Alert readers here are aware that a few weeks ago I started paying good attention to the blog “China Matters” written by someone identifying her/himself only as “China Hand.” I was impressed, primarily, by the decidedly non-US-centric and extremely well-informed way that CH was commenting on developments in Pakistan. I do think the “China” references in the title and the monicker are little misleading: this person knows a LOT about many other regions of the world in addition to China.
Yesterday, CH reminded his longer-term readers that back in October he had called Bush’s policy of ratcheting u the confrontation with Iran as being “deaddeaddeaddeaddeaddead.” In yesterday’s post he commented:
- It was a situation that was pretty clear only if one saw how determinedly key players in other capitals were pushing back against our Iran policy.
It’s an unsurprising but regrettable fact of life that the United States—and its opinion leaders and shapers—find it difficult to understand an international situation in which our framing and priorities are not necessarily decisive.
The true surprise is how abruptly we kicked the props out from under the Israeli government…
He also described the Bush administration’s general Middle East policy as “creeping Bakerism.” Personally, I prefer the term “stealth Bakerism”, which I find crisper and giving less of an impression that we might think Jim Baker was a “creep”. But the general idea’s the same– and China Hand called it exactly right!
He helpfully reproduces the whole of his October 26 post on the subject. The main methodology he used there was to pay careful attention to the ways that the Russian and Chinese leaders were framing issues of nuclear proliferation/nonproliferation and to conclude that:
- Russia and China—two of the five veto holders on the Security Council—want the North Korea deal to serve as the template for Iran.
What does this mean?
It means that world opinion has abandoned the Bush administration on the creation of a united front of coercion against Iran.
Precisely. And a lot of the rest of the post is worth reading, too. Especially CH’s observations on how the US has come to use economic and financial sanctions more to discipline and punish those of its own supposed allies who are inclined to step out of line, than to punish the accused “evildoers.”
As a relative newcomer to CH’s blog, I am really delighted he decided to blow his own horn a bit in yesterday’s post and refer us back to the October post. It is obviously going to become increasingly necessary to be able to see things in a non-US-centric way– and to have the knowledge-base with which to do so. China Matters looks like an increasingly important resource for us all.
Interesting speculation, regarding the pushing match in Washington and the assumed role of Baker.
Iranian perspectives by Farideh Fahri at http://icga.blogspot.com/
and Nader Uskowi at http://uskowioniran.blogspot.com/
I wasn’t surprised by this new NIE. Since you posted about Iran possibly agreeing to its uranium enrichment being done in Switzerland, I’ve been wondering how Iran would put the nuclear weapon issue to bed? Then bingo!
There isn’t any particular mystery about why NK caved in on its nuke program is there? The Bush Admin refused to conduct bi-lateral talks with NK, putting the onus on China and the others to help solve it. China obviously could only get so far against NK intransigence. But when NK tested its bomb, China took the opportunity and moved at the speed of light and pulled NK into line.
Since then it’s been obvious that Bush/Rice have been pursuing the same track viz a vis Iran, ie using Russia and China as the point men. Since it was hard to believe that the Mullahs would be irrational enough to provoke a US air attack on their infrastructure, then what would follow is that when they had calculated they had extracted the maximum deal, then they would, like NK, back off.
What would precede that would be signs of back door diplomacy and confidence building actions between US and Iran. Another recent sign of this was the US releasing, without much fanfare, 9 of the Iranians they are holding in Iraq? Another sign has been the distinct cooling off of inflammatory rhetoric from both countries which has been noticeable for the past few months.
You really need to go back to Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. Of the three countries named, Iraq is out of the equation as a wmd threat; NK is disbandoning its nuclear program in return for US recognition and economic favours and Iran has had the same deal on the table since June last year and now seems to be moving to close it?
Not a bad achievement for Bush in 6 years I would suggest?
BB – Except for the fact that Iraq had no WMD program in the first place, the NK deal that GWB agreed to was lass favorable than the deal that was on the table 6 years ago and Iran gave up its WMD program long before GWB got involved with his rhetoric and sanctions, your analysis is flawless.
“I wasn’t surprised by this new NIE. Since you posted about Iran possibly agreeing to its uranium enrichment being done in Switzerland, I’ve been wondering how Iran would put the nuclear weapon issue to bed?”
Ummmmmm – Iran “put the nuclear weapon issue to bed” four years ago.
“when they had calculated they had extracted the maximum deal, then they would, like NK, back off.”
Ummmmm – the only “backing off” they have done so far they did very quietly four years ago.
“Another sign has been the distinct cooling off of inflammatory rhetoric from both countries which has been noticeable for the past few months.”
Are you KIDDING us?! Or are you living in some parallel universe? Bush’s rhetoric has not cooled off, if anything it has escalated. Only recently he was blathering on about how if Iran wasn’t stopped (from doing what it is not doing) it could result in WW III. (Of course, what Bush did not point out was that it is not Iran that is going to start WW III, but Bush himself – by bombing Iran.) And Bush is still lamely trying to keep the rhetoric hot despite a growing body of evidence that there is no “there” there at all – as if that surprised anyone.
“You really need to go back to Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. Of the three countries named, Iraq is out of the equation as a wmd threat;”
Ummmmmm – where have you been? They failed to find WMD, or didn’t you know that? My god, even when they lowered the bar to “WMD related activities” they couldn’t even pull THAT fake rabbit out of their hats (or something lower on the anatomy). In short, Iraq was not IN the question as a WMD threat.
“Iran has had the same deal on the table since June last year and now seems to be moving to close it?”
Close what? IF Iran did in fact have a nuclear weapons program (and we have not seen a lot of evidence that it did) it apparently stopped it four years ago. And if you read the NIE it appears that stopping that program was mainly an internal decision, taken quietly, and maybe, maybe not in some way connected with European efforts, but sure as hell not having anything to do with any action on the part of the Bush regime. In the meantime, they do not appear inclined – nor should they be – to stop what is according to all evidence a perfectly legal, legitimate, and logical effort to develop the technology to produce nuclear power.
I, for one, hope they stick to their rights, and continue with their nuclear program.
Shirin:
“Iran “put the nuclear issue to bed” four years ago.” Maybe, but if so they could have said so at the time as Libya did – ie after the removal of the Baath regime in Iraq? Methinks they preferred to drive a harder bargain and test out Bush’s resolve by putting their not inconsiderable efforts into adding to his headaches in Iraq.
The Iranians have shown themselves to be very smart, Shirin, you should give them more credit. Unlike the (largely Sunni) Arab states, Iran stopped playing “victims” of the west in 1979.
“Inflammatory rhetoric”: I agree this is impressionistic, depending on the ears of the beholder. All can say is I do read this stuff voraciously daily, Shirin, and I have noticed a significant lessening on both sides since those talks Iran joined that were supposedly on Iraq alone. The Swiss uranium enrichment connection, the release of 9 Iranians from US custody in Iraq to know fanfare from either side, the Israeli action in Syria, again which no one wants to talk about least of all the Syrians, and etc etc are all signs of high level backroom dealings and manouvrings.
As for when Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program: the question is WHY the NIE can make that assessment today when only two years ago it made the exactly opposite assessment?
ie: what intelligence does it have today that it didn’t two years ago, where did it come from and why? Why would the NIE make such a dramatic turnaround with such confidence when it seemed to be so wrong in its assessment of Iraq? I would suggest that it is because the intelligence comes from the primary source itself, Iran? So that begs the next question “why has Iran made the decision to clarify the history of its nuclear weapons program at this moment?”
Alternatively, of course, Iran might be playing deep disinformation as the right wing will paranoically believe. If they are right or wrong we will know soon enough over the next 12 months of the Bush Administration.
btw the NYT account of the turnaround seemed to me on the face of it extremely convoluted and unconvincing. If those reasons are all the NIE changed its assessment on you could expect the Israelis will take matters into their own hands eventually. But I don’t think that’s likely either: the Iranians and the Israelis have had their channels of mutual self interest ever since the Baathists attacked Iran in ’79. My money is on the rapprochement. In fact I couldn’t see how it could be anything else, once China so descively brought NK to heel!
“Iran “put the nuclear issue to bed” four years ago.” Maybe, but if so they could have said so at the time as Libya did – ”
Why would they, given that their alleged nuclear weapons program – assuming it actually existed at all – was covert to begin with, and had not been exposed?
“ie after the removal of the Baath regime in Iraq?”
One of the most likely possibilities is that they quietly put their covert nuclear weapons program “to bed” – assuming it ever existed in the first place – because they decided they no longer needed it once the threat of the Ba`th regime in Iraq was removed.
“Methinks they preferred to drive a harder bargain and test out Bush’s resolve by putting their not inconsiderable efforts into adding to his headaches in Iraq.”
Methinks that is utter rubbish. Methinks first of all that their contribution to Bush’s entirely self-generated headaches in Iraq is inconsequential, and mainly limited to its connection with the very make-believe Iraq government that Bush helped put into place, and is keeping in place at his pleasure.
“The Iranians have shown themselves to be very smart, Shirin, you should give them more credit.”
I give them credit for making decisions in their own interest, and not always dependent on what “the west” does. You, on the other hand, seem to have the typical, patronizing imperialist view that brown people in the Middle East never do anything that is not determined by the west.
““Inflammatory rhetoric”: I agree this is impressionistic, depending on the ears of the beholder. All can say is I do read this stuff voraciously daily, Shirin, and I have noticed a significant lessening on both sides since those talks Iran joined that were supposedly on Iraq alone.”
Well, if you really believe that Bush barking about WW III is a lessening of rhetoric then I cannot help you.
“The Swiss uranium enrichment connection, the release of 9 Iranians from US custody in Iraq to know fanfare from either side, the Israeli action in Syria, again which no one wants to talk about least of all the Syrians, and etc etc are all signs of high level backroom dealings and manouvrings.”
Oh yeah! Bombing Syria and proclaiming out of the blue that the target was a nuclear facility set up by North Korea is a real cooling of rhetoric! In whose world?
“As for when Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program: the question is WHY the NIE can make that assessment today when only two years ago it made the exactly opposite assessment?”
Setting aside the very serious questions as to whether Iran ever actually had a nuclear weapons program, there are lots of possible explanations, not the least of which that the U.S. intelligence community, which had clearly become horribly politicized by the Bush regime, finally discovered and attached to itself a pair of cojones.
“ie: what intelligence does it have today that it didn’t two years ago, where did it come from and why? Why would the NIE make such a dramatic turnaround with such confidence when it seemed to be so wrong in its assessment of Iraq?”
See above. Oh – and by the way, its original assessment of Iraq was not so wrong. It only got wrong after considerable pressure from the regime, most notably Dick Cheney, and then of course there was the Pentagon which set up its own “fix the intelligence to the policy” group.
“I would suggest that it is because the intelligence comes from the primary source itself, Iran? So that begs the next question “why has Iran made the decision to clarify the history of its nuclear weapons program at this moment?””
Have you read the NIE? I am betting the answer is no.
And desperate blah and blah and so on and so forth.
The bottom line is that the Bush regime has tried to manufacture an “Iran crisis” as a pretext to attack in much the same way they manufactured the “Iraq crisis” which by now everyone with an IQ above 50 must realize was completely bogus. Iran has never been, is not now, and most likely will never be a threat to anyone EVEN IF they were to have a nuclear bomb or two one day. Iran has no history of aggression, and they have no realistic motivation to change that.
Perhaps Iran’s greatest strategic achievement will turn out to be that the US, following bb’s reasoning, convinces itself that GWB’s foreign policy has been completely successful, and persists in its course for a further decade or so.
Shirin:
Thanks. Just a couple of comments:
Agree with your assessment that “one of the most likely possibilities” is that Iran “quietly” put its nuclear weapons program to bed because it no longer needed it “once the threat of the Ba’th regime in Iraq was removed.”
It was one of the (perhaps unforeseen) beneficial strategic effects of the US action to remove the Baath regime and outlaw the Baath Party. It seems the Iranians were in no doubt as to what Saddam’s intentions would have been had he succeeded in his campaign to get rid of the UN sanctions?
However it is wrong to say the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program had NOT been exposed. It’s my recollection it was the Libya’s voluntary disbandoning of its nuclear program in the wake of 9/11 which exposed the role of the so-called “rogue” Pakistani nuclear scientist in passing technology to NK and Iran as well as Libya? The diplomatic “pressure” on Iran started from that point when it was realised Iran had obtained this technology.
Incidentally until that time Libya’s nuclear development, like Iran’s, had been completely covert – the extent of it apparently came as a surprise to western intelligence agencies?
Bevin:
we shall see in time?
btw I suggest another straw in the wind that Iran and US are moving to rapprochement is Helena’s post about Iran taking part in the recent GCC Dohar conference? And also Iran’s recent replacement of its nuclear negotiator. In a political context a move like that often signals a change in a negotiating strategy? And the tougher the negotiator, often the greater the change!
I have read the Iranians are very good chess players so there are interesting times ahead.
Shirin:
Thanks. Just a couple of comments:
Agree with your assessment that “one of the most likely possibilities” is that Iran “quietly” put its nuclear weapons program to bed because it no longer needed it “once the threat of the Ba’th regime in Iraq was removed.”
It was one of the (perhaps unforeseen) beneficial strategic effects of the US action to remove the Baath regime and outlaw the Baath Party. It seems the Iranians were in no doubt as to what Saddam’s intentions would have been had he succeeded in his campaign to get rid of the UN sanctions?
However it is wrong to say the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program had NOT been exposed. It’s my recollection it was the Libya’s voluntary disbandoning of its nuclear program in the wake of 9/11 which exposed the role of the so-called “rogue” Pakistani nuclear scientist in passing technology to NK and Iran as well as Libya? The diplomatic “pressure” on Iran started from that point when it was realised Iran had obtained this technology.
Incidentally until that time Libya’s nuclear development, like Iran’s, had been completely covert – the extent of it apparently came as a surprise to western intelligence agencies?
Bevin:
we shall see in time?
btw I suggest another straw in the wind that Iran and US are moving to rapprochement is Helena’s post about Iran taking part in the recent GCC Dohar conference? And also Iran’s recent replacement of its nuclear negotiator. In a political context a move like that often signals a change in a negotiating strategy? And the tougher the negotiator, often the greater the change!
I have read the Iranians are very good chess players so there are interesting times ahead.
I have read the Iranians are very good chess players so there are interesting times ahead.
They invented it!
heh, heh, say no more, Salah!
btw I should have known that! If I had I would have been far more confident about my Iran predictions a long time ago!