Here’s a sooper-genius proposal for dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions:
We propose that Iran’s efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the US – Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well.
OK, people – did you learn anything from Oil-For-Palaces? When hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, people cheat. And to expect the Russian, Chinese, and European ‘partners’ in Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle to act strategically when immediate financial rewards are at stake is – well, it’s kind of Captain Renault-ish.
And let’s train and educate the Iranian scientists so they can be more efficient at making enriched uranium…say, in parallel programs that we’re so good at detecting.
And let’s invest millions in an infrastructure on Iranian soil, so the Iranians can simply come by one day and decide to treat it – well, with all the sanctity of an embassy. The genius authors of this correctly dismiss the notion of building the plant in Russia for strategic reasons; people, why not put it in Germany? (if you’re going to ship the fissile materials anyway…).
And as a cherry on top of this steaming cow pie, they suggest that the main reason to do this is because Ahmadinejad is in trouble with his own people, and needs a political lifeline. Because?
If you haven’t seen this video – you should.
So let’s revisit – we’re creating a management structure that is designed to be corrupted, to improve the ability of the Iranian regime to cheat, and to create an immensely valuable asset for them. The defense is that it will improve our enemies’ standing with his people (who are starting to hate him., in part because our policies are working), it will create a ‘bright line,’ crossing which will mean the regime will “certainly” face military action (hey – all the liberal commentators who say things like this – will you sign, in blood, please a memorandum fully supporting bombing raids and the inevitable civilian casualties and diplomatic fallout if Iran does, like cheat us on something like this? I’d take you much more seriously if you did).
The authors of this foolishness are ostensibly grownups, and my betters in the world of international affairs:
William Luers is the president of the United Nations Association-USA and was formerly US Ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela.
Thomas Pickering is Co-Chair of the United Nations Association-USA, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and former US Ambassador to Russia, Israel, India, Jordan, El Salvador, Nigeria, and the UN.
Jim Walsh, a Research Associate at MIT, was previously Executive Director of the Managing the Atom Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvardâ€™s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
I’ll have to go look through Gaddis’ book “The Cold War” for the quote on why diplomacy didn’t work to end the Cold War; as I recall it in essence, because the diplomats were totally invested in the idea of stability, and in essence because invested in the balance of power between the two sides – regardless of which side they were on.
Here’s a perfect example of that. Where do we get such men?