Getting Tough on Iran

[_Bob Loblaw]

Our patience with Iran isn't unlimited. It just seems like it.

“My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction.” President Obama, May 18, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.” Secretary Clinton, July 15, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“We are not going to keep the window open forever.” Secretary Clinton, July 22, 2009, Bangkok, Thailand.

“The Iranians may simply try to run out the clock.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates, July 27, 2009.

“Our patience is not infinite. We’re not willing to let this go on forever.” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, September 14, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely. . . . Our patience is not unlimited.” President Obama, October 1, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“We are in what we hope is an intensive diplomatic phase now. It will not be open-ended.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, October 1, 2009, Geneva, Switzerland.

“I don’t think that there’s a hard-and-fast deadline. . . .What we have said all along is that this is not an open-ended process, we are not in this just to talk for talk’s sake. . . . We expect prompt, concrete steps to be taken over the next couple of weeks.” State department spokesman Kelly, October 2, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“We are running out of time” President Obama, November 15, 2009, Shanghai, China.

“Time is running out for Iran to address the international community’s growing concerns about its nuclear program.” Press Secretary Gibbs, November 29, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“Iran has to live up to its international obligations. . . . The president has said that our patience is not unlimited.” State Deptartment spokesman Kelly, November 30, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“The window is closing.” National Security adviser Jim Jones, December 2, 2009, Washington, D.C.

“Iran’s nuclear program . . . there was going to be a time limit . . .” President Obama, March 30, 2010, Washington, D.C.

“We’ve said to the Iranians all along . . . we still remain open to diplomacy. But it’s been very clear that the Iranians don’t want to engage with us.” Secretary Hillary Clinton, September 19, 2010.

“We want to see the Iranians engage, and as you know, we have attempted to bring about that engagement over the course of the last three-plus years. It has not proven effective.” Secretary Hillary Clinton, December 12, 2011, Washington, D.C.

“To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful. . . . The question is going to be whether in these discussions they show themselves moving clearly in that direction.” President Obama, March 6, 2012, Washington, D.C.

“That window is closing.” President Obama, March 25, 2012, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

“Time is short.” President Obama, March 26, 2102, Seoul, Republic of Korea,

“Iran’s window of opportunity . . . will not remain open forever.” Secretary Clinton, March 31, 2012, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

”They assert that their program is purely peaceful. . . . We want them to demonstrate clearly in the actions they propose that they have truly abandoned any nuclear weapons ambition.” Secretary Clinton, April 12, 2012, Washington, D.C.

”That window is closing. . . . Now, the clock is ticking. . . . We’re not going to have these talks just drag out in a stalling process. . . . We haven’t given away anything — other than the opportunity for us to negotiate ” President Obama, April 15, 2012, Cartagena, Columbia.

“We will not engage in an endless process of negotiations.” U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, September 20, 2012, New York.

“Iran . . . has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful . . . time is not unlimited.” President Obama, September 25, 2012, New York.

[_krose]

Yeah, why haven't we bombed them already? We need another war, dammit!

At least when Mitt says these kinds of things, according to him he will really mean it, and they'll be totally scared, cuz he's, like, a real Leader, who is all Leader-y and who Leads from ahead instead of from behind. And stuff.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You really believe that the only other option is to bomb Iran?

[_Morley]

You really believe that the only other option is to bomb Iran?

What are the other "get tough" options--that we're not doing?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Here are some options (preferably used together):

1. Identify countries and businesses that are supplying components vital to Iran's nuclear program and use diplomacy and sanctions to stop such sales. And yes, this includes negotiating with China and Russia and other countries.

2. Identify countries and businesses that are used to ship the components to Iran and use a combination of diplomacy and sanctions to stop the transit of goods.

3. Better intelligence aimed at detecting nuclear activities and encouraging defection of key personnel.

4. Covert action to hinder their nuclear program.

5. Economic and financial sanctions.

Sanctions have been in place for a while, and it seems like they are having some effect on the Iranian economy but none on the leadership. My understanding is that the Revolutionary Guards control smuggling and black-market operations in Iran, which are thriving due to the sanctions. So, we're putting money into the hands of the Guards, but hurting the populace.

I haven't seen any evidence that we are trying to prevent sale and shipment of materials other than asking politely. I have no doubt the administration has been engaged in covert action and other intelligence operations, such as Stux, but no one is quite sure how much effect that has had.

[_Quasimodo]

There is another way to look at this. All that we know (the unwashed masses) is what we hear from the media. In this case I think it might be safe to assume that this is what both the US and Israel would like Iran to hear.

It sounds a little like "good cop/ bad cop" to me. If Iran backs down under economic pressure the problem is solved without military action (best case scenario). If not, Israel makes surgical strikes to eliminate the nuclear threat (bet that they can do it) while leaving the US with plausible deniability.

[_Morley]

Here are some options (preferably used together):

1. Identify countries and businesses that are supplying components vital to Iran's nuclear program and use diplomacy and sanctions to stop such sales. And yes, this includes negotiating with China and Russia and other countries.

2. Identify countries and businesses that are used to ship the components to Iran and use a combination of diplomacy and sanctions to stop the transit of goods.

3. Better intelligence aimed at detecting nuclear activities and encouraging defection of key personnel.

4. Covert action to hinder their nuclear program.

5. Economic and financial sanctions.

Sanctions have been in place for a while, and it seems like they are having some effect on the Iranian economy but none on the leadership. My understanding is that the Revolutionary Guards control smuggling and black-market operations in Iran, which are thriving due to the sanctions. So, we're putting money into the hands of the Guards, but hurting the populace.

I haven't seen any evidence that we are trying to prevent sale and shipment of materials other than asking politely. I have no doubt the administration has been engaged in covert action and other intelligence operations, such as Stux, but no one is quite sure how much effect that has had.

Good and thoughtful analysis. Of your list, which of the five can you say we're not doing? I thought we were pursuing each of those avenues. Sino-Russian-Iranian diplomacy isn't an easy nut to crack.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I for one do not want to see the Israelis bomb Iran, as it will have untold consequences. And of course the US will get blamed, as Iran and a lot of other countries see Israel as a client state of the US--or perhaps it's the other way around.

The big one I don't think we're doing is working on the transit issue. Here's what the ISIS report on the current state of affairs in 2012 said:

There remain significant gaps, notably, the weak implementation of U.N. Security Council sanctions by China. China remains vulnerable to Iran’s smuggling of vital goods for its nuclear program. Smugglers use front companies to buy from Chinese suppliers or Western high technology subsidiaries located within its borders. There remain many concerns about Iran’s continued ability to transship goods through countries with weak implementation of sanctions or trade controls, commonly called countries of transit concern. ... Countries of transit concern serve as transshipment points for goods destined for Iran and mask the goods’ true destination from suppliers. Currently, Turkey has emerged as a country of major concern. In the past, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Malaysia have been major transit countries willing to turn a blind eye to Iran’s smuggling operations. Iranian smugglers depend on these types of countries because they can rarely ship goods directly to Iran from Europe, Japan, or the United States.

To address the problems posed by these countries, a coalition of willing nations can increase licensing requirements on major countries of transit concern, which would require these transit countries to ensure that imported, controlled or dual-use goods are not being sent to Iran. Countries of transit concern would need to show extra documentation substantiating that an end-user of a sensitive good is not Iran’s nuclear program. This approach would stimulate countries of transit concern to pass more effective laws and regulations against Iran’s illicit nuclear trade. Avoiding the threat of extra requirements has already motivated some countries, such as the UAE and Malaysia, to put more emphasis on stopping Iran’s illegal activities on their territories.

The report goes on to say that we have diplomatic leverage with countries like Turkey, Malaysia, and the UAE, and I would think it wouldn't be hard for our government to assist these countries with smuggling interdiction programs and such. It would surely be easier and less expensive than bombing Tehran.

[_Morley]

The report goes on to say that we have diplomatic leverage with countries like Turkey, Malaysia, and the UAE, and I would think it wouldn't be hard for our government to assist these countries with smuggling interdiction programs and such. It would surely be easier and less expensive than bombing Tehran.

Couldn't find that. Link and page numbers?

Thanks in advance, Bob.

[_krose]

I'm just going to go ahead and say what is apparently unthinkable.

Why do we think we have the right to dictate terms to another sovereign nation, and forbid them from acquiring that which we already have in huge numbers (and are the only ones to have actually used them)?

Also, what do we think will happen if they do successfully develop the Bomb? Do we really believe they care so little for their country that they would use it, thus guaranteeing their destruction?

What Iran has learned from watching our interactions with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea, is that joining the nuclear club is one way to be sure the Americans won't invade and engage in some more "regime change." Hell, we already did it to them once, overthrowing their democratically elected government in the 50s.