Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Bush administration and its European allies have given Iran a two-week deadline to respond to a proposal that they freeze the expansion of their uranium enrichment program for six weeks in exchange for a US agreement to freeze the expansion of sanctions for six weeks. During the six week "freeze for freeze," "pre-negotiations" would take place that would lay the groundwork for formal talks.
On the face of it, a six-week freeze in the expansion of enrichment seems like a small concession. The catch in this proposal, from the point of view of many in Iran, is that the US has not dropped its insistence that for formal talks to start, the Iranians must suspend enrichment completely; nor has the US signaled any flexibility on its goal for formal talks, which is that the Iranians agree to accept the end of uranium enrichment on Iranian soil under any circumstances, forever.
So, from the point of view of many in Iran, the proposal for talks is a trap. Since the goal of the talks, from the Bush administration's point of view, is that Iran suspend enrichment forever, and since suspension of enrichment is a US precondition for the talks, by starting the talks according to its precondition the US achieves its goal temporarily, and the US continues to achieve its goal so long as the talks go on. Some Iranians fear that once talks commence under the precondition of suspending enrichment, it will be the US that has the incentive to delay. The talks can go on indefinitely without reaching any agreement and the US will have achieved its objective. If the Iranians break off the talks out of frustration that the US isn't negotiating in good faith and resume enrichment, the Bush administration will blame Iran, and there is every reason to believe that the Bush administration's lapdogs in Britain, France and Italy will follow suit.
But there is a saying among chess players: the best way to refute a gambit to accept it. You can look into the position more deeply than your opponent, see the trap that he has set, and walk right into it, knowing that around the trap your opponent has set you have constructed an even better trap.
There is a fundamental weakness in the Bush administration's position, and that is that most people don't realize that the Bush administration's actual position is that Iran must not be allowed to enrich uranium, ever, under any conceivable circumstances. People don't know that is the Bush administration's position because the Bush administration has put up a fog around it, and the reason they've put up a fog around it is that there is no basis for the Bush administration's position in any international agreement or treaty.
But if real negotiations started, the eyes of the international media would be focused on the talks. It would no longer be possible for the Bush administration to conceal its inflexibility on the question of enrichment. If it became clear, as it well might, that it was the Bush administration's intransigence on the question of enrichment that was preventing the talks from reaching a successful conclusion, the Bush administration would come under tremendous pressure to be more flexible, and it might well capitulate, rather than be blamed for the failure of the talks.
It is because of this legitimate fear among neocons that it is the Bush administration, rather than Iran, whose position cannot stand the light of international scrutiny that John Bolton said the decision of the Bush Administration to send a representative to the "pre-pre-talks" in Geneva was a capitulation on the question of Iranian enrichment.
It is quite possible, even likely, that once talks are joined, the heretofore buried proposal of former UN Ambassador Pickering that the US and Iran agree on multinational enrichment of uranium in Iran will finally get a hearing in the international media; and most people in the world will think it reasonable that the endpoint of negotiations should not be the Bush administration's position, but an agreement that meets Iran half-way.
So it might well be in Iran's interest to call the Bush administration's bluff. The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it.
Ambassador Pickering explains his proposal.Robert Naiman is National Coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, a membership organization devoted to reforming U.S. foreign policy to reflect the values and serve the interests of the majority of Americans. Naiman edits the daily Just Foreign Policy news summary. JFP's web site is www.justforeignpolicy.org.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
11 Comments so far
Show AllIt seemed obvious to me all along that the Bush Administration does not want Iran to enrich uranium. There is no need for the Bush Adminitration to create a fog. It was alrerady known all along.
I do want to talk about something that this piece did not touch upon. The position of the Government of Iran is roughly as follows:
1) Why is it ok for some nations in the world but not others to develop nuclear technology?
2) Why are the (the Iranian people) being punished by nuclear powered nations (indeed nuclear armed nations) for something that is perfectly in their legal right to do - which is to enrich uranium but not build nuclear weapons?
Until the USA and its allies are willing to give honest answers to these two questions posed by Iran, the diplomatic talks will prove futile.
Of course, Iran has the power to just deny oil shipments to those nations with its cooresponding leaders not smart enough to give straight answers to aforementioned questions as Iran may see fit. Remember that fact..."First World" nations!
Thad,
Actually, that my last comment was out of line. Since we often get a view of foreign fanaticism and rarely a view of "regular Joes and Janes" it's always nice to see a view of the typical like the one you provided. Such lessons are always welcome.
Thad,
You are talking about a ban in law. That ban wasn't invented out of the blue. Although they won't toss you in jail anymore, many if not most Ayatollah's consider it an insult to Hussein.
see: sistani.org or google for "Yazid Hussein Chess" for their reasoning.
Having consumed a lot of liquor and cigarettes in a Muslim country, I don't need a lesson in how people don't always adhere strictly to their religion.
The Iranians should insist than any Iranian "freeze" is conditioned on the US living up to its commitment under the nuclear treaty to start reducing the US's arsenal of nuclear weapons and to refrain from putting nukes into space. Or, the Iranians should condition their freeze on steps to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the Middle East, e.g. immediate international inspections of Israel's nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona, the use of depleted uranium (DU) by the US in Iraq, etc.
myboysherman July 25th, 2008 3:21 am
There was no irony. Did you even click on the links I provided ? The ban on chess was a short lived edict after the revolution.
The Persians introduced the notions of "check" and "checkmate" to the game of chess: they have been playing for about 14 centuries. Even the *name* chess comes by way of a French change to the Persian word 'shah' for king.
http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/060919_chess_invent.html
But the game itself has a long and murky history:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21365667-30417,00.htm...
When you see comments like 'the Persians are playing chess while the Americans are playing checkers' - forget about the 10 year chess ban within a 1400 year chess history.
Thad Stone said:
"The planet spins once per day. Try to keep up…"
Just pointing out the irony of the chess metaphor. But thanks for the astronomy lesson.
myboysherman July 24th, 2008 2:08 pm
"Probably not the best analogy. Chess is forbidden among most Shiites."
Sure. And American Christians can't go shopping on Sunday.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1891
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Chess_Championship
The planet spins once per day. Try to keep up...
"...the eyes of the international media would be focused on the talks."
Yeah, right. Reuters, AP, et al have done a bang-up job of reporting the Iran story so far: from the "I come, U blow up" faked video to the repeated "wipe Israel off the map" miss-translation.
The only thing that the media will report is that Iran has "defied the international community’s olive branch and is brazenly proceeding with their nuclear weapons program"
The Iranians have stated time and again that they will not "freeze" again, and will assiduosly fight to uphold their right to develop the nuclear fuel cycle.
For some reason, CommonDreams freezes my comments when I include urls or hyperlinks, so I will just urge folks to go to atimes.com to read the many recent important items reported there about this issue. There is also at informationclearinghouse.info an item detailing the potential for a lawsuit against Israel and the USA regrading their threats against Iran.
As the geopolitical paradigm swings to Security of Energy Supply and its related Interests, the old Cold War bonds are rapidly becoming brittle. The EU, but especially the UK, is very--and becoming increasingly more--dependant on Russian and Islamic region energy supplies, with the lesson of the US failure in Iraq paramount.
Probably not the best analogy. Chess is forbidden among most Shiites.
The Iranians may, as the author suggests, accept a temporary freeze but I doubt it. They froze their program for months as a precondition for talks with the Europeans and the negotiations went nowhere largely because the Europeans, acting on behalf of America, were asking for the Iranians to forgo technology that they themselves hold to be their exclusive birthright. The Iranians, despite what many Americans believe, aren’t gagging to hold negotiations with the US government on this issue.
The Iranians are doing exactly what they want with regards to nuclear energy. They are proceeding as per international law and the interests of the Iranian people’s infrastructure needs. They of course will not necessarily antagonize the US but there is only so much one can do to appease a bully. The sabre rattling is playing into the Iranian nationalists’ hands.