My OperaYet more on diplomacy with Iran
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:42:45 PM
But what has been hidden is the extent to which the various parts of the administration are really subscribing to these views in practice, and if they are truly willing to act on what they suggest. Now that there have been several major setbacks and quite a lot of stalling.
But will the administration eventually decide on a bombing campaign against Iran after all? Very likely. After all, the view is that without a credible military threat, diplomacy will not work.
What is the acceptable way of attacking this issue on, though? It is to breathe some life into the old "split between the State department and the VP's office".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001199/site/Newsweek/page/0/
"We hear a completely different story coming out of Cheney's office, even now, than what we hear from Rice on Iran," says a Western diplomat whose embassy has close dealings with the White House. Officials from the veep's office have been openly dismissive of the nuclear negotiations in think-tank meetings with Middle East analysts in Washington, according to a high-level administration official who asked for anonymity because of his position. Since Tehran has defied two U.N. resolutions calling for a suspension of its uranium-enrichment program, "there's a certain amount of schadenfreude among the hard-liners," says a European diplomat who's involved in the talks but would not comment for the record. And NEWSWEEK has learned that the veep's team seems eager to build a case that Iran is targeting Americans not just in Iraq but along the border of its other neighbor, Afghanistan.
But the split is non- existent. And the VP's side have declared for years that diplomacy have failed. Obviously, they also advocated war once the various resolutions against Iran was put in place, which the administration takes as proof that their view is the right one. Even though, as we know, the resolutions rest on political pressure from "certain" nations, and not on the factual and practical concerns about enforcing the non- proliferation regime. So even though Iran complies fully with the ordinary protocols and the limited voluntary inspections, they are not complying enough to be politically vindicated.
Naturally, the US will have none of it, and will not accept any progress until total, if entirely unspecific, compliance is given. Which possibly involves total stop of uranium enrichment, although no guarantees are given that this is enough. And so we have the current situation, where nothing happens, except Iran being able to produce uranium without being inspected as much as we'd like.
While, of course, the case for using military force becomes more appealing as time goes on, reinforced by the lack of "compliance" which various US "diplomats" have ensured, by stalling the practical aspect of the nuclear non- proliferation regime. Or as El- Baradei said recently about the political solution presumed to be an idea to pursue through the UN, and which the IAEA has actively engaged in - "it has been overtaken by events".
In other words, the question now is if this perception of how the dynamic has changed will be possible to exploit for selling the war against Iran. Is it conceivable that the president would be happy with just the low- level warfare and coup- attempts that are ongoing at the moment, though? Probably not. And is it likely that the Vice President will not mobilize more assets in order to produce the missing links between Iran and the global jihadist movement that wants to kill americans everywhere? Doubtful.
What's certain, though, is that the war against Iran rests on the decision of a mentally retarded four- year old, assisted by an idealist so far removed from reality she can claim to be a "Wilsonian realist" on one side, and the dark lord Sauron on the other.
More from the article:
In the end, the administration's few remaining hard-liners may be the least of Rice's problems. In her NEWSWEEK interview, she acknowledged how hard it would be to achieve the kind of "breakthrough" agreement that traditionally defines a successful secretary of State. "I wouldn't rule it out," she said. But, Rice added: "we're laying the foundations for someone else to succeed in the future, and I think that's fine." As long as she can keep things under control.
In other words, anything less than a total victory of every demand is a failure, and as such a blessing for military force. And what we're left with is Condoleezza Rice then insisting that barring that total breakthrough that she expects any time now, she can only promise continued diplomatic isolation and further erosion of diplomatic solutions.
Now, that's a great legacy, isn't it. Goddamned fuckers.
