A DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL ON IRAN THAT SEEMS A MITE OPTIMISTIC
TKS
jim geraghty reporting
Moving on to the Democrats' plan on Iran, I pulled an optic muscle from rolling my eyes so hard at this:
<<< U.S. subcontracted the problem to the EU3 (France, UK and Germany) but has provided only lukewarm support to them. (Page 60) >>>
This from the party of multilateralism, the party of the "global test", the party that's all about "strengthening alliances." You can't argue that we should trust our allies and let them do more, and the once that policy is enacted, turn around and claim that we're "subcontracting."
Here's the deal in full, some parts I actually like:
<<< A five-year global moratorium on all new enrichment and reprocessing, as called for by Mohammed ElBaradei, is the key.
o Will require international cooperation in assembling both a bundle of carrots and an arsenal of sticks.
o U.S., the EU3, Russia, and the IAEA need to present Iran with a bargain, packaged as an offer Iran cannot refuse.
o It would offer cover for Iran to comply with an international obligation without explicitly yielding to American or EU3 demands.
* The doable deal:
o EU3 delivery of important economic benefits under the terms of an agreement. Iran is eagerly seeking trade and investment.
o No U.S. objection to the supply of spare parts for U.S.-origin aircraft and negotiations with Iran about its entrance into the WTO.
o Credible assurances by the U.S. not to attack Iran to change its regime by force – if Iran ceases all work on its reprocessing and enrichment facilities that could support a nuclear weapons program.
o Slow-rolling of fuel delivery by Russia until Iran agrees to comply with the five-year moratorium.
o A combined Russian-EU guarantee to give Iran the opportunity to buy additional civilian nuclear reactors.
o A promise by Russia to provide an internationally-guaranteed supply of fuel for these reactors and removal of spent fuel at bargain prices.
* Carrots are not enough:
o Iran should be concerned that it has no realistic possibility of making its enrichment and reprocessing facilities operational.
o Accordingly, Iran should understand the existential threat of a military response under some conditions. >>>
I salute the Godfather fan in Democratic circles for the phrase "an offer they can't refuse." But there are a few problems. As the document acknowledges earlier:
<<< Iran’s devious behavior indicates that it is racing to join the nuclear weapons club… Iran concealed significant enrichment activities for almost two decades although it claims only to want to assure its fuel supply for seven planned civilian nuclear reactors to be built by 2020... Iran has shamelessly lied about many aspects of its program until confronted with solid evidence to the contrary. >>>
Any deal comes down to enforcement and verification. My fear is that the Iranians will sign agreements they have no intention of honoring. I also fear that the Europeans, desperate to avoid a conflict, will sign on to a deal without sufficient verification for the sake of getting a deal.
Two other points: remember who we’re going to be dealing with, Iranian President Mahmoud “I’m surrounded by a mystical green aura, world leaders magically don’t blink for hours at a time when I’m speaking, and the Twelfth Imam/Mahdi is coming and I have to prepare the way for him” Ahmedinjad. What appears to be a deal any rational man would accept to us may not be all that appetizing to him.
Secondly, I don’t think it’s irrational or stubborn that “the U.S. does not want to be seen as bargaining with Iran,” as the document states in a vaguely disapproving tone. These people took over our embassy, including, allegedly, the current President. That is an act of war. You do not recognize and you do not bargain with a regime that does that.
tks.nationalreview.com
democrats.senate.gov |
