Verbalism Personified

Next Iran?

George W. Bush has a reputation for being a straight shooter, the kind of leader who sends a clear, decisive message to the nation's adversaries in the war on terrorism. But as the Americans try to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, the White House has been sending out mixed messages as to what would be the most appropriate course of action.

After declaring that America would not rule out military action against Iran, Vice-President Dick Cheney added that "the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."

Adding to further intrigue, President Bush cheered Iranian hawks pushing for regime change by declaring that "as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." In the same breath, he offered to the pro-diplomacy camp that "we are working with European allies" who are at the negotiating table with Iran.

Later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice remarked, "The Iranian regime's human-rights behavior is something to be loathed." But then she stressed that attacking Iran was not on the agenda "at this point."

Confusion could be the intended effect, part of a game to keep the Iranians guessing and off-balanced. The problem is that the Iranians, who insist that they have a sovereign right to enrich uranium for peaceful and civilian purposes, are quite good at playing their own games.

By dragging out the third round of negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, the Iranians are doing little to build confidence in its good intentions. Tehran has since repeatedly rebuffed demands to put its uranium-enrichment program on ice and has continued to upgrade a uranium-enrichment plant south of the country.

Adding to the incrimination, an Iranian opposition group based in Paris has alleged that Tehran has completed designs on a prototype detonator for a nuclear bomb. Learning from the North Koreans, the Iranians have been extending the negotiating process while continuing work on their nuclear program.

Despite repeated entreaties from European government officials, the Americans have refused to join the multilateral talks, which center on persuading Iran to abandon its program in exchange for economic and political goodies.

This is classic European good-cop and American bad-cop, with both sides sharing the same objective. This time however, Washington believes that the Iranians have made up their mind to go nuclear and no amount of bargaining is going to change that. At the same time, they want to avoid doing anything in the way of negotiations that would bolster the legitimacy of Iran's ruling theocrats. As Rice said once, "I don't think the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for either the Iranian people or for the region, [which] is going in quite a different direction."

Iran's refusal in agreeing to end its uranium-enrichment activities could prompt Europe to take the entire matter to the U.N. Security Council where, as the Americans hope, would push for tougher multilateral sanctions.

Although it is true that Russia and China, as two of Iran's key trading partners and weapons suppliers, could pose formidable obstacles to passing any kind of resolution, Washington knows it has few good alternatives.

For all the recent talk of American commandos secretly staking out potential targets inside Iran, it is questionable as to whether all the country's dispersed and well-hidden nuclear facilities can be destroyed.

Intelligence on Iran's programs is incomplete, and the White House is mindful of violent reprisals against Coalition forces in Iraq by Iranian-backed militias. Israel is also reluctant to resort to the same pre-emptive blow used against Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981. A similar strike against would ignite retaliation by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hizballah, which could shell Tel Aviv from its perch in southern Lebanon.

As a last resort, the Americans are quietly hoping that regime change will occur in Iran before a nuclear bomb materializes. The upcoming Iranian Presidential election in the middle of this year could bring some sort reprieve if a moderate were elected. However, Washington would still have to consider cutting some sort of a deal, offering anything from a nonaggression treaty to ending its long-standing sanction to Iran's entry into the World Trade Organization. Hard-liners in Washington will not be happy.

But with Iraq still raging and the North Koreans pursuing similiar nuclear goals, the Bush Administration realizes that a stop-gap deal or compromise with Tehran will have to do for the time being.

posted by Teutoburg @ 12:24 AM