| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Condi Rice: Sleep Walking On Iran? |
| 2006-09-30 |
| ...And of course there is Iran. Ms. Rice notes that, until recently, the State Department didn't actually have an Iran desk, which she reads (in an implicit rebuke of her predecessors) as evidence of a blinkered, bureaucratic mindset that thinks of foreign relations as "those with whom you do relations rather than . . . policy." She also says the U.S. will set up an Iran section in Dubai, modeled on the famous "Riga Station" the U.S. maintained in Latvia to monitor the Soviet Union before diplomatic relations were established in the 1930s. "We have to increase our capability to mine resources and intelligence about Iran. And one of the challenges is that we haven't been in the country for 26 years. And you would be surprised what it does to both your diplomatic and intelligence capability to not be in the country." During another point in the conversation, she observes that the Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb five years before the West thought they would have one. This raises the question of whether the West can afford to take its time with Iran. "Well, the problem is of course that you never know what you don't know," she says. But that sits somewhat incongruously with her broader approach to the Iranian challenge. "The international system will agree on a level of pressure. I think it will evolve over time." She opposes measures such as barring Iranians from international sports events or a gasoline embargo (to which Iran is particularly vulnerable, since it imports 40% of its refined gas), because of their "bad effect on the Iranian people." Instead, she stresses the benefits of a consensual, U.N.-centered approach, says the Europeans have been "very strong on this," and adds that she's had "very good discussions" with the Chinese and the Russians about what a sanctions resolution would look like if the Iranians don't suspend enrichment. She thinks even a comparatively weak resolution would have "collateral effects on the willingness of private companies, private banks, to do business with Iran." She hopes it will have an effect on Iranian officials who "do not want to endure the kind of isolation that they're headed toward." Do these people even exist? "I do not believe we're going to find Iranian moderates," she says. "The question is, are we going to find Iranian reasonables?" That's an interesting way of framing the matter, although perhaps not quite in the way Ms. Rice intends. There are, in fact, Iranian moderates: They are the 80% of the people who oppose the regime. The House has just approved the Iran Freedom Act, which says the U.S. should "support peaceful pro-democracy forces in Iran," and mirrors the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act that became a precursor to regime change there. President Bush used the occasion of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly to speak directly to the Iranian people, telling them "the greatest obstacle to [your] future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons." The State Department itself has increased its budget for supporting Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts in Farsi. What's telling is that Ms. Rice mentions none of this: Her primary method for dealing with the Iranian regime, it seems, is to deal with the regime, not to seek to change it. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #4 Hose, you gotta be joking. If you meant "regional" threat, and not a threat to the US, try applying that to Saddam/Iraq. I presume you thought Saddam more than a regional threat? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-30 20:21 |
| #3 I think Condi fully understands the Iranian regime and the dynamics of the situation. Like North Korea, a nuclear Iran is a region threat not a threat to the US homeland. A strong arm approach by the US will only rally global support for the Iranians. The best course for the US is to let Iran continue to scare the hell out of its neighbors and especially Europe. If Iran attacks the West it well attack Europe not the US. Europe has a border that is easily infiltrated and government and populations that would respond quite differently to an attack than the US would - ala Spain. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-09-30 18:39 |
| #2 I think that this the problem that arises when using the "rational actor" mindset to assess a regime like Iran's. Condi's a brilliant woman, but like a lot of brilliant people, she can suffer a lack of imagination when dealing with crazies. It's as if she can't bring herself to believe these people believe what they're saying. If this article is an accurate indication of how we'll deal with the mullahs and Ahmalunatic, then we're in for some deadly times. It's only a question of when the crisis manifests. |
| Posted by: charger 2006-09-30 16:37 |
| #1 I think there will be no meaningful UN sanctions against Iran. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-09-30 16:33 |