Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

No Sanctions For Sanctions

Friday, March 5th, 2010

The Administration is carving out an exception for China to its bill tightening sanctions on Iran.

Unlike South Korea and Japan, our supposed allies in the region, Chinese companies would suffer no punishment for trading with Tehran.

Perhaps this is a bribe to get the Chinese on board at the UN, but the reality is neither the Chinese nor the Russians are serious about imposing more sanctions.

Sooner or later, the President’s going to have to decide whether he wants to make a deal with the Iranians.

The sanctions so far aren’t stopping Tehran from nuclear development, and there’s very little international appetite for a solely punitive approach.

Gorilla thinks: “Cut to the chase and cut a deal!”

  • Share/Bookmark

Going To Beijing, Not Going To Tehran

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

China continues to insist that diplomacy, and not sanctions, are the key to solving the Iranian nuclear problem.

The Russians are being coy about sanctions, saying they should be a last resort and not targetted at the civilian population.

And the US and Europe continue to insist that more sanctions are needed.

Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA.

So, we should dispatch a senior diplomat to Tehran to get things back on track.

Instead, we dispatch a senior diplomat to Beijing to keep things off the track.

Sooner or later, of course, we’ll need to sit down and do a bilateral deal with Tehran, but not in an election year.

Gorilla says: “Carrots and sticks are fine, but talking is cheaper!”

  • Share/Bookmark

Saudis Want A Deal

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

With Iran, that is, they don’t think sanctions or a military strike are very good ideas.

And they want to avoid a nuclear arms race in the region.

So, the ball’s back in Hillary’s court. There’s little support for sanctions, which haven’t had much impact on Iran. There’s even less support for a US or Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, assuming we even know where they all are.

What everyone other than Washington would get behind is a bilateral US-Iranian deal, followed by a wider regional agreement to limit nuclear proliferation.

The outlines are in place: a security guarantee and civilian nuclear power for Iran in exchange for IAEA inspections, no nuclear weapons and the resumption of US-Iranian diplomatic relations.

It’s difficult to understand what America’s national security goals are in the Middle East and Central Asia. Terrorism isn’t much more than a minor irritation. Oil is flowing and it’s in the interest of nearly all the bad actors to keep it flowing. Palestinian-Israeli peace is not achievable, but time and demographics will eventually force both sides to get serious.

Successive Administrations have gotten bogged down in fear and loathing. We won’t be staying in Afghanistan for decades, and that’s the only way the country will be peaceful. We can’t get into Pakistan as we would like, so we’ll have to keep trying to convince Islamabad to crack down on the nutters. Iraq may well return to civil war, but there’s not much we can do about it. We’re not serious about removing our dependence on fossil fuels, so we keep having to play policeman for the Seven Sisters in a very dangerous neighborhood.

Ten years have been wasted on a region that we would treat like Africa if the oil disappeared, and we haven’t learned a thing.

Gorilla thinks: “We’ll get grown ups when we start acting like grown ups!”

  • Share/Bookmark

What’s The Difference?

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Between a dictatorship of theocrats and a dictatorship of generals?

Dunno, but Secretary of State Clinton seems to want to make such a distinction in Iran.

Theocrats? We won’t deal with them, but they may be less inclined to repress their people.

Militarycrats? We won’t deal with them, but they don’t care what happens to their people.

So, what are the choices for others in the region, according to Secretary Clinton?

1) Do nothing about Iran.

2) Go nuclear, like Iran.

3) Ask the US for help, either to defend against Iranian nukes or provide nukes for some post-Cold War version of collective security.

We apparently prefer option 3.

And it’s all utter nonsense.

Why should we again promote arms proliferation in a region where our only interest is the free flow of oil?

Might it not be better to cut a deal with the Iranians and balance our interests between Shiite and Sunni dictatorships?

Might it not be even better to reduce or eliminate our dependency on unstable petrocracies, perhaps via stiff consumption taxes on fossil fuels, thus making energy alternatives economically viable?

What we’ll do instead is absolutely nothing in an election year, don’t after all want to be called soft on the Axis of Evil!

Gorilla says: “You can take the politician out of the diplomacy, but you can’t take the diplomat out of politics!”

  • Share/Bookmark

Foresight is 20/90

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Iran’s back with mixed messages today:

1) They’d be willing to have their nuclear fuel processed abroad if it was 20% enriched.

2) They’re planning to go to 20% enriched on their nuclear fuel and build 10 more plants (seen as a farce, since Iran can’t keep their current plant going at all times).

The UN’s export deal is for 3.5% uranium, which the Iranians claim isn’t enough for the medical isotopes they want to produce.

The West sees 20% enrichment as a step on the way to nuclear weapons development, which requires 90% enrichment.

Sooner or later, there’s going to have to be a deal. The sanctions aren’t working very well, and there’s no support for further sanctions from China.

But it’s an election year in the US and UK, and politicians don’t want to be seen as “soft” on state sponsors of terrorism.

Gorilla thinks: “Give it a year and we’ll be in Tehran doing a deal!”

  • Share/Bookmark

The Bear Attack Pamphlet

Friday, February 5th, 2010

A missile shield in Romania, an angry bear in Moscow!

It’s difficult to understand the strategy behind US policy. What are we trying to accomplish with missile defense?

On the one hand, missile defense doesn’t work.

On the other hand, the alleged missile attacker is Iran, despite there being no evidence that Tehran wishes to engage in national suicide by lobbing a few bombs at Euroland.

On the foot, the Russians, who remain a far more serious problem for European interests, feel surrounded, thus justifying their very lukewarm approach to American proposed sanctions against Iran.

Gorilla asks: “How are we free with SM-3?”

  • Share/Bookmark

Dealing From Isotopes

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Iran is certainly all over the map today:

1) Launching a “satellite carrying rocket” with a payload including turtles

2) Saying it “has no problem” with swapping its enriched uranium to Russia and the West in return for processing into civilian nuclear fuel

3) Offering to swap the three American hikers caught on the wrong side of the Iran-Iraq border

4) Executing 2 opposition figures and putting 9 more on trial

Are they ready to make a deal, or is it just delaying, followed by confusion?

No one knows. But the time for engagement is coming.

There’s no chance of further sanctions from Russia and China, so President Obama will have to decide whether he wants a deal or not.

Gorilla says: “Tehran doesn’t know what it wants, perhaps we do!”

  • Share/Bookmark

The Professor Or The Spy?

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

In Iran, a nuclear physics professor was blown up.

Who killed him?

The Israelis or Americans, bent on slowing down Iran’s nuclear program?

The Iranians, bent on showing their professors who’s boss?

An interesting sidelight to what’s going on between the US and Iran. Both sides are expanding the rhetoric while getting closer to a bilateral solution.

The bet here is that the professor was killed by the Israelis, as a demonstration project of their capabilities and their anger with a US President who’s seeking a peace they don’t currently want.

Gorilla says: “The spies are flexing their muscles, but the diplomats have the momentum!”

  • Share/Bookmark

Beijing Ducks

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Not time for more sanctions on Iran, sayeth the Chinese!

And so the President has to decide: start talking directly with Iran or try to keep yet another coalition of the unwilling together.

So far, the policy seems to be, as it is on most everything these days, hit and hope.

We’d like the Iranians to come to the table, we’d like to see regime change in Tehran, we’d like to keep the Israelis from pulling the trigger.

But there’s very little we can do to achieve this until and unless bilateral talks begin.

The President is certainly smart enough to know this, but he’s also handicapped by the need to appear tough on underwear bombers.

Gorilla thinks it’s more or less a Brooklyn Dodgers scenario: “Wait til next year!”

  • Share/Bookmark

No Choice Correctly

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Burma’s top general says he hopes the Burmese people will make “correct choices” when it comes to elections scheduled for later this year.

A warning? Most probably, since the last free election held in Burma resulted in a military coup and 21 years of dictatorship.

What can be done? Nothing much at all, until the Burmese people, like the Iranian people, decide that getting rid of their bums may require the deaths of thousands.

As in Iran, there’s no real outlet for opposition and no certainty about who the population really supports. There’s hope that the veil will be lifted peacefully, but not much confidence in what’s an increasingly desperate situation.

Carrots and sticks have both been tried on Burma, but the reality is that no one’s going to war for the place and the Burmese generals know it.

Gorilla thinks: “Suu Kyi is Burma, such is life!”

  • Share/Bookmark