Saturday
Oct032009
Iran's Nuclear Programme: Obama's Balance Wobbles
Saturday, October 3, 2009 at 8:07
The Latest from Iran (3 October): Debating Mousavi’s Strategy
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Big Win for Tehran at Geneva Talks
Latest Iran Video: Nuclear Official Jalili on CNN (1 October)
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Remarks on Geneva Talks
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
It only took 24 hours for the Obama Administration, after the "substantial progress" of Thursday's Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme, to hit the choppy waters of Washington and Tehran politics.
On Friday morning, it was looking very good for the White House. Most of the US media were putting out the news of Iran's agreement to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the Qom enrichment facility and to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched. They were adding the Administration's gloss that this was all made to a forceful American stance which had pushed the Iranians into concessions.
By Friday afternoon, the public-relations glue had come unstuck, as a State Department briefing turned into black comedy. (Watch the clip from the 8:44 mark.) The first wobble was over the "third-party enrichment" which had supposedly been established. Journalists challenged that Iranian officials were saying only that they had agreed to consider the proposal; the Department spokesman, unprepared for this information, could only warble about an "agreement in principle".
He came off even worse in the second exchange over Iran's invitation to inspect the Qom plant, after he said there was "no hard-and-fast deadline" for the inspections. Why then, journalists clamoured, had Barack Obama pointedly mentioned on Thursday night a "two-week deadline"? Caught between his opening line of flexibility and the inconvenience of the President's firm marker, the spokesman, umm, stammered.
This would all be good voyeuristic fun if it did not pont to the two larger problems for the Administration. The first is that the Iranian Government is not going to go gently into the diplomatic night playing its assigned role. Tehran, in our view, was already going to be conciliatory at the opening discussions in the hope of getting more discussions. It was not going to jump into any hard-and-fast deal.
The spin that the US Government "forced" Iran's concessions only adds to the dfficulty. Not wanting to appear to be forced into anything, Iranian officials "clarify" that firm measures have not been agreed but must be the subject of further talks, in this case, technical discussions in Vienna on 18 October and the next Iran meeting with the 5+1 powers, possibly at the end of this month.
The second and even greater challenge for the Obama Administration from within. There has always been a group of officials in the Executive who saw negotiations as a process that had to be endured before, with the Iranians inevitably breaking the talks and/or agreements, more pressure could be put on Tehran.
So, even as the "significantly positive" outcome of Geneva was being announced, they were tossing a bucket of red herrings to the media. There might be even more "secret" sites that Tehran had not declared. Iran still had enough uranium to make The Bomb. The Israelis were watching carefully. (Juan Cole points out how all these diversions made their way into Friday's New York Times.)
The loudest of these heckles was that, whatever happened at Geneva, The Iranians Weren't Really Serious. Yesterday morning The Wall Street Journal, which might as well declare that it is a propaganda sheet masquerading as news, declared in its opening paragraph, "Analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program." (The two "analysts" were an Israeli reservist general and George W. Bush's "special envoy on nonproliferation issues".)
Lo and behold, this morning The New York Times headlines, "U.S. Wonders if Iran Is Playing for Time or Is Serious on Deal". Helene Cooper splashes about "administration officials" warning "the trick now for Mr. Obama...will be to avoid getting tripped up", which is actually only one "senior" official (Who is he/she? On the side of those pushing for a lasting agreement with the Iranians? On the side of those seeing no prospect of an agreement?) putting out the dampening comment, “That’s the big ‘if,’ isn’t it? Will they do it? No one wants to do a premature victory lap.”
Let's just put this basic comment out, already fearing that it will disappear in the media wash. The Iranian Government is playing this process "long". It is likely to allow an IAEA inspection of Qom, although even this will be subject to discussions on conditions, but other issues including third-party enrichment, will go into a set of committees. Any agreement will take months, rather than weeks, of contact.
From the start, the Obama Administration --- split between different factions --- have been locked into playing the process "short". A quick result had to be obtained, otherwise sanctions would have to be sought quickly. That is why all the fatuous talk of deadlines --- December? September? October? --- has loudly accompanied and even out-shouted the complexities of engagement.
The President has been unable to extricate himself from this unproductive dilemma. So once again, we will have a two-week cycle of domestic fury, even though the Administration has no stick to wield, before the technical talks in Vienna.
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Big Win for Tehran at Geneva Talks
Latest Iran Video: Nuclear Official Jalili on CNN (1 October)
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Remarks on Geneva Talks
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
It only took 24 hours for the Obama Administration, after the "substantial progress" of Thursday's Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme, to hit the choppy waters of Washington and Tehran politics.On Friday morning, it was looking very good for the White House. Most of the US media were putting out the news of Iran's agreement to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the Qom enrichment facility and to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched. They were adding the Administration's gloss that this was all made to a forceful American stance which had pushed the Iranians into concessions.
By Friday afternoon, the public-relations glue had come unstuck, as a State Department briefing turned into black comedy. (Watch the clip from the 8:44 mark.) The first wobble was over the "third-party enrichment" which had supposedly been established. Journalists challenged that Iranian officials were saying only that they had agreed to consider the proposal; the Department spokesman, unprepared for this information, could only warble about an "agreement in principle".
He came off even worse in the second exchange over Iran's invitation to inspect the Qom plant, after he said there was "no hard-and-fast deadline" for the inspections. Why then, journalists clamoured, had Barack Obama pointedly mentioned on Thursday night a "two-week deadline"? Caught between his opening line of flexibility and the inconvenience of the President's firm marker, the spokesman, umm, stammered.
This would all be good voyeuristic fun if it did not pont to the two larger problems for the Administration. The first is that the Iranian Government is not going to go gently into the diplomatic night playing its assigned role. Tehran, in our view, was already going to be conciliatory at the opening discussions in the hope of getting more discussions. It was not going to jump into any hard-and-fast deal.
The spin that the US Government "forced" Iran's concessions only adds to the dfficulty. Not wanting to appear to be forced into anything, Iranian officials "clarify" that firm measures have not been agreed but must be the subject of further talks, in this case, technical discussions in Vienna on 18 October and the next Iran meeting with the 5+1 powers, possibly at the end of this month.
The second and even greater challenge for the Obama Administration from within. There has always been a group of officials in the Executive who saw negotiations as a process that had to be endured before, with the Iranians inevitably breaking the talks and/or agreements, more pressure could be put on Tehran.
So, even as the "significantly positive" outcome of Geneva was being announced, they were tossing a bucket of red herrings to the media. There might be even more "secret" sites that Tehran had not declared. Iran still had enough uranium to make The Bomb. The Israelis were watching carefully. (Juan Cole points out how all these diversions made their way into Friday's New York Times.)
The loudest of these heckles was that, whatever happened at Geneva, The Iranians Weren't Really Serious. Yesterday morning The Wall Street Journal, which might as well declare that it is a propaganda sheet masquerading as news, declared in its opening paragraph, "Analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program." (The two "analysts" were an Israeli reservist general and George W. Bush's "special envoy on nonproliferation issues".)
Lo and behold, this morning The New York Times headlines, "U.S. Wonders if Iran Is Playing for Time or Is Serious on Deal". Helene Cooper splashes about "administration officials" warning "the trick now for Mr. Obama...will be to avoid getting tripped up", which is actually only one "senior" official (Who is he/she? On the side of those pushing for a lasting agreement with the Iranians? On the side of those seeing no prospect of an agreement?) putting out the dampening comment, “That’s the big ‘if,’ isn’t it? Will they do it? No one wants to do a premature victory lap.”
Let's just put this basic comment out, already fearing that it will disappear in the media wash. The Iranian Government is playing this process "long". It is likely to allow an IAEA inspection of Qom, although even this will be subject to discussions on conditions, but other issues including third-party enrichment, will go into a set of committees. Any agreement will take months, rather than weeks, of contact.
From the start, the Obama Administration --- split between different factions --- have been locked into playing the process "short". A quick result had to be obtained, otherwise sanctions would have to be sought quickly. That is why all the fatuous talk of deadlines --- December? September? October? --- has loudly accompanied and even out-shouted the complexities of engagement.
The President has been unable to extricate himself from this unproductive dilemma. So once again, we will have a two-week cycle of domestic fury, even though the Administration has no stick to wield, before the technical talks in Vienna.
Reader Comments (11)
All governments posture in an attempt to inoculate themselves from domestic criticism. I wouldn't make too much out of the posturing. I think Obama has done a decent job overall of reaching out to Iran while simultaneously making it harder for the Republican opposition to paint him as being weak to the eyes of the independent voters. The significant change that I see is a moderation in the Iranian government's tone regarding the US. I'm getting the feeling that both sides, for their own reasons, are willing to deal. That doesn't mean that things will necessarily pan out in the end as neither side wishes to be seen as giving away too much, and both sides contain factions that do not want to see an easing of tensions. Nevertheless it gives me reason to be hopeful.
RE "The second and even greater challenge for the Obama Administration from within. "
And how about the pressures from outside?
Brown and Sarkozy rowed with Obama over Iranian nuclear announcement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6255721/Brown-and-Sarkozy-rowed-with-Obama-over-Iranian-nuclear-announcement.html
and
France warns US on Iran nuclear accord
France is expressing anxiety about the Obama administration's pursuit of a potential deal on Iran's nuclear programme, warning that the US must not allow Tehran to expand its uranium enrichment activity without facing fresh sanctions.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c225304-afb4-11de-ba1c-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
@ Peter, i agree on 'the significant change' created by a' moderation in tone'
of IRI vis à vis the US, -a vital preliminary to any serious negociations /concrete
deal with both US and EU's hardliners on the iranian nuke case. It's a matter
of international credibility and inner politics balance on both sides (US & IRI),
though of course, the nature of opposition is quite different in each country.
Obama is strongly countered by republicans hardliners and powerful lobbies trying
to undermine his credibility, but AN has a real legitimacy problem undermining
the very system he represents 'at home'...Surely, in such a situation it can only
be in the interest of both leaders that the ball keeps rolling and gradual
agreements are made ? IRI's geostrategical interests + foreign policy of Obama
in ME being at stake, let's hope indeed tha a will to deal will prevail .
@Catherine As for outside pressures coming from EU, France lately leading
the chorus (with UK and germany)...And speaking of 'posturing', well, we're
right into it these days. Between Sarkozy -to whom 'posturing' is the very definition
of his job at the presidency- and Kouchner's confirmed uncompetent handling of diplomacy with IRI, it's the hardline prevailing. Sarkozy as usual needs the hype
and publicity that this line can provide in his 'handling' of the case with his
EU partners. Pose as a 'leader' of the group in favour of sanctions (and hints at
war threats to boot, if needed) is now his goal, with enough chest-thumping
to rallye the milder partners... Let's hope that, considering the US interests at
stake here, Mr Obama will succed in neutralizing his attempts at playing the
Big Guy with the UE diplomacy -and imposing his views at the UN/AIEA etc....
Longer comment in a minute, but here's a quickie... somewhere I read the suggestion of US/Europe as good cop/bad cop, flipping the Bush era roles. I'm doubtful of anything so neatly planned, but some coordination of this type isn't out of the question. (I don't see Bush in a bad cop role... more like rogue cop. He wasn't into playing with others)
@ Amy
Aljazeera English's political analyst Marwan Bishara has been using this flip US/Europe good cop/bad cop analogy for the last several days.
Catherine
Thanks-- I think you're right... it was a few weeks back & I couldn't dredge up the source
President Obama has a high tolerance for things looking ugly and messy-- much higher than I could handle. He is getting what he wants: engagement. He, too, is playing a long game,.. not 11-dimensional ninja chess in which he's prescient of all contingencies, but he's definitely not staggering from crisis to crisis. He is adapting his strategy to changing circumstances, some anticipated, others unexpected.
Last week's meetings were not about who came out on top. In order to continue engagement, all parties needed to go home looking like they gained something & won some concessions from those wimps on the other side of the table. Everybody leaves looking both skillful and inept.
Here's an example of what President Obama gained over the past week. The West may never have intended for the "secret" plant to become public knowledge. At best, the announcement was premature. President Obama played that hand reasonably well. A public declaration was necessary to pre-empt accusations that we were caught unawares. There was never any question that the right & the neocons would be frothing at the mouth for a military response and that they would use the occasion to denounce Obama as a weak appeaser who is undermining our security. The "secret" plant provided the perfect excuse to pull out all stops. Even Arianna Huffington banged the drums of war.
The President did remarkably little to fend off this rhetoric. With the meeting scheduled in less than a week, the furor had a predetermined life span. For the most part, he was the steady and reasonable one in the house. The meeting was the first step in a process. By the end of the week, much of the sound & fury was already expended, The drums of war won't beat as loudly before the next meeting or the next. At the same time, President Obama showed the Iranians and the 5+1 that he is not swayed from his purpose by the media & the right.
I'm not saying that there aren't limits to the line he's walking, just that what is happening is not a series of accidents & what we are seeing is not a flailing attempt to regain balance.
Maybe it's a mistake, but it doesn't bother me that everybody in the admin isn't on the same page after 8 years of verbatim talking points coming from every mouth in the Bush admin. Yeah, it looks bad, but I'll take it over the past in a heartbeat.
Plenty can go wrong. Coming revelations may or may not be controllable. AN knows it will behoove him not to be overly provocative. Amidst the arguments about timelines and deals, a quieter process appears to be unfolding. I haven't had a chance to read much news this week but did notice http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/03/iran.talks.analysis/" rel="nofollow">this example. Who knows what else the press is ignoring...
We are talking. Obama won the week.
Amy (giggle at the punching line ;- ) )
'We are talking.Obama won the week'
-well let's be realistic though, Mahmoud boasts just the same ;- )
But a step is a step is a step... on both sides of a (virtual-possible)
agreement build between parties, -that's what counts, isn't it (so far)
Yseut
Yeah, but I so enjoyed writing that line. Wasn't sure anybody would read all the way to the bottom, so I thought I might get away with it ;-)
You are right. Talking to each other really won the week
Amy don't make me despair about blogging, pray thee ;-)
-you mean zapping, just like with tv ? -no way, you're being read!
As are you, my friend
No despair!
I think you are exactly right about continued talks in your #3 comment above. If our countries can somehow finesse the nuclear issue, we could work together in many ways to promote regional stability. That kind of effort will help create a firmer foundation for the future (new) government of Iran by minimizing problems likely to spill over from the bordering countries. The region and the world as a whole could gain a great deal if we can take this step and then the next... If it happens, it will be a bumpy road, tripping over each other's feet, though