Confidental offer to Iran allows enrichment (1 Viewer)

[python416]

Leading up to this break through, the situation seemed to boil down to:

1) Iran insisting that it be allow to enrich Uranium for a civil program (as allowed by the NPT) under any inspection regime the IAEA wanted to mandate

2) the Bush adminstration continually saying that Iran must abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions and live up to its global commitments, which included stopping all enrichment activities


Now, it seems that the US has flipflopped and is talking about reversing the sanctions, potentially providing some LWR technology, and giving up on the enrichment ban.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600685.html?sub=AR


So from my point of view, it seems the Bush administration beat its chest at Iran (especially since the Axis-of-evil speech), while at the same time increasing Iranian geopolitical power (through overthrowing Saddam and pumping up oil demand), and now is caving in the end anyways.

Can a please GOPer explain to me the rationale for this neocon flipflop?

And maybe illustrate how this situation could have been handled in a less productive way?

 

[jfuh]

Thought I'm not a GOP'er however this is just another perfect example of the true nature of International politics. Clinton administration started secret negotiations with Libya's Kadaffi on his Nuke program and resulted in success as the Bush admin carried the relay.

I think the Bush white house while screaming it's axis of evil rhetoric also realizes the need for talks with Iran. Some good may yet develope from this.

 

[BWG]

Isn't this what Republicans said would happen if you voted for Kerry?

APPEASEMENT

Well they were right for once (if you voted for Kerry, that is).

 

[Kandahar]

They'd possibly be allowed to enrich uranium in the distant future, since there seems to be a nationalist demand for it within Iran. However, they'd be forced to "delay" enrich until the IAEA verifiably concluded that their program was peaceful...which presumably wouldn't happen for a very long time.

I think this is a step in the right direction. While I do favor military action against Iran if they won't stop, anything to pull us back from the brink would be good because we cannot really afford another war. Hopefully the Islamic Republic is long gone before Iran is allowed to resume its nuclear activities.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What's the problem?
Threats of force are well-established diplomatic ploys that've ben in use for millenia. Realistic assessments of the situation showed that the use of force was a bad deal all the way around - no one would really get what they wanted and everyone's situation would be made worse.

This way [assuming that this is legit and that it takes] the US can say we made Iran back down from their weapons ambitions, Iran can say that they stood up to the US re their nuclear power program, the rest of the world can stop sweating about whether their petro supplies would suddenly be in jeopardy.

 

[Pen]

I think both Bush and Ahmedijan backed themselves into a diplomatic corner with their heated rhetoric. This new offer saves face for both of them and allows for continued negotiations. There is a fairly long thread in the Middle East forum that has been discussing this cat and mouse game.

 

[python416]

They'd possibly be allowed to enrich uranium in the distant future, since there seems to be a nationalist demand for it within Iran. However, they'd be forced to "delay" enrich until the IAEA verifiably concluded that their program was peaceful...which presumably wouldn't happen for a very long time.

I think this is a step in the right direction. While I do favor military action against Iran if they won't stop, anything to pull us back from the brink would be good because we cannot really afford another war. Hopefully the Islamic Republic is long gone before Iran is allowed to resume its nuclear activities.

Iran has always been open to any IAEA inspection regime, and the Bush adminstration has always said that it was non-starter.

If a flipflop was needed to bring us back from the brink of war, then they shouldn't have taken such a hawkish stance in the first place. And if they wanted to take that stance, they should have taken in to consideration the poor position their foreign policy has put the US in before racheting up the rhectoric to this level.

Again, I have a hard time imagining how this could have been handled in a less productive way.

 

[python416]

What's the problem?
Threats of force are well-established diplomatic ploys that've ben in use for millenia. Realistic assessments of the situation showed that the use of force was a bad deal all the way around - no one would really get what they wanted and everyone's situation would be made worse.

This way [assuming that this is legit and that it takes] the US can say we made Iran back down from their weapons ambitions, Iran can say that they stood up to the US re their nuclear power program, the rest of the world can stop sweating about whether their petro supplies would suddenly be in jeopardy.

No one (especially outside the US) sees this as the US making Iran back down from anything. Instead, it is a clear flipflop in that not only has the US reversed their position of no enrichment under any circumstance, but now they ar talking about removing the sanctions and giving LWR technology as well. Might as well throw in some trips to Disney land while you are at it.

 

[python416]

I think both Bush and Ahmedijan backed themselves into a diplomatic corner with their heated rhetoric. This new offer saves face for both of them and allows for continued negotiations. There is a fairly long thread in the Middle East forum that has been discussing this cat and mouse game.

Again, Ahmedijan's only sticking point was the legal right under the NPT to enrich for civilian use, while allowing the IAEA to do any verification it wants. This point was a non-starter for the US.

Now the US has flipfloped, and really didn't gain anything - but my point is, what was the point of Bush taking such a hardline position in the first place, if he couldn't support his hand at the table.

Politically, this would have been a bad week for the GOP if it wasn't for the old favourite of Gay Marriage and now with the killing of al-Zarqawi. I imagine this will become an issue in the 2006 races at some point, unless the Dems are completely braindead (which they likely are).

 

[Kelzie]

Again, Ahmedijan's only sticking point was the legal right under the NPT to enrich for civilian use, while allowing the IAEA to do any verification it wants. This point was a non-starter for the US.

Now the US has flipfloped, and really didn't gain anything - but my point is, what was the point of Bush taking such a hardline position in the first place, if he couldn't support his hand at the table.

Politically, this would have been a bad week for the GOP if it wasn't for the old favourite of Gay Marriage and now with the killing of al-Zarqawi. I imagine this will become an issue in the 2006 races at some point, unless the Dems are completely braindead (which they likely are).

The US gained plenty. We diffused a potentionally explosive situation while getting what we wanted. Iran won't be able to enrich for decades, if not more.

 

[oldreliable67]

Iran has always been open to any IAEA inspection regime,

Is that literally true? It is my impression that the Iranian's restricted the IAEA inspections to the sites that the Iranians chose and excluded the IAEA inspectors from other sites. Moreover, there is evidence of a number of hidden or unacknowledged sites at which nuke activities were strongly suspected of being carried out.

 

[Kandahar]

Iran has always been open to any IAEA inspection regime, and the Bush adminstration has always said that it was non-starter.

No, Iran wanted to enrich uranium itself with little to no oversight by the IAEA. That's why it was dangerous; if there were reliable inspectors, it wouldn't be nearly as much of a security risk.

If a flipflop was needed to bring us back from the brink of war, then they shouldn't have taken such a hawkish stance in the first place.

I'd hardly call the Bush Administration's position "hawkish." They've done nothing to stop Iran (until, hopefully, now) and have repeatedly said that they weren't seriously considering military options.

And if they wanted to take that stance, they should have taken in to consideration the poor position their foreign policy has put the US in before racheting up the rhectoric to this level.

Definitely. But what does that have to do with what's going on now?

Again, I have a hard time imagining how this could have been handled in a less productive way.

I can...They could've NOT offered this deal and adhered to the status quo...

 

[Kandahar]

No one (especially outside the US) sees this as the US making Iran back down from anything. Instead, it is a clear flipflop in that not only has the US reversed their position of no enrichment under any circumstance, but now they ar talking about removing the sanctions and giving LWR technology as well. Might as well throw in some trips to Disney land while you are at it.

I think it's pretty clear that the sanctions haven't worked, as usual. I've never understood why so many people see economic/diplomatic engagement as appeasement or as a reward for bad behavior, when in reality it helps us just as much as it helps them.

Let's look at our various Cold War policies to see which worked better. With the Soviet Union and China, we engaged and got them to open their economies. With Cuba and North Korea, we shunned them and refuse to even acknowledge their existence. Which two are still communist and which two are not?

 

[Kelzie]

I think it's pretty clear that the sanctions haven't worked, as usual. I've never understood why so many people see economic/diplomatic engagement as appeasement or as a reward for bad behavior, when in reality it helps us just as much as it helps them.

Let's look at our various Cold War policies to see which worked better. With the Soviet Union and China, we engaged and got them to open their economies. With Cuba and North Korea, we shunned them and refuse to even acknowledge their existence. Which two are still communist and which two are not?

I read a fantastic paper arguing that sanctions never work. The conclusion was basically that the threat of sanctions will motivate parties to act if they are going to. By the time it gets to the sanction point, you are dealing with someone who will obviously not cooperate.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

No one (especially outside the US) sees this as the US making Iran back down from anything. Instead, it is a clear flipflop in that not only has the US reversed their position of no enrichment under any circumstance, but now they ar talking about removing the sanctions and giving LWR technology as well. Might as well throw in some trips to Disney land while you are at it.

You silly people in the reality based community

 

[oldreliable67]

I think it's pretty clear that the sanctions haven't worked

I'm not so sure that sanctions have been ineffective in this case. Perhaps not 100% effective, and I certainly don't know enough about the Iranian economy to put a specific percentage figure on the effectiveness. But, consider that the Iranian economy has had to be highly subsidized for some years now, and without the petrodollars from crude sales, the Iranian government would be hard pressed to maintain the Iranian standard of living. For example, Iran produces very little of its own gasoline and has to import the majority of it. Doing so is quite expensive, but yet the Iranian government subsidizes gasoline to the extent that the retail price is something around 30 to 40 cents per gallon, IIRC.

In the meantime, the petroleum industry infrastructure has deteriorated badly from the lack of spare parts and inability to modernize, thus threatening the very source of the Iranian governments ability to subsidize the economy. (Refer back to the list of stuff needed posted up by jujuman13, for example).

Sanctions haven't resulted in regime change in Iran, but they have clearly put the regime under considerable pressure. When viewed in this context, Iran's pushing for nuclear weapons so as to become a regional hegemon makes all kinds of sense - from their point of view.

 

[oldreliable67]

2) the Bush adminstration continually saying that Iran must abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions and live up to its global commitments, which included stopping all enrichment activities

Now, it seems that the US has flipflopped and is talking about reversing the sanctions, potentially providing some LWR technology, and giving up on the enrichment ban.

I suggest that 'flipflopping' - if indeed thats what it is, is allowed if it reduces the risk of a terrorism-sponsoring state possessing nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, the characterization of the US position having 'flipflopped' doesn't quite square with the facts, so far as we know them today, IMO. From the article that you cited,

That concession, along with a promise of U.S. assistance for an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program, is conditioned on Tehran suspending its current nuclear work until the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency determines with confidence that the program is peaceful. U.S. officials said Iran would also need to satisfy the U.N. Security Council that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, a benchmark that White House officials believe could take years, if not decades, to achieve.

While we still don't know the specifics of the package, the article that you cited clearly suggests that, as the US has stated all along, we have no problem with Iran's possession of peaceful nuclear energy sources. We have a big problem with Iran's pursuing nuclear technology beyond that required for peaceful purposes.

Your couching of your post in terms of "GOP'ers" and "neo-cons" suggests that you are less interested in looking at the facts (even those contained in the article that you cited) than in just plain ol' baiting. Yes? No?

 

[Kelzie]

I'm not so sure that sanctions have been ineffective in this case. Perhaps not 100% effective, and I certainly don't know enough about the Iranian economy to put a specific percentage figure on the effectiveness. But, consider that the Iranian economy has had to be highly subsidized for some years now, and without the petrodollars from crude sales, the Iranian government would be hard pressed to maintain the Iranian standard of living. For example, Iran produces very little of its own gasoline and has to import the majority of it. Doing so is quite expensive, but yet the Iranian government subsidizes gasoline to the extent that the retail price is something around 30 to 40 cents per gallon, IIRC.

In the meantime, the petroleum industry infrastructure has deteriorated badly from the lack of spare parts and inability to modernize, thus threatening the very source of the Iranian governments ability to subsidize the economy. (Refer back to the list of stuff needed posted up by jujuman13, for example).

Sanctions haven't resulted in regime change in Iran, but they have clearly put the regime under considerable pressure. When viewed in this context, Iran's pushing for nuclear weapons so as to become a regional hegemon makes all kinds of sense - from their point of view.

For evaluation purposes, sanctions are considered a failure if they do not result in the change of behavior desired. Seeing as Iran has been under sanction for almost two decades with little to no change on their part, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a failure. The fact that their economy is suffering or that it has to be subsidized or that without oil they'd collapse is irrelevant. If it doesn't achieve the goal, it has failed and the goal of a sanction is not to harm their economy.

I was supposed to help with some research on sanctions this summer. Woulda been cool, it's an interesting subject.

 

[oldreliable67]

For evaluation purposes, sanctions are considered a failure if they do not result in the change of behavior desired. Seeing as Iran has been under sanction for almost two decades with little to no change on their part, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a failure. The fact that their economy is suffering or that it has to be subsidized or that with oil they'd collapse is irrelevant. If it doesn't achieve the goal, it has failed and the goal of a sanction is not to harm their economy.

I was supposed to help with some research on sanctions this summer. Woulda been cool, it's an interesting subject.

Thats interesting, Kelzie. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that sanctions have failed thus far? By your analysis, if the Iranians accept the package of incentives and thus become more integrated into the world's economy and no longer sponsor terrorism, would you say then that the sanctions were successful? Could one not argue that they would have never come to this point without the sanctions?

I don't know how these sanctions could not have - intentionally - harmed their economy over a long period of time. A lessening of Iran's ability to pump and/or market crude seems pretty well certain to harm the economy - their just ain't much else to their economy (relatively). How could the goal of these particular sanctions not have been to harm the economy and thus promote a desire on the part of the general population for a regime change?

A related point: what would say has been the goal of the sanctions? Regime change? Or behavioral change regardless of whether or not it involved regime change?

 

[Kelzie]

Thats interesting, Kelzie. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that sanctions have failed thus far? By your analysis, if the Iranians accept the package of incentives and thus become more integrated into the world's economy and no longer sponsor terrorism, would you say then that the sanctions were successful? Could one not argue that they would have never come to this point without the sanctions?

You've found one of the weak points of the study. It's never definitive because the majority of the sanctions that were being looked at were ongoing. Another was one of the criteria it used to judge the effects on like-minded countries surrounding the sanctioned country. Presumably, if surrounding countries were engaging in similar actions (which is likely given regional trends in many parts of the world) a sanction against one of them would make the others nervous. However, the way it was hypothesized/measured was to look at increasing trade with the US after the sanctions were put in place. The problems are multiple. One is that since they were in the same region, it is extremely likely that they will be producing the same products. The US now has an open market for those products, since they are sanctioning the offending country. Of course trade with the US will increase in that situation. The second problem is that it confuses what private business men and the government do.

I'm rather proud of the second problem, I was the one who found it.:lol:

I don't know how these sanctions could not have - intentionally - harmed their economy over a long period of time. A lessening of Iran's ability to pump and/or market crude seems pretty well certain to harm the economy - their just ain't much else to their economy (relatively). How could the goal of these particular sanctions not have been to harm the economy and thus promote a desire on the part of the general population for a regime change?

The purpose assumed of sanctions is to change a behavior through harming the economy. Harming the economy is certainly intentional, but it is always going to happen in a sanction, that's what it is. However, it is not a goal that can be used to say it was successful. Another (more drastic) tool for changing behavior is military action. Say we have a hypothetical situation in which Country A bombs Country B to get B to stop...oh I don't know, damming a shared river. If Country B does not in fact stop the dam, it would be nonsensical to say "Oh it partially worked, because Country A did succeed in bombing them." A bombing is assumed in this case, much like economic hardship is for a sanction.

A related point: what would say has been the goal of the sanctions? Regime change? Or behavioral change regardless of whether or not it involved regime change?

The sanctions against Iran formally began with the Iran-Libya Sanction Act in 1996. Clinton had many goals, but the major ones were for Iran to stop supporting international terrorism, to reduce its arms build up and assure the world community that it wouldn't try to develop nuclear weapons. Basically it's just a desire for them to be nicer.

 

[oldreliable67]

First, you said...

and the goal of a sanction is not to harm their economy.

Then you said...

The purpose assumed of sanctions is to change a behavior through harming the economy.

Jeez, I know that I am easily confused, but ya' don't have to make it any worse than it already is!

I'm rather proud of the second problem, I was the one who found it.

Good job! :cheers:

 

[Kelzie]

First, you said...

Then you said...


Jeez, I know that I am easily confused, but ya' don't have to make it any worse than it already is!


Good job! :cheers:

Those two aren't mutually exclusive, at least not through my eyes. The goal of a sanction is to change a behavior. This is done through intentionally harming the economy, but harming the economy is not the goal.

 

[oldreliable67]

Those two aren't mutually exclusive, at least not through my eyes. The goal of a sanction is to change a behavior. This is done through intentionally harming the economy, but harming the economy is not the goal.

Oh. Well, good job, anyway! :cheers:

 

[Kelzie]

Oh. Well, good job, anyway! :cheers:

:lol: Thanks.

 

[python416]

The US gained plenty. We diffused a potentionally explosive situation while getting what we wanted. Iran won't be able to enrich for decades, if not more.

I guess I still don't quite understand, because they are still going to be open to enrichment no? And they have always been open to any IAEA verification the UN or anyone else wants - so how is this result different from what would have taken place if the US just kept them out of the Axis of Evil? My understanding is that in that case, they still would have had enrichment, but no other bargining offers like removal of sanctions, or LWR technology.

Where does it say that Iran has given up enrichment for decades?