be clear, limited, and achievable… 2) Integrate sanctions within the continuum of U.S. diplomacy… 3) Seek broad international consensus and implementation… 4) Focus on measures with direct and immediate costs… 5) Consider the impact on Iran’s internal climate.” [Suzanne Maloney, via Brookings, 12/15/09]

Jim Walsh, Thomas Pickering, and William Luers, veteran diplomats and nonproliferation experts, recently wrote that, “Although sanctions can be an effective policy instrument, they are only that: an instrument or tactic for achieving a goal... by narrowly focusing on a tactic rather than the strategic objective, there is the risk that policymakers will produce the very thing they seek to prevent: an Iran with nuclear weapons… Sanctions can be a complement to negotiation when they give a country an incentive to bargain. Unfortunately, they can also be a roadblock to negotiations.” They say that the strategic objective of the P5+1 should be: “permit Iran to operate under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but create the inspection, monitoring, and transparency arrangements to assure the best firewall against weapons development. The six countries also need to be open about how to get there, through a negotiation that accepts Iran’s legitimate activities, including enrichment under appropriate safeguards, and does the maximum to block the illegitimate ones. They should avoid all-or-nothing gambles, artificial deadlines, and a preoccupation with tactics.”   [Jim Walsh, Thomas Pickering, and William Luers, Arms Control Today, 12/09]

Neoconservatives attempt to frame the discussion as inevitably leading to war.  While progressives and Iran experts have been arguing for constructive and pragmatic solutions to Iran’s nuclear program, the neoconservatives are, once again, beating the war drum.

Bill Kristol, discussing the President’s Oslo speech on Fox News Sunday, said that “There's this one sentence, ‘There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.’ That's a pretty striking statement. I mean any American president should say that who's looking at Iran developing nuclear weapons. I think he is, it's not just that Israel might use preemptive force against Iran. This speech lays the predicate for a legitimate use of force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons by the U.S.” [Fox News Sunday, 12/13/09]

John Bolton, the never-confirmed Bush administration Ambassador to the U.N., actually advocates for military action, saying on Fox News that "We are well past the point where economic sanctions could actually achieve the objective of stopping the Iranian nuclear program... If there is a point at which military force is still possible to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle, this is it." [Fox News, 11/30/09]

The Washington Times editorial page similarly attempted to frame the debate by saying yesterday that “The Mullahs could have a bomb any day now… He [President Obama] said in Oslo that ‘those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.’ However, the United States has been standing idle for years, and time is running out. … According to our calendar, that window opens about two weeks from now.” [Washington Times, 12/15/09]  

In response, Max Bergmann of Think Progress says that the neoconservative arguments  “should be seen for what they really are: an attempt to beat the war drums loud enough to put the U.S. on the path toward war with Iran.”  Meanwhile, America’s top military and security practitioners argue that hostile action against Iran would be “disastrous”:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said last year on FOX News,  “I'm fighting two wars, and I don't need a third one... I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it.” [Admiral Michael Mullen, Fox News, 7/20/08]

Secretary of Defense Gates, who was originally appointed to the position by President George W. Bush, agrees, in fact saying that it would be “disastrous.”  He wrote in Parameters journal last year that, “Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels.” [Secretary Robert Gates, Parameters, 2008]

Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns explained the serious repercussions of a military strike in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this past May: “Air strikes would undoubtedly lead Iran to hit back asymmetrically against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region, especially through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. This reminds us of Churchill's maxim that, once a war starts, it is impossible to know how it will end.” [Nick Burns, 5/06/09] 

[Max Bergmann, Think Progress, 12/15/09]

What We’re Reading

Climate talks in Copenhagen are focusing on having developed nations help pay for developing nations adapt to climate change by doing such things as paying for reforestation projects.
 
Under General McChrystal’s shift in strategy, the Special Operations teams in Afghanistan are now targeting key Taliban figures rather than mainly hunting Al Qaeda leaders and have increased the total number of raids they conduct.

Pakistani President  Zardari has resisted a direct appeal from President Obama for a rapid expansion of Pakistani military operations in Pakistani tribal areas and has called on the United States to speed up military assistance to Pakistani forces and to intervene more forcefully in India. Meanwhile, Pakistani Supreme Court judges demanded to know why $60 million had been given back to offshore companies in President Zardari’s name rather than returned to the national treasury.

In Iraq, more than six people have been killed in attacks near government ministries, causing Iraqi soldiers speak out about their frustration in trying to provide security. Other Iraqi troops have ordered a group of Iranian dissidents to vacate their sanctuary, which has become an irritant in Iraq's relationship with Iran.

Delegates to the PLO's ruling Central Council say that with little hope of forthcoming elections, they will authorize Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stay in office indefinitely.

China’s aggressive new program to build nuclear power plants could cut carbon emissions, but experts worry that the pace may lead to safety shortcuts.

The military regime in Myanmar has allowed the opposition leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to meet with senior members of her party for the first time in over a year.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon proposed sweeping political reforms that would allow federal lawmakers and some other officials to be reelected and provide for runoff presidential elections if no candidate gained more than a simple majority of votes.

French media has been riveted by the medical drama surrounding Johnny Hallyday, a beloved and aging French rock star known as the French Elvis, and who was recently brought out of a coma.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times worries that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is walking away from his Inaugural Speech pledge to fight corruption by continuing to repeatedly associate with and publically defend accused corrupt government officials.

Robert I. Rotberg illustrates a comprehensive policy for dealing with Somali pirates and protecting sea cargo and passengers with a wide range of diplomatic, financial, and military tools.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva makes a forceful case for action on at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in order to protect both developed and developing nations.