[NYTr] Astounding But True: The Road to the Iran NIE Ran Through Pyongyang

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

China Matters - Dec 5, 2007
http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2007/12/astounding-but-true-road-to-iran-nie.html


Astounding But True: The Road to the Iran NIE Ran Through Pyongyang

by China Hand

In the wake of the release of the Iran National Intelligence Estimate
debunking the claims of a ongoing nuclear weapons program--claims that
served as the justification for our campaign to isolate, sanction, and
weaken Iran--China Matters reminds an astounded world that we predicted
the collapse of the Bush administration’s strategy of confronting Iran
back in October.

What I actually wrote was:

To summarize, the multilateral, sanctions-based united front against
Iran is deaddeaddeaddeaddeaddead.

Dead, OK?

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.

For hardliners in Israel and the United States, asserting the
existential Iranian nuclear threat to Israel was crucial to keeping the
foreign policy realists at bay.

By undermining the position that our Iran policy has to be subordinated
to the premise that Iran posed an imminent and implacable threat to
Israel, the NIE opens the door to engagement with Tehran that might
remove Israel—and reflexive U.S. support for its independent nuclear
deterrent and its militarized regional security policy—away from the
center of U.S. strategic thinking for the Middle East.

Maybe Secretary Rice has succeeded in imposing a new look at Middle
East policy on the Bush administration; and maybe that explains why
Frank Gaffney was squealing like a stuck pig about the Annapolis
conference.

The unexpected interaction between North Korea and the Middle East --
the furor over Israel’s bombing of the purported nuclear site in
Syria -- and its role in the efforts of conservatives in the United
States and Israel to construct a nuclear crisis-driven narrative for
Middle East diplomacy, is addressed in separate post from November, "Uzi
Arad’s Astounding Tales."

There I addressed the abortive attempt to create the appearance of a
proliferation crisis in Syria and wrote:

But it turns out that the key foreign policy conflict in Washington
isn’t between “bomb Syria and/or Iran” and “don’t bomb Syria and/or
Iran”.

It’s between proceeding with the same policy of regional escalation
that led us into Iraq or discreetly dialing back to the old
Palestine-centric approach to solving Israel’s security
problem -- something I’d call creeping Bakerism.

And if the Palestinian issue is accepted in Washington as the true root
of Israel’s problems, then the Iranian issue can be handled separately,
as a wary negotiation and accommodation between the world’s only
hyperpower and an important regional Islamic player.

So maybe the path to understanding the Middle East lies through Asia.
Funny, huh?

Below is the full text of the October 26, 2007 post.


Iran Recapitulates North Korea -- Not Iraq

October 25:

Speaking at a news conference after talks with Portuguese President
Anibal Cavaco Silva, Putin pointed to the long negotiations with North
Korea that led to an agreement earlier this year for that communist
nation to begin dismantling its nuclear facilities. "Not long ago it
didn't seem possible to resolve the situation with North Korea's
nuclear program, but we have practically solved it relying on peaceful
means," he said.

October 11:

In the overseas edition of the People's Daily -- the ruling Communist
Party's mouthpiece -- China's former ambassador to Iran said six-party
negotiations hosted by Beijing set an example for engaging Tehran,
which is pressing ahead with nuclear development that Western powers
say could give it weapons capability.

Keen observers will notice a pattern here.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.

This is exactly what happened last year, in a development apparently
only noticed by yours truly, after the detonation of the North Korean
bomb.

Condi Rice criss-crossed the globe in a futile quest to cobble together
an international coalition that would employ the mechanism of the U.N.
sanctions regime backed by Proliferation Security Initiative to
institute a destabilizing blockade of North Korea.

The effort finally collapsed at the APEC summit in Hanoi, when
President Bush got the definitive word that China and even South Korea,
our befuddled second-tier ally, wouldn’t sign on to the effort.

Instead of the United States pulling the strings as an army of
righteous puppets encircled North Korea, our allies decided they didn’t
have the confidence in our leadership.

More to the point, they weren’t assured of our solicitude in making
sure they didn’t bear a disproportionate share of the political and
geopolitical costs of a risky security initiative orchestrated by a
great power with a truly terrible track record—and told Washington to
play its own hand directly with Pyongyang.

There is a fundamental contradiction in unilateral policy trying to
exploit the tools of multilateralism. Our callous incompetence in Iraq
provided a practical demonstration of the risks. Our so-called allies
don’t trust us. We have to get it front and stay in front.

As a result, Christopher Hill met with the North Koreans in Berlin and
got the ball rolling. Although the negotiations continued under the
aegis of the Six Party talks, it was always up to the United States to
make the key concessions to demonstrate the viability of the process.

Given the absurd fiasco of the hardliner-orchestrated four-month delay
in lifting the Banco Delta Asia sanctions, not only the North Koreans
but the rest of the world community learned the importance of “trust
yet verify” in gauging American commitment to any multilateral
initiatives.

And it looks like America’s none-too-subtle attempts to leverage the
power of its unilateral financial sanctions—actually targeting our
recalcitrant “allies” who still insist on doing business with Iran,
since we don’t do any business with Iran anyway—aren’t going to gain a
lot of traction (the title of the LA Times article U.S. Move on Iran
alienating for Europe pretty much says it all).

I would like to think that even observers overly enamored of the
soft-power character of U.S. financial sanctions might recognize the
fundamental and fatal contradiction at the heart of our policy—we don’t
sanction the enemy, we have to sanction our allies because they don’t
support our policy—but I’m not holding my breath.

To summarize, the multilateral, sanctions-based united front against
Iran is deaddeaddeaddeaddeaddead.

Dead, OK?

What’s left is Dick Cheney’s Duke Nuke ‘em approach or North
Korea-style engagement...or drift.

Never count a sociopathic monomaniac out, I guess, but with a year left
in Bush’s lame duck administration, the hardliners bailing out in
droves, and the uniformed services dead set against another Middle East
war, the real choice is whether we will enter into a “grand bargain”
with Iran or let the current toxic policy meander on.

Given the fundamentally dysfunctional character of our foreign policy,
toxic meander is probably the way to go.

So what we’re going to get for the next 18 months is systematic
well-poisoning by the hardliners working to sabotage direct negotiation
with Tehran and preserve a debilitating state of hostility.

Current case in point: the North Korean nukes in Syria kerfluffle.

Even if there was a serious Syrian effort to develop some kind of
nuclear thingee—and it’s still far from clear, as Jeffrey Lewis points
out —it was years from fruition. It was probably worth observing but it
certainly wasn’t worth bombing.

However, it was bombed, and is being pushed into the center of debate
by hardliners in Tel Aviv and Washington.

The subtext, as I explained here , is to impose a zero sum them-or-us
narrative of existential nuclear crisis on Middle Eastern affairs, in
order to forestall bilateral talks between Washington and Tehran and a
grand bargain that might help extricate us from our self-inflicted Iraq
problem, but also remove Israel from its central place in Middle
Eastern affairs as America’s only important ally.

The usual dingbat suspects in the House of Representatives are tossing
Hail Maries in an attempt to use possible proliferation to Syria as
justification for pulling the plug on the Six Party Agreement with
North Korea, thereby discrediting the realists and negotiations with
Axis of Evil nations.

But the practical hardliner goal isn’t war—it’s just to muddy the
waters enough to keep peace from breaking out.

That’s what makes the current Iran flurry so tedious.Everybody’s
bending over backward not to provide a sanctions process or casus belli
that would empower the Washington hardliners.

Iran, Russia, China, and Europe are only interested in running out the
clock until the Bush administration is safely out of office.

And maybe Israel, too.

Based on the way I look at things, this excerpt from Haaretz posted by
the estimable Laura Rozen rang like a thunderclap:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of
closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do
not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in
an article on Livni to be published Friday. Livni also criticized the
exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue
of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public
around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad
chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.

Because if significant elements of the Israeli government are ready to
consider a world in which the Iranian nuclear threat is managed instead
of destroyed—and Israel perhaps accepts a place under the US deterrent
umbrella, mothballs its nukes, and abandons its regional ambitions for
the miserable and depressing work of working on its local Palestinian
problem—and leak their views to a receptive media and public, then the
neocon dream of creative destruction of the Middle East is drawing its
last breaths.

Unfortunately, of course, while there’s life there’s hope.

Hardline elements in Israel and the United States are only interested
in keeping things screwed up enough that the Democrats can’t take the
presidency and draw on the momentum of a credible, ongoing bipartisan
realist process of rapprochement to normalize relations with Iran.

If they can screw up things badly enough, in another decade—an eyeblink
to your far-sighted neocon--the door will be left open for genuine
military conflict down the road when, maybe, the armed forces are done
licking their Iraq wounds and are ready for another budget-fattening go
at a land war on the Eurasian continent.

So we get this zombie kabuki, with the hardline advocates of a dead,
discredited policy trying to infect the realists with their poison, and
the realists are trying to pretend they’re zombies in order to avoid
attack.

Outlook for 2007 and 2008: drift, danger, and dysfunction.

I think the reason the Left and Right fixate on the remote possibility
of an Iran war is because it distracts us from the true nature of the
U.S. situation: a distrusted, discredited, and marginalized hyperpower,
unable to effectively play its military card, resented for its record
of unremitting error and duplicity, feared as a dangerous,
unpredictable and out-of-control force that must be cajoled, flattered,
and accommodated at great cost while distracting the smaller and more
vulnerable nations of the earth from the very immediate and real
dangers that they now have to face alone.

We’re on the sidelines and nobody wants us to get back in the game.