According to this roundup of Iran’s latest nuclear chicanery the US position is ‘looking weak’. So, how exactly does watching the European bid for negotiation to secure Iran’s cooperation in cutting short its burgeoning nuclear program, fall flat on its face demonstrate a weakness in US policy?
Here’s some choice extracts:
What Iran has won
IN TWO years of talks, Iran has edged forward. It has not dismantled the equipment. It has inserted clauses in all deals stressing that the suspension is “voluntary”. It is also said to be pleased with the clause saying it will join the IAEA’s “Expert Group on Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, reading into this membership of a “club” with a say in the making of the world’s nuclear fuel.
What Iran has won is 2 years, full stop. 2 years to continue its enrichment programmes in search of tyranny’s holy grail - Nuclear Weaponry. It doesn’t matter if it complies with the wishes of the community on most of its programmes if it decides it’s going to keep “up to 20” centrifuges running to enrich uranium.
US weak
THIS week has shown the US’s weakness. France and Germany have made clear their commitment to negotiation, not referral, and Britain is still close to their position. As one senior British official puts it: “The US can’t say what it would want the Security Council to do” if it did secure a referral. Senior US officials acknowledge they are in no position to talk of military strikes against Iranian facilities, given the US’s predicament in Iraq and the lack of international support
I’d be happier if the article actually gave some decent examples of why this shows the US’s position to be weak. I was in favour of negotiation but it became clear the last time Iran backtracked that the channel of table-talk diplomacy was running rather dry.
Bronwen Maddox is correct in highlighting the US’s dependence upon Pakistan hindering its actions in this theatre, but at the same time it seems rather pointless in the face of the shocking failures of the recent talks. The US is chastised for not saying what path it intends to take in the UNSC if the matter is referred there but at least there is the potential to reach a decision which has legs in the Security Council (assuming Kofi has learned his lesson), as opposed to the feeble entreatments of diplomatic niceties. Such approaches work wonderfully well when dealing with democratically elected governments but they have severe limitations when plied against dictatorships who have little to fear from the talks’ participants and everything to gain.
The US currently holds the strongest position of all nations with regards to this problem. Right about now would be when Bill Clinton started rolling up his shirt sleeves, I hope Condoleeza Rice is up to the task of leveraging that position wisely.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at November 26, 2004 01:09 AM | TrackBack