Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Critiquing a Critique of Obama’s Approach to Iran

The authors of an open letter published by the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy most likely knew that their statement was intended to set goals for the negotiations that are unattainable.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

Last week, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) posted a “statement” on the Iranian nuclear negotiations. The statement attracted attention because some of the parties appeared to be finding fault with the Obama administration despite past service in that administration.

One of these luminaries, Robert Einhorn, subsequently wrote for the Brookings Institute that the WINEP statement had been misinterpreted. It was intended to be of help to the administration by reminding them of their original negotiating objectives.

If the administration reckons “it’s the thought that counts,” they will surely be grateful to the WINEP group for this well-intentioned and considerate prompt. It would be wrong, however, to reproach the administration for ingratitude if it turns out that they would have preferred not to be reminded of their original objectives, especially not in so public a way.

The point is that most negotiators embark on a negotiation with maximalist objectives. These they progressively adjust in light of contact with the other party (“one engages and then one sees,” Napoleon used to say). Very few negotiations produce a result without some adjusting of position and compromise.

As an Englishman lucky to have had a chance to follow the US political debate on Iran for the last four years, I have been struck by how many US politicians consider “compromise” a term of abuse. Where I come from, politics, both domestic and international, is “the art of compromise” and the “art of the possible.” And provided both parties to a negotiation make roughly equal compromises, they are to be praised for their wisdom and ingenuity, not condemned for their weakness.

A Good Agreement is in the Making

In the Iranian case the Obama administration never had a hope of attaining ALL its original negotiating objectives. Iran is not a prostrate foe on which a Carthaginian peace can be imposed through a parody of a negotiation.

That, though, need be no cause for concern. The Iranian negotiators have known from the outset that they are going to have to concede across a broad front to obtain the concessions they need. Iran appears prepared to accept severe restrictions on its capacity to produce enriched uranium for a long period, the re-design of a reactor to reduce to a minimum its potential to produce plutonium, and a degree of international surveillance of its nuclear activities that will render inconceivable any reversal of a 2003 decision to abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Consequently, this has all the makings of an agreement that allows the international community to acquire confidence in the peaceful character of Iran’s nuclear program and to resolve the last of the concerns aroused by Iran’s pursuit of a “policy of concealment” between 1985 and 2003.

Additionally, the agreement can offer a breathing space during which the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran can become better acquainted, can learn to discard some of the prejudices that have conditioned their views of each other since 1979, and can cooperate abroad where and when their interests coincide.

What Does the WINEP Group Want?

One aspect of the WINEP statement suggests that they want the administration to treat Iran in 2015 like Iraq in 1991.

Iraq in 1991 was defenseless and friendless. Saddam Hussein had no option but to concede the dismantlement of his fledgling nuclear program and to grant international inspectors the right to roam at will through his territory and interview whom they pleased.

Iran in 2015 is neither friendless nor defenseless. They are in a much stronger position to insist on proportionality, on reasonable limits to the access rights of international inspectors. Even so, for the next decade or longer Iran will be monitored more intrusively than any other party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Another aspect of the statement suggests a burning wish to uncover every detail of whatever research into nuclear weapons Iran may have undertaken prior to 2004. This is unreasonable:

  • Much of the evidence for such work comes from human intelligence sources and so is not intrinsically reliable as a basis for interrogating Iranian officials.
  • There are grounds to think that the research stopped in 2003, in which case it is not a current threat. In this instance the future matters much more than the past.
  • Several NPT Non-Nuclear Weapon States are thought to have researched into nuclear weapons, albeit before they adhered to the Treaty, and have not been forced to make disclosures. Curiosity does not justify treating Iran differently.

Of course it would be wise of Iran to find some way of reassuring its negotiating partners that all such research has been terminated and is now considered haram. But a nuclear agreement should not be held hostage to a humiliating confession from Iran or to the granting of Iraqi-style investigation rights to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

To be frank, it is hard to believe that last week Einhorn, Dennis Ross, and Gary Samore, or any of the other signatories, really thought that they were doing the administration a good turn. It looks more likely that the statement was intended to complicate the administration’s task by setting goals for the negotiation that the group knew to be unattainable. This is reminiscent of one of the tactics of opponents of a nuclear deal: describing what a “good” agreement must include to open the way to condemning a lesser agreement as a “bad” agreement.

Also reminiscent of those tactics is the group’s urging that the administration ignore negotiating deadlines in preference to sealing a “bad” deal. But at least that passage of the statement is amusing: the group assumes, implicitly, that Iran will happily grant the US administration all the time it needs to sanction Iran into conceding the draconian terms that the group is recommending!

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share