Obama Makes a Brilliant Play

I am not engaging in sarcasm, I mean it. The Administration's announcement at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh of a previously unpublicized nuclear facility in Tehran looks like a stroke of genius. There is some indication that it was not planned. Apparently we have known about the site since the Bush Administration. According to Politico:

Interviews with administration and international officials, diplomats, non-proliferation and Iran experts suggest the administration had no plans to announce its suspicions before beginning international talks with Iran next week. But its hand was forced after learning some time during the week of a letter Iran had sent the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna acknowledging construction of a previously undisclosed facility.

Why did this Administration and the previous one sit on this bit of intelligence? I think of two reasons. First, if the Iranians didn't know we knew about it, they might not take steps to harden the target. Second, we are keeping it as a hole card for just such an occasion as this. The Administration made the announcement only when it became clear that the IAEA knew about it, though apparently the IAEA wasn't inclined to blab.

To be sure I am not inclined to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think it has earned it. But I really do hope that this was planned, if not for now then for just before the coming international talks. I can appreciate a good play, and I genuinely hope the Administration succeeds in its policy for that is clearly in the national interests. Besides, the rules of the game are that Obama gets credit.

Why was the release of this story such a good play? Again, there are two reasons. It provides dramatic reinforcement of Washington's case. We have been warning all of you that Tehran is trying to go nuclear. Now you see that it's even worse than we have been saying. That's the kind of dramatic event that might not mean a lot in itself, but can tip the scales of action by its psychological effect.

Second, it gives our allies more reason for vigorously backing our play, and more importantly, it gives the Russians and the Chinese a "pretext" for shifting from resistance to reluctant support of the President's policy if indeed they are willing to do so. In international relations, that is what a brilliant play looks like.

According to the WaPo, the Administration has given up on its hugs and kisses approach to Tehran.

The effort to directly engage Iran was a hallmark of the early months of the administration, with President Obama offering a televised greeting in honor of the Persian New Year and sending private letters to the country's supreme leader. But the gestures went largely unreciprocated. Now, while not shutting the door on engagement entirely, the United States and its allies plan to forcefully press the case that Tehran has been caught, red-handed, in yet another violation of international rules. Officials hope that the pressure -- to be applied at previously scheduled talks Thursday in Geneva -- will force Iran into a broader discussion about its program and then into a serious set of negotiations.

I don't like all the weakness implied in that paragraph, but the Administration clearly has in mind the threat of serious sanctions imposed by the world community. For example, Iran is heavily dependent upon importing refined gasoline. A real embargo, if such could be arranged, would put a severe economic crisis on top of the political one that the Ayatollahs are currently dealing with.

But it is well to remember that a superbly executed double play doesn't mean anything unless you win the ballgame. London and Paris are talking very tough right now, and even Moscow seems to be acknowledging the need for serious pressure on Iran. However, Beijing has been steadfast against sanctions, and it is hard to believe that they will not find reasons to remain so.

I am not optimistic that the Russians and the Chinese will really support tough economic sanctions. And even if they do, there is no guarantee that such sanctions will work. We applied them for more than a decade against Saddam. The Administration has wisely refused to take military action off the table. But I have a hard time imagining that this Administration pulling the trigger. More likely, I am afraid, are watered down sanctions and more waiting while the centrifuges spin.

But just right now the Administration has played a strong card at the right time.

Comments

[hass]

UTTER NONSENSE!!! Iran was not legally required to disclose the facility until 180-days prior to the introduction of nuclear material into the site. The site is still under construction and not even operational yet. The Iranians are therefore doing exactly what they'er supposed to be doing, and not engaged in "deception"

[KB]

hass: Yeah, those scrupulous Iranians. But you miss the point. It doesn't matter whether the Iranians were playing by the rules if the key nations agree that they aren't. Your 180 day rule looks designed to help the Iranians skirt the rules, but if that is the game that they were playing, they lost this hand. The announcement gave the world community an excuse to get tough. Whether they will use that excuse to good effect is doubtful, as I indicated.

[JAMES RAIDER]

Obama blundered on Iran when he gave up a powerful element in the negotiations with Iran.

Russia continues it’s rhetoric, and there is little chance that Iran's leadership will fall into line on the nuclear arms front.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-blunder-on-iran.html

----------

[Erik]

KB:
Even if the Iranians were to develop a nuclear weapon, there is no incentive for them to use. If they did, the detterent force of Israel alone (not to mention the US), which has unofficially has nukes, is enough to wipe Iran out. I believe Iran has some biological weapons that would be more damaging than a nuke. Why haven't they used them? Detterence again....
Erik

[KB]

Erik! I was beginning to think you didn't love me any more. I am feeling all warm and fuzzy. You express a view that is somewhat on the periphery of the debate, but is to be taken seriously: it doesn't matter if the Iranians have nukes, since other countries with nukes will be able to deter them.

Yes, Iran would be risking devastation if they used or tried to use a nuke against Israel or the U.S. But do we, or the Israelis, or the rest of the world really want to rely on that? Was there an incentive for the Taliban to allow al Qaeda to launch an attack on the U.S. from Afghan soil? Maybe the Ayatollahs are really good Machiavellians, playing only for regional power. If that is so, self-interest will always reign in their religious ambitions. Or maybe they really believe all the things they say they believe. In that case, the incentives are considerably enlarged.

At any rate, allowing them to develop nuclear weapons if we can prevent it seems like a very bad gamble to me.

Mr. Raider: I agree that the President's decision to give up Poland and the Czech Republic was a very costly move, but it was all about Russia, not about Iran. Whatever Tehran cares about, it isn't the freedom to lob missiles at Warsaw.

Thanks to all for the comments.