Whether the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil with Iran
ultimately actually defuses the stand-off between Tehran and the international
community remains to be seen. And even
if it does, it seems unlikely to actually stop Ahmadinejad & Co. from
continuing surreptitious efforts to cultivate nuclear weapons capability -- especially
given the Iranians' decision to simultaneously announce that they will continue
their enrichment program in any event. Indeed, it, like the sanctions program the United States has been
engineering, seems more likely to simply hit the "pause" rather than the
"reset" button, thus buying the one commodity the Iranians want most: time.
That said the effort is significant on another level. It represents the return of Plan B both to
Middle Eastern and global relations. During the Cold War, international actors
typically had a binary choice. They
could seek the favor and advocacy of the East or the West, the Soviets or the
Americans. Then, almost twenty years ago that all ended. And for a while it appeared, the choice was
America or an international community that couldn't get its act together
terribly effectively.
But Turkey and Brazil working closely with Russia, India, and
China, have effectively sent a message that Plan B has returned to the global
equation. They have essentially said they didn't want to go along with the
American approach to solving the problem (sanctions) and were vehemently
against the Israeli approach (bombs away). The Turks in particular have been
vocal with their BRIC partners in expressing their skepticism of the
effectiveness of sanctions and their sense they would be very
counterproductive.
The Iranians in turn seem to have recognized that the Brazil-Turkey
deal is a win-win for them. It makes them look like they want to be
constructive and thus takes the heat off of them and buys time. They get to tip
the geopolitical scales in the direction of the relevance of emerging powers,
tweak the U.S. efforts, and seemingly help usher in a new era in international
diplomacy.
Something else vitally important to notice has happened
here. This has become the first Middle Eastern stand-off in which the most
important player from outside the region was China -- because China is the one
country that had and has the power to determine whether or not a sanctions
regime would work. The Chinese, while
still internally debating just how much they want to lead on the international
stage, have played this deftly so far. They have engaged in talks with the United States
and with their BRIC plus one partners. They have evaluated. Behind the scenes
they have been constructive and moderate with reports coming out of recent
meetings among BRIC leaders that they have made the case for understanding the
pressure that President Obama is under. And they have pressed the Iranians to
make a deal while sharing like the others in the emerging power leadership a
healthy skepticism of Iranian motives and likely compliance.
Thus this deal may seem smallish and technical from afar,
but it could well signal a change in the way international diplomacy
works. Certainly, it signals an intent
on the part of a group of vitally important emerging powers not to be cowed by
the "with us or against us" mindset that still permeates some in the U.S.
foreign policy establishment.
I also think they had the right approach, even if the resolution was just a token effort on Iran's part. The US has for too long been the player of sanctions for this or that. The stick is always needed, but you shouldn't bring it out so often people simply don't care about it anymore. Unfortunately, because of this, no one believe the US when they say they want to try the non-stick procedure, leading them back to the stick. Its a vicious cycle.
That's partly why I just said earlier on the other article here about this deal that the US needs to deal through third-parties until they can say they have helped enough talking processes that people will actually believe them again.
Iran cannot produce specialised isotopes necessary for medical and commercial purposes. Their enrichment program is oriented toward nuclear weapons rather than fuel rods.
Iran is simply trying to build a stockpile of specialised and vital compounds it cannot produce (hence would be vulnerable to sanctions).
It is a win-win for Iran. The West gives them more time and space to build weapons while the West also provides them with essential goods that provide Iran with a cushion in the even of sanctions.
"Whether the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil with Iran ultimately actually defuses the stand-off between Tehran and the international community remains to be seen."
uh....the Int'l community is OK with Iran -- the US and Israel are not. They are hardly the "Int'l community"
Want some fun -- check out Brazil nuclear weapons program: their VP said they want nukes and they enrich U for their subs.
“We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
And the “721” report:
http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf
“…we do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons.”
Let us re-cap: to the best of the US IC’s knowledge the Iranian government has not decided to make nuclear weapons. And Iran needs 20% enriched U for its medical purposes.
The author acknowledges that just about nothing was accomplished here, and yet this is supposed to qualify as some shift in th world order? Becuase what, a bunch of Iran's trading partners want to whitewash the state's actions? To me this just asserts that nothing substantive can happen without an American babysitter.
It is perfectly fine for new entrants like Brazil and Turkey to come to Iran's help to resolve some core issues, if not fully but partially. But in the end more important is next time when Ahmadinejad goes on his 'to wipe out Israel from the map' trip; what to do Brazil and Turkey say. I am not sure saying in that event that 'it is all hot air talk' would pacify Israel or the consequent blow back from radical Israeli Right wing.
Oh yes, any mother and uncle can come forward to persuade Iran to come to senses and for sure take the credit. But what Obama needs to do is, hold the line and continue to push for sanctions in UNSC. Let us see how China and Russia block that. Because automatically at that point rest of the world would have effectively signed off the marching orders for American Right Israel to bomb Iran regardless of impacts and consequences if UNSC sanction resolution fails. Obama will be unlikely to be any different at that point because in the end America is committed for the security of Israel. The smart of Obama will be 'I allowed time and persuasion by rest of the world too, but Mullah's in Iran did not listen'. Expect all that to heat up as Nov 2010 election comes near because Obama has to shore of up his Conservative credentials as much as possible by then.
True, there are consequences of flouting UNSC and most are not pleasing. Without resolution if Iran gets bombed, I am assuming there will be many other attempts by then by Obama Admin that how there was no other option and how allowing Iran any further would have created lots of existential threats. (Not exactly Colin Powell at UN with yellow cake story, but possibly more credible.)
On the other hand, allowing Israel to do the dirty work may be good too. Because you are saying that world will try to force Israel to give up nukes, but we have seen world trying that for India and Pakistan too and where have things gone there is well known. In fact more I think about it, this option may be better because as long as USA continues it's support of Israel even after the rogue attack on Iran, there is no effective isolation of Israel. Allow few more years to pass and Israel will be fairly back into the world community. Further, USA will not have its reputation directly damaged. After the attack even Israel can warm up for the Egyptian theme of 'nuke free larger Middle East'. It is not just Iran which can adopt 'stalling tactics'; Israel can do the same thing for 'nuke free initiatives' after Iran's program has been presumably pushed by few years upon bombing Iranian sites.
The danger of strong world reaction if Israel bombs Iran is there, but Israel's true existential threat is from inside - the danger of Israel sliding towards 'apartheid' like regime. Whether Iran bombed or not, that issue is something which Israel have to face.
So as Miller argues on this web site, to drop the fruitless religion of Middle East Peace is for Obama Admin or America to argue that:
- it is up to Israel to take necessary steps to secure themselves, preferably within international norms (but practically giving carte blanche for Iran bombing) but
- America believes in two state resolution for Israel-Palestine conflict (so no further occupation of West Bank while Jerusalem as the divided capital).
And at this stage of history, the long run significance of Lula's move is one of them. On the one hand, this could mean the true birth of a multipolar international system where the United States takes the role of one of just many players. On the other hand, this could just be a cynical move by Ahmadinejad to game the system by having one great power being played off against several smaller powers while Iran continues on its nuclear program.
I think entirely too much has been made of Iran's moves towards building a nuclear weapon. Currently it has zero, so it is no threat whatsoever. Even if it develops one nuclear weapon, it's certainly no threat to Israel that has plenty. We can look and see what happened to Pakistan and North Korea when they developed their nukes. Why are we so afraid of Iran, when it can be argued that they are trying to make a bomb for deterrence purposes?
I would go so far as to say that Iran may be developing a nuclear weapon to put it in the same league as Japan. Japan has a peace constitution prohibiting possession of nuclear weapons, but it certainly has the capability and technology. If I were Japan, I'd have all the parts to a weapon ready to go just short of assembly. I would hazard that Japan is about thirty minutes away from being a nuclear power.
The Israeli position is nothing short of sheer hysteria. Iran (who is not a nuclear power and who is hundreds of miles away with a pitiful military footprint compared to the Israelis) is an "existential threat" to Israel????
Give me a break! This is like the Christian militiamen wishing for the elimination of the United States government. Give me a break.
When Bush-Cheney were considering the military option against Iran, I wrote them and said that such an action would do the same thing for the American Empire that the Armada did for the Spanish Empire. And if Israel were to take military action, it would do the same thing for the Israeli Empire.
Why are there not UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel?
Afterall Israel is in possession of 400 illegal nuclear bombs and countless weapons of mass destruction, both biological and chemical, smuggled from America to Israel.
And Israel has been flouting UN Resolutions for 60+ years; Israel razed the undefended city of Jaffa and there are no conseqences; Israel has illegally occupied 100% of Palestine for 43 years and there are no consequences; Israel is the prime mover of all terrorism in the world and there are no consequences.
Why such hypocritical double-standards; one set for Muslim countries and an entirely different set for Illegal Israel?
Iran has made it public that they will continue with their uranium enrichment process. The State of Israel has never made public any details of its nuclear capability or arsenal.
Iran had encouraged Hezbollah’s July 2006 attack on Israel to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program.
So my question is before you say not true and this is all made up by the CIA or Western sources why not call Israel and publicly say they are recognized by Iran and let world see what Iran has?
Israel will never be recognised by the Muslims; it is a rogue and criminal enterprise built on the blood of innocent Palestinians (Of course all supported by the great liberal democracy called America).
Israel is a bully and hoodlum and must be treated as such. No amount of attempts at subterfuge or spin will change it.
I ask again why the hypocritical double standards?
Why are there not UN Security Council Resolutions against the rogue called Israel?
But you rascals have UN Security Council resolutions against every Muslim country under the world.
That Brazil and Turkey have stepped up and brokered a minor deal, with support from Russia and China, is a good sign. That they did so without the US and NATO probably is not appreciated by many people in the US government - certainly in Israel, but it does show there is more than one way to approach the Iranians.
I am amazed at all the bluster about military action against Iran. We are tied down in two wars in the Muslim world already, in nations that are much smaller than Iran, and we have barely enough of a military to do that. Proposing that we take on another conflict in a large nation of almost 80 million people that has considerable ability to do great damage to the world energy supply is sheer stupidity. If the previous administration tiptoed around that, the current one surely should as well. If Israel wants to make its own situation worse than it ever imagined, it can take action against Iran, but let it do so on its own.
Whether Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability or not, there does not appear to be much the US can do on its own. If Iran does, it will not have a major impact on our security. We already have seen N Korea get the bomb and we are not attacking that country. Pakistan has had the bomb for decades, has certainly peddled its capability to potential enemies of the US and we did nothing to stop that from happening. It's a bit late to start hyperventilating over an Iranian nuclear program that currently poses no threat to us or to Israel.
It's good to see that other nations are trying to shoulder some responsibility for diplomatic resolutions - years of threats and sanctions by the US and Israel have achieved very little. We just like to hear ourselves talking.
Of course, there's no chance whatsoever that Iran would attack US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, bomb the US Navy in the Persian Gulf, drop care packages of weapons to insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and blow up every oil tanker passing thru the straight of Hormuz.
Israel requires fly-over rights from Iraq to get to Iran, and whether or not they get it, the US will be blamed for allowing it.
If Iran wanted a bomb, they would have had one decades ago. They are far more capable than Pakistan.
What all of this is really about is not allowing any country in the middle east to have any serious military power, except the US and Israel, so that it will be easier to control the region's oil. Oil is what all armed forces run on.
There are lots of people in favor of a "2-state" solution, but they all have very different ideas about what these states will look like.
Hamas (contrary to US and Israeli claims) has already agreed to accept the Arab League proposal of 2 states based on the 1967 borders.
The Barak Plan (Ehud, not Obama) which caused Arafat to storm out of the talks in 2000 consisted of 3 islands of palestinian land in the west bank, surrounded by settlements and joint israeli/palestinian security zones and control of east jerusalem.
Netanyahu is offering less than that, no control of east jerusalem, no military, no airspace rights, no ground water rights, surrounded on all sides by israeli military and settlements. Essentially indian reservations but with less rights.
Avigdor Lieberman wants to annex all of the west bank, claiming that the palestinian "state" is on the other side of the Jordan River, in Jordan.
So the next time anyone says they support a 2-state solution, ask them exactly what they mean by that.
Look at www.fmep.org for maps of all the peace proposals and land annexation by israel.
Throw America and Israel out of United Nations, disbar them from the international community.
What have these two rogue countries given to the world other than war crimes, invasions, annexations, occupations, demolitions, assassinations, brutal dehumanising treatment of hapless people under their thumbs and total wanton destruction of civilian lives in multiple countries in the past 60 years?
United Nations and the all the nations of the world can do without the bullies and rogues that are America and Israel.
Read More
(20)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE