Iran still playing games

Oliver Kamm posts on the IAEA report that concludes that Iran is still not being transparent about its nuclear programme. This is foolhardy in the the extreme. UN Security Council resolutions, most recently NSC 1803, have called for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme and for Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA.

I agree with Oliver Kamm that now is the time for international pressure as past experience has shown (as evidenced in the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran) that Iran does bow to pressure when it is exerted. Some of Oliver's language grates a bit (such as the notion that the UK and US have to 'deal with' Iran...not in the negotiating sense!) and he repeats one or two assertions that I have rebutted elsewhere but his conclusions are broadly right.

Now is the time for cool heads, clever diplomacy, multilateral unity, and for Iran's friends to counsel caution and compliance. It is also necessary to offer Iran a vision of what its place in the region and the world could be. Rather than playing the silly politics of verbal aggression, now is the time to be resolute but generous. Let's coax Iran back into legitimacy rather than provoke it into disastrous and ever more petulant isolation.

Resolving Iran's nuclear programme, whether it is truly civil or otherwise, is a test of whether the world can enter a post neo-conservative era. And Mr Bush, keep your finger well and truly away from the trigger.

Obama and McCain spat continues

The war of words between Senators Obama and McCain has continued into today. John McCain accused Senator Obama of 'inexperience and reckless' judgement.

I find two elements of the McCain position confusing:

i) President Ahmadinejad is in power and it really is irrelevant whether the US hands him a 'propaganda victory' by meeting up with him if that is indeed all it would be. A meeting doesn't change things with regard to Ahmadinejad's position in Iran in the slightest either way. The bellicose approach has failed so what exactly is there to lose?

ii) What is McCain proposing instead? Do what we say or else? What if Iran doesn't comply? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (as McCain once hilariously sang to the tune of Barbara Anne by the Beach Boys)?

In no way am I suggesting that any recourse should be taken off the table or under-estimating the threat posed by Iran (in the Middle East at least) but I just don't see how the McCain strategy leads to anything other than embarrassment for the US, an uneasy and probably unsustainable deadlock, or a military strike on Iran. If stand-off diplomacy is the way we are going to continue, then the options and outcomes are narrowed drastically.

The only amazing thing about this spat, is that Senator Obama's position is portrayed as so extreme. It has its risks but there really is very little to lose and everything to gain.

Iran hawks

Oliver Kamm (who has taken our debate onto his blog here), self-styled left-wing neo-con, is upset that I suggested that Hillary's threat to obliterate Iran (given this, given that....) was irresponsible.

I'll build my case on the argument rather than the more personal approach that Mr Kamm adopts in his response to my article on his blog. I based much (but not all) of my criticism of Senator Clinton on a US intelligence document, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. The conclusions (it's very short report so it's worth a read) are available here.

Just some highlights:

- Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme (as defined: For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.
- The DNI is 'moderately confident' that Iran could technically produce enough fissile material between 2010-2015. There is a 'possibility' that this will not be the case until after 2015.
- Iran halted the programme in 2003 in response to international pressure.
- It is 'moderately' confident that dissuading Iran from eventually developing a nuclear weapon will be difficult. Furthermore, it assesses with moderate to high confidence that Iran is keeping open the option of re-starting its nuclear weapons programme.
- It is 'moderately' confident that Iran would use covert sites to to develop high grade uranium. Such covert enrichment ceased in 2003 at the same time that the weapons programme halted.

So we have to be aware of the real possibility that Iran may still be pursuing a nuclear weapon by other means and will have the capability within a decade. We also have to acknowledge that, as things stand, its programme is halted and that there is enormous scope for negotiation and international pressure.

Mr Kamm, of course, reads a lot into my argument that wasn't there- I'd like him to show exactly where I assert or suggest that Iran is not a threat or a concern. Rather on the balance of the evidence contained within the NIE, a bellicose approach is just not justified.

And if you are a Presidential candidate who is asked ''if' Iran had a nuclear weapon and 'if' it attacked Israel what would you do?' and you respond 'we could obliterate them' then that is grossly irresponsible. The NIE suggests a more diplomatic and negotiated way forward. The scenario presented of a nuclear attack on Israel is just plucked out of the air.

You can see that Senator Obama responds in a very different way. See Meet The Press last Sunday. This must be why Mr Kamm groups Senators McCain and Clinton on these issues. He is right to. On the basis of recent comments both would constitute a continuation of neo-con foreign policy.

Of course, one major reason that you shouldn't threaten to 'obliterate Iran' is that it will actually be counter-productive. If you back Iran into a corner then any negotiated conclusion becomes less likely. Potential national humiliation is the enemy of progress on this threat. International support for our position will be diminished. Beyond that, be careful what you threaten you might just create a situation where you have to follow through....very quickly you can lose control of events.

Anyway, it's good to know that the hawks are watching over us....

Postscript: Hawks come in pairs it would seem. Stephen Pollard has repeated Oliver Kamm's points (for amplification presumably) mis-representing the argument all the way but that's a familiar tactic.

Of course, those silly Iranians won't hear Hillary threaten to 'obliterate' them. No one else will hear it either. It's just a political game. Has no impact. Hell, let's have some fun playing all sorts of scenarios through and issuing all sorts of threats. It's just deterrence. They don't know that the US has the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet. So they have to be told....

It would seem that 'hearts and minds' still does not have a place in the neo-con's dictionary...

I do notice that Mr Pollard refers to Mr Kamm as the 'master.' Enough said.