Is this Diplomacy?
The US administration has put forward its most recent overture to Iran as a clear sign of its willingness to pursue diplomacy. Although I agree that the US should begin negotiating with Iran, this recent proposal is unlikely to convince Iran to give-up its nuclear program, for the same reason that European carrots didn't work. The key is that neither the US nor Europe is offering what Iran really wants: Security.
Successful diplomacy requires empathizing with the other party.
Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? Since the first Gulf War, it became blatantly obvious that no country, relying solely on conventional weapons, could stop the US from invading. The world watched on 24 hour news stations as the US squashed the Iraqi army. Gulf War I was a clear signal to the world: the US is unrivaled in military power, by a factor. Unlike Gulf War II, however, the first Gulf War did not overly concern most states. Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and the allied forces simply restored old boundaries. Although the US was criticized for playing 'World Police', our actions restored state sovereignty and we left Iraq. (We didn't out Saddam because we realized that it would have significant destabilizing effects in the area; a lesson GW and the neo-cons never learned.)
Gulf War I showed Iran that the US had the capability to invade and overthrow any state in the region; our rhetoric and actions post-9/11 showed that we have a desire and willingness to do so. Iran was labelled as part of the "axis of evil." US foreign policy became, seemingly, not only to hunt down and destroy terrorists and states aiding and abetting terrorist activities, but also to overthrow government that might, possibly, at some distant future, pose a threat to the US. Consider George Bush's recent remarks concerning the invasion of Iraq. He has stated on numerous occasions, that even if he had known that Iraq had no WMD and had no connections to Al Qaeda, he still would have invaded.
What message does this send to the Iranians? If I were an Iranian leader, I would logically conclude that the US is willing and able to destroy my government, regardless of whether I have WMD, and regardless of whether I have aided terrorist groups carrying out attacks on US targets. My only defense against such an invasion would be developing nuclear weapons capable of deterring US aggression. Since I lack the technology to develop an inter-continental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US, I would hope that my ability to destroy Israel would be a sufficient deterrent. Nothing in George Bush's actions would make me believe otherwise.
Iran's newspapers express this distrust. Here is Iran's Aftab-e-Yazd had to say about America's proposal, "We have to be careful not to be trapped by Western tactics and should not let these tactics raise false hopes among us." The Iranian people do not want war with the US. Joseph Cirincione of the Center for American Progress argues that Iran isn't even sure it wants nuclear weapons. What they want is security.
Is the US giving them security with this newest proposal? Not yet.
President Bush said: "Our message to the Iranians is that one, you won't have a weapon, and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward." But the US will not rule out the option of a military strike, which what the Iranian government cares about.
Via the New York Times, "Administration officials characterized their offer as a test of whether the Iranians want engagement with the West more than they want the option to build a nuclear bomb some day. " Yes, Iran wants the legitimacy of engagement with the West, but the current overture is predicated on Iran giving up what it conceives as its only hope of security. Until the US convinces Iran that it doesn't need the Bomb, it won't be coming to dinner any time soon.
Successful diplomacy requires empathizing with the other party.
Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? Since the first Gulf War, it became blatantly obvious that no country, relying solely on conventional weapons, could stop the US from invading. The world watched on 24 hour news stations as the US squashed the Iraqi army. Gulf War I was a clear signal to the world: the US is unrivaled in military power, by a factor. Unlike Gulf War II, however, the first Gulf War did not overly concern most states. Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and the allied forces simply restored old boundaries. Although the US was criticized for playing 'World Police', our actions restored state sovereignty and we left Iraq. (We didn't out Saddam because we realized that it would have significant destabilizing effects in the area; a lesson GW and the neo-cons never learned.)
Gulf War I showed Iran that the US had the capability to invade and overthrow any state in the region; our rhetoric and actions post-9/11 showed that we have a desire and willingness to do so. Iran was labelled as part of the "axis of evil." US foreign policy became, seemingly, not only to hunt down and destroy terrorists and states aiding and abetting terrorist activities, but also to overthrow government that might, possibly, at some distant future, pose a threat to the US. Consider George Bush's recent remarks concerning the invasion of Iraq. He has stated on numerous occasions, that even if he had known that Iraq had no WMD and had no connections to Al Qaeda, he still would have invaded.
What message does this send to the Iranians? If I were an Iranian leader, I would logically conclude that the US is willing and able to destroy my government, regardless of whether I have WMD, and regardless of whether I have aided terrorist groups carrying out attacks on US targets. My only defense against such an invasion would be developing nuclear weapons capable of deterring US aggression. Since I lack the technology to develop an inter-continental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US, I would hope that my ability to destroy Israel would be a sufficient deterrent. Nothing in George Bush's actions would make me believe otherwise.
Iran's newspapers express this distrust. Here is Iran's Aftab-e-Yazd had to say about America's proposal, "We have to be careful not to be trapped by Western tactics and should not let these tactics raise false hopes among us." The Iranian people do not want war with the US. Joseph Cirincione of the Center for American Progress argues that Iran isn't even sure it wants nuclear weapons. What they want is security.
Is the US giving them security with this newest proposal? Not yet.
President Bush said: "Our message to the Iranians is that one, you won't have a weapon, and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward." But the US will not rule out the option of a military strike, which what the Iranian government cares about.
Via the New York Times, "Administration officials characterized their offer as a test of whether the Iranians want engagement with the West more than they want the option to build a nuclear bomb some day. " Yes, Iran wants the legitimacy of engagement with the West, but the current overture is predicated on Iran giving up what it conceives as its only hope of security. Until the US convinces Iran that it doesn't need the Bomb, it won't be coming to dinner any time soon.
posted by PWN at 7:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home