So this weekend, Iran rebuffed the P5+1 “freeze-for-freeze” proposal for having meta negotiations (negotiations about negotiations) over the nuclear issue. No surprises there.
But what next for the P5+1? I offer some ideas in my latest piece for The Guardian. Check it out.
Pretty good effort to promote Obama’s agenda, but not convincing enough.
On the political side it is a win-win situation for Obama’s team to clearily and openly indicate that Iran has the right to enrich and cannot be dispossesed of that right: this is the direction where events are pushing the US administration and it would be really damaging for Mccain to try to seriousely build an attack around it.
It goes also withouth saying that the resolution of the Iranian nuclear dispute with the US by not tampering with any article IV related right will be a big boost for the NPT regime.
For the record, Ivo Daalder and Phil Gordon are a better source for the “Obama Agenda” than either Andy or me.
In 1938 Chamberlain’s diplomacy was also pretty smart but where did it get us?
At the end of the day, while all the to and fro of discussions and negotiations continue, all of which are being neglected, the Iranians are enjoying the extra time they are earning at very little cost to continue with their nuclear programme. In a year’s time will we be saying we were too late again?
Note taken Jeffrey !
Mr Lemon,
Check your history books and acquire a little bit of common sens. In 1938 Germany, Britain and France were the 3 major powers in Europe. Today, The US is the dominating power in her own league and we can hardly even put Iran in the league just below it. the only powers that can barely make it to the same level are Russia, EU, if it can constitute itself politicaly, and China. For this elementary reason only, comparing Iran with 1938 Germany is absurd.
Regarding the “phased redeployment out of Iraq by 2010,” please note that the general consensus in the US military is that the Iraqi military will not be able to stand fully on its own until 2012, in the most optimistic case.
On the one hand, Mr Obama seems willing to countenance a “redeployment” that leaves a couple tens of thousands of US troops in country. Maybe the citizenry of the US will go along with it, and even that of Iraq, if the remaining US forces are not in an exposed role. But will the Iranians?
ataune, There are parallels between modern Iran and Nazi Germany 70 years ago. Both engendered totalitarian dictatorships, aggressive and expansionist foreign policies coupled with rearmament. Both regimes faced vacillating Western democracies that fooled themselves into thinking the dictatorships were reasonable people to be appeased. Now, if you are saying that unlike the Great Powers in ’38, the US and Iran are not evenly matched on the world stage then I would agree with you, but that is nothing to do with the point I am trying to make which is that diplomacy with Iran is unlikely to work unless there is a credible first strike option on the table.
Major Lemon
While I agree with your last statement in regards to diplomatic leverage I have to completely disagree with the suggestion you make about Chamberlain. Giving Hitler a free hand over half of Czechoslovakia is not diplomacy, it is appeasement. The two terms are not interchangeable.