September 14, 2007
Report: Germany Wavers, U.S. Revives Iran Planning
About a month ago, we wondered why White House officials were leaking word that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps was to be designated a terrorist organization. Looks like we may have an answer.
Reuters reports that the leak may have been a hawkish attempt to goad the State Department into taking a tougher line on Tehran. The White House alleges Iran is arming and funding Shiite insurgents in Iraq, compounding existing frustration over Iran's nuclear ambitions. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has mostly laughed off U.N. economic sanctions aimed at his uranium enrichment program.
Now, there are indications the sanctions process may have hit a roadblock.
Germany's Foreign Ministry said today that the U.N. Security Council nations negotiating with Iran should hold off on another round of sanctions until a deal with the body's nuclear arm can play out. Germany, France and Britain must also answer to the EU, which is angry over House lawmakers' attempt to punish foreign firms for doing business with oil-rich Iran.
The P5+1 nations (permanent U.N. Security Council members Russia, China, Britain, France and the U.S. plus Germany) are scheduled to meet in Washington on Sept. 21 to discuss a new round of sanctions. Germany's announcement means those talks might be delayed until after IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports on Tehran's cooperation in November.
Washington is unhappy with its allies' cautiousness. On Wednesday, FOX News State Department correspondent James Rosen reported that German officials informed its negotiating partners of its decision a week ago -- which Germany and Washington had denied up until today -- and that in response U.S. officials had revived discussions on a potential military strike on Iran's nuclear reactors.
President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" for Iran since it was declared part of the "axis of evil" five years ago. In April 2006, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reported on the Bush administration's war-gaming of a potential assault on Iran. Rosen now reports that officials are "participating in a broad discussion" about a potential strike, "with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months."
U.S. allies are terrified of a war in Iran, which is how they were roped into the sanctions process in the first place. The Bush administration has had to repeatedly deny it was planning to strike there, and a State Department official swiftly did so today. "I think this is nonsense, this talk of saber-ratting, war drums beating," said David Satterfield, a coordinator on Iran policy. "Those who argue we are deliberately escalating a confrontation with Iran are quite mistaken."
Unlike the U.S., Germany and the other negotiating partners have indicated they could live with carefully monitored uranium enrichment in Iran for the purposes of energy production. ElBaradei, who views the Bush administration suspiciously, also seems to favor that outcome.
Russia and China already approach sanctions talks sullenly because of friendly and prosperous relations with Iran. In recent years, the emerging China-Russia-Iran axis has presented enormous diplomatic obstacles to Washington, which relies on proxy partners because of a policy forbidding direct talks with sponsors of terrorism. U.S. relations with Russia have deteriorated in recent years, and trade dependency on an increasingly powerful China has limited America's influence on Beijing.
These factors may have forced the administration to explore its options in Iran long ago. The White House's decision to label Iran's elite Quds forces a terrorist organization could well be an acknowledgment that Washington is now basically alone in demanding Iran's nuclear program be completely dismantled.
For one, it's not clear that the Aug. 21 IAEA deal, considered weak by the U.S. and EU, is a good reason to delay sanctions. There are no conditions limning Iran's current nuclear activities; instead, Iranian officials were asked to answer a series of questions about the origins of their nuclear program. Iran defiantly refuses to suspend uranium enrichment on the claim that the program is meant to deliver energy, not bombs.
Reports that the U.S. is exploring military options will no doubt feed detractors' characterization of this White House as having a jones for war with Iran. On some level that's true, because a regime-changed Tehran comports with the vision of a democratized, Western values-friendly Middle East that's characterized Bush's foreign policy. At the same time, the prospect of Bush ordering military action against Tehran is pretty incredible, given the prolonged and unhappy engagement in Iraq.
The bipartisan consensus in Washington remains that when it comes to Iran and nukes, nothing is off the table. Word that the Bush administration might act on this threat could force lawmakers, particularly those running for president, to review what, exactly, they mean by that.
Photo Illustration: Reuben Dalke
Posted at 11:41 AM
Posted to:
Asia, Bush Administration, China, EU, Europe, France, Germany, IAEA, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, President Bush, Russia, Terrorism, U.N.
Share via
