8/5/10

President Obama surprised reporters yesterday when he, together with his national security team, briefed reporters about his administration's policy toward Iran. Their chief conclusion: U.S.-led efforts to isolate Iran for failing to be fully transparent about its nuclear intentions are proving successful. Admitting that changing Iran's calculus is a difficult feat, Obama nevertheless described how the administration's efforts to isolate Iran have been more effective - both at garnering international support and influencing Iran's leadership - than had been widely expected.  In a potential indication of the country's sense of its growing political and economic isolation, Iran's top diplomats have said that the country is ready to return to the negotiating table to discuss the country's nuclear program.  This is an opportunity that should not be ignored, as a diplomatic solution, supported by the international community, represents the best course for dealing with Iran.  What should not be heeded are calls for military action against Iran. A military option would jettison this new level of pressure on Iran, undercut broader American security goals in the region, harm the Iranian people and do little to degrade Iran's nuclear program.  Even the discussion of a military option gives the regime a rhetorical foothold and undercuts the international consensus against the regime. The administration's pressure strategy, buttressed by effective diplomacy, should therefore continue to guide the way forward on Iran policy.

Administration efforts to isolate Iran are having an impact on Iran's leadership.  Covering President Obama's briefing of reporters yesterday, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder highlighted the administration's view that the sanctions that it pushed through the United Nations have proven effective.  According to the president, "we are beginning to see rumblings in Iran that they are surprised by how successful we've been." Obama added that "the costs of the sanctions are going to be higher than Iran would have anticipated six months ago, even three months ago."  The Washington Post's David Ignatius also cited administration officials who said that signs of Iran's growing isolation also include "...the strike last month by Tehran bazaar merchants who are unhappy about the battered economy, as well as recent signals through various channels that the Iranians want to come back to negotiations." The Economist's Lexington also cited the administration's success at "driving an unexpected wedge between Iran and Russia, a country the Iranians had long assumed would continue to offer them a degree of diplomatic protection." "That is a serious achievement, as are the new international sanctions to which the Russians and therefore the Chinese have recently agreed," the column continued.

This increased isolation and internal discontent have prompted Iranian officials to return to international negotiations regarding their nuclear program.  Last week, Haaretz reported that, "Iran has given an assurance that it would stop enriching uranium to 20 percent purity if world powers agreed to a proposed nuclear fuel swap, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Wednesday." Additionally last week, Iran's envoy to the IAEA handed the international body a letter that showed "Iran's complete readiness to hold negotiations over the fuel for the Tehran reactor without any conditions."  [Marc Ambinder, 8/5/10. David Ignatius, 8/3/10. Lexington, Economist, 8/4/10. Haaretz, 7/29/10. Reuters, 7/27/10]

Sanctions are not an end in themselves, but are instead a means to the real end - a diplomatic resolution of U.S. concerns with Iran.  As sanctions against Iran move forward, it is important to remember that sanctions are not the desired end state but rather a tool of diplomacy - and a complement to engagement - for influencing Iran's behavior.  President Obama explained to reporters yesterday, "‘It is very important to put before the Iranians a clear set of steps that we would consider sufficient to show that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons." He added, "They should know what they can say 'yes' to.'"  David Ignatius reported that a senior White House official further commented that "sanctions are more effective now because there are ‘better tools' to target the Iranians, ‘more cooperation' from U.S. allies -- and because the Iranians are ‘more vulnerable.' Another senior official stressed that ‘sanctions are not an end in themselves,' but a way of influencing Iran's cost-benefit analysis."

Under Secretary of State William Burns had previously outlined this point to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying "Let me emphasize that sanctions are not an end in themselves. Our foremost objective - one that is shared by our international partners and our allies in the region - is a durable diplomatic solution to the world's concerns about the Iranian nuclear program and the broader issues at stake with Iran. UN Security Council Resolution 1929 offers Iran a clear path toward the suspension of existing sanctions. It is an unambiguous one: Iran must fulfill its international obligations, suspend its enrichment-related reprocessing, and heavy water-related activities, and cooperate fully with the IAEA. The choice to reconsider its options and adopt a more constructive course is one that Tehran alone can make."  Military leaders concur that a diplomatic resolution is the best means for advancing U.S. interests with regards to Iran. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said in April, "The diplomatic, the engagement piece, the sanctions piece, all those things, from my perspective, need to be addressed to possibly have Iran change its mind about where it's headed." [Washington Post, 8/5/10. William Burns, 6/22/10. Admiral Mullen, 4/18/10]

A bipartisan consensus of national security leaders strongly opposes any military strike on Iran.  Iran's increasing isolation does not change the strong, bipartisan argument against a military strike. Current and former members of the military, former Bush administration officials and national security experts agree that a strike would pose severe costs to U.S. interests and regional stability without reciprocal benefits, and would still not eliminate the very real concerns about Iran's nuclear activities:

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I worry, on the other hand, about striking Iran. I've been very public about that because of the unintended consequences of that..." [Admiral Michael Mullen, 4/18/10]

General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander: "The problem with the strike is thinking through the consequences of Iranian reaction...You can see all these reactions that are problematic in so many ways. Economic impact, national security impact -- it will drag us into a conflict.  I think anybody that believes that it would be a clean strike and it would be over and there would be no reaction is foolish." [Anthony Zinni, 8/04/09]

Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution Fellows: "There is also a technical reality: even a massive strike would not slow Iran's progress towards a bomb for long. We cannot be sure we know where all existing Iranian facilities to enrich uranium are located - as the revelation of yet another previously unknown site near Qom last year reminded us." [Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel, 2/28/10]

Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former Bush administration Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs: "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." [Nicholas Burns, 5/06/09]

Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East: In an interview with Think Progress, Kahl warned that even though any military strike could delay Iran's nuclear program, it could also ‘incentivize the Iranians to go all the way to weaponize.' [Colin Kahl, via Think Progress, 10/1/09]

What We're Reading

South Korea kicked off one of its largest-ever naval exercises in waters near a disputed western sea border with North Korea, despite the North's threat to retaliate by attacking the South's warships participating in the drill.

The Obama administration is in advanced negotiations to share nuclear fuel and technology with Vietnam in a deal that would allow Hanoi to enrich its own uranium.

Snap Italian elections could be held as early as the autumn as a result of a break-up between Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and a key ex-ally, lower house speaker Gianfranco Fini.

Preliminary results showed that Kenya's new constitution is likely to pass overwhelmingly; almost 70 percent of the country voted in favor of the new constitution.

The United States is in a race with militant organizations in Pakistan to respond first and most effectively to the millions of Pakistani people who are the victims of the worst monsoon flooding in nearly a century.

Gen. David Petraeus issued a directive asserting troops' right to defend themselves, but also calling on them to continue efforts to safeguard Afghan civilian lives.

Model Naomi Campbell said she was given "dirty-looking" stones, after a dinner attended by ex-Liberian leader Charles Taylor, which she was later told were likely to be diamonds.

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev has sacked several top military officials for failing to stop wildfires from destroying a naval base outside Moscow.

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro is expected to address the national assembly this weekend for the first time in four years.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China - an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D.

Commentary of the Day

Christian Caryl says China's charm offensive is drowning in the dispute over the South China Sea.

Laila El-Haddad argues that there may be some semblance of civil life and stability in Gaza, but Palestinian freedoms are under siege.

William Saletan writes that Osama Bin Laden has an ally in his "Clash of Civilizations" propaganda campaign: Newt Gingrich.