5/13/09

Former Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday charged in to politicize another challenging national security issue, claiming that “everybody (including some of our closest European allies) is in a giant conspiracy” against the U.S., on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.  The policy that Cheney advocates – an isolated U.S. loudly threatening the use of force – has already been tried and failed.  The results of Bush Administration posturing are clear – Iran went from zero to 5,500 centrifuges, while the power vacuum created by the war in Iraq made it a much more powerful player in the Middle East.  As former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns explained, Cheney’s policies would leave President Obama with “one option – and that is war.”

In fact, a number of our closest allies agree with the Obama Administration and five former Secretaries of State of both parties that diplomacy based on mutual respect offers the best path for dealing with Iran.  The road ahead will be challenging and require patience.  The core questions of Iran’s nuclear status and regional ambitions will not be resolved easily; distrust between the two governments is high; and there are real divisions within the Iranian government on how to respond to U.S. overtures.  But already we have seen some early positive indications.  The U.S. should continue to make positive gestures to Iran as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes building a unified diplomatic front, particularly with Russia, and planning for a long and difficult endgame on multiple issues.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney believes “everybody's in a giant conspiracy” against the U.S., on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.  Former Vice President Cheney was in Manhattan last night, attending a public debate on negotiating with Iran, featuring his daughter Elizabeth Cheney, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs and the former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns.  Afterwards, according to Politico, “The former Vice President characterized the Iranian goal in negotiations on ending that country's nuclear program as mere stalling for time, and the Europeans as trying to ‘restrain the U.S.’ from military action.” Cheney went as far as to say that “Everybody's in a giant conspiracy to achieve a different objective than the one we want to achieve.”  Liz Cheney, for her part, characterized Burns’ work on sanctioning Iran, while he held the number three State Department job under Secretary Rice, as “weak,” pushing the usually diplomatic Nick Burns to note that he and Ms. Cheney “live in alternate universes.” Burns went on to say, “We ought to have the courage to see it and the courage to admit it... What President Obama is trying to do is to create a new type of diplomacy.”  But Burns said that Cheney, and other hardliners, were “leaving [Obama] with one option – and that is war.” [Politico, 5/12/09]

In fact, our closest allies share US opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran – but view negotiations as the only possible avenue toward that goal and have warmly welcomed US moves to reopen channels of diplomacy, with mutual respect but without illusions.  In the US, a broad bipartisan consensus, including five former Secretaries of State, has emerged in support of negotiations as the way forward with Iran.  The Obama administration began this process with softer language, such as the President’s Nowruz message to Iranians and a decision to refer to the country by the name its leaders choose, the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” the first time a U.S. president has implicitly recognized the current Iranian regime.  Obama’s administration has matched rhetorical flourishes with more substantive action with the administration’s plan to rejoin the ‘P5 + 1’ U.N. Security Council talks over Iran’s nuclear program.  State Department spokesman Robert Wood said last month that “the U.S. will join P-5+1 discussions with Iran from now on,” expressing that “[a] diplomatic solution necessitates a willingness to engage directly with each other on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interest.” Though there have been early positive signals, dealing with Iran will require that the U.S. exercise patience, a point vividly demonstrated by the trial, conviction and subsequent release of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi.  While Saberi’s release is a hopeful sign that engagement can move forward, as the New York Times reported, “Iran’s handling of the Saberi case underlined a deepening divide within its leadership about how to respond to President Obama’s recent overtures” - a divide that will continue to complicate efforts at engagement.  It also makes it all the more important that the U.S. gain unified, international support for its Iran policy, a process which has already begun with outreach to Europe, Russia and key Arab allies.  Contrary to Cheney’s claims our European allies are behind our efforts with Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy calling Iran’s nuclear program “unacceptable,” and Angela Merkel arguing that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have “disastrous consequences.”  Additionally, in April, President Obama signed a statement of principles with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, which included a reference to Iran, and last week, Secretary of Defense Gates traveled to Egypt and Saudi Arabia in an effort to instill confidence in the U.S. Iran strategy.  Dennis Ross, the Obama administration’s point man on Iran issues, also recently traveled to the Persian Gulf to reassure allies and gain support for the new policy.  [President Obama, 3/19/09. State Department Spokesperson Robert Wood, 4/08/09. NY Times, 4/15/09. NY Times, 5/12/09. Joint Statement by President Obama and President Medvedev, 4/01/09. CNN, 5/04/09.  Wall Street Journal, 4/27/09.  Angela Merkel, 3/18/08.  Nicolas Sarkozy, 9/25/08.  Gordon Brown, 3/17/09]

The isolation and belligerent rhetoric the Cheneys and others advocate failed to secure American interests over the past eight years.  During the eight years of the Bush administration, unnecessary saber-rattling, coupled with a refusal to talk to Iran, did nothing to make America more secure. Indeed, Iran made enormous advances both in nuclear technology and regional prestige. As David Ignatius said in the waning days of the Bush administration, “President Bush will leave office with a kind of double failure on Iran: Administration hard-liners haven't checked Tehran's drive to acquire nuclear-weapons technology, and moderates haven't engaged Iran in negotiation and dialogue.  The strategic balance between the two countries is the opposite of what Bush had hoped to accomplish: Iran is stronger than it was eight years ago, and the United States, fighting costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is weaker. Iran spurns America's carrots and dismisses its sticks.”  As Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the New York Times:  “instead of containing the program at a few dozen centrifuges, ‘Iran now has close to 5,500 centrifuges, and they have 1,000 kilos of low enriched uranium, and they have the know-how.’” Previously, El Baradei called the last five years of efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions a “failure.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/2/09. Weekly Standard, 3/30/09. Fox News, 3/22/09. David Ignatius, 11/8/08. Mohammed El Baradei via the NY Times, 4/12/09. LA Times, 12/06/08]

What We’re Reading

Pakistani forces press on against the Taliban in Swat valley.  Pakistan estimates that 1.3 million civilians have fled the fighting.  A new BBC map estimates that only 38% of north-west Pakistan is under Islamabad’s control.  The U.S. launches a new drone attack program that gives the Pakistani military significant control over targets and firing decisions.  

A bomb exploded at the gates of a U.S. base in Khost, Afghanistan, killing 7 Afghan civilians, a day after militants attacked Afghan government buildings in the city.  NATO supply trucks bound for Afghanistan were burned in north-west Pakistan.

In Bethlehem, Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian homeland, for lifting the embargo on Gaza, and urged Palestinians to refrain from terrorism.  The New York Times looks at the declining influence of Mideast Christians.

Despite a landmark oil deal, violence rises in Iraq’s volatile north, particularly in Mosul and Kirkuk.

The United States joined the U.N. Human Rights Council.

China jailed a leader of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, a few weeks ahead of the 20th anniversary of the movement.

The New York Times and the Washington Post profile Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is set to become the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

India holds the final phase of its month-long general elections today.  The results will be announced on May 16.

Heavy fighting erupts in Mogadishu.  The U.N. says Somalia is facing its worst drought in a decade.

The U.S. will once again use an airbase in Uzbekistan to supply troops in Afghanistan, however the base will officially be run by South Korea.

Commentary of the Day

Maureen Dowd points out hypocrisy in the Republican Party over former Vice President Dick Cheney’s public criticism of the Obama administration.  Michael Duffy asks, “Dick Cheney: Why So Chatty all of a Sudden?”

Vicki Divol explores the failures of the rules on how the White House keeps Congress informed of covert actions.

Garry Kasparov deplores Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s continued influence in Russia despite Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency.

Max Boot says that President Obama is “right on target” in Afghanistan with his selection of Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Aravind Adiga lays out four “emergencies” for the next prime minister of India to contend with.