ArmsControlWonk.com

Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks from Morocco yesterday seemed to represent a harder line on the LEU-TRR deal than the United States had taken previously:

“Acceptance fully of this proposal which we have put forth and which we are unified behind would be a good indication that Iran does not wish to be isolated and does wish to cooperate with the international community and fulfill its international responsibilities,” Clinton said. “So I urge Iran to accept the agreement as proposed because we are not altering it.”

Viewed in context, her remarks come across a little differently, but the news media — here and in Iran — naturally focused on the part that was new and newsworthy. Unfortunately, that was the words, “we are not altering it.”

Today’s response from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, was unequivocal:

“We do not want any negotiation, the result of which is pre-determined by the United States,” Supreme leader said in a speech to students on the eve of Wednesday’s 30th anniversary of the US embassy seizure by students in 1979.

“A dialogue like this is like a sheep and wolf relation, which the late imam (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) has said that we ‘do not want’,” he said.

This may not completely close the door on the LEU-TRR deal, but it’s the first thing that Khamene’i has said on it, and he tends to get his way. The best one could say at this point is that the deal is now on life support.

As I may have remarked previously, opposition to the West and resistance to its diktat is basically the entire point of the Islamic Republic. So seeming to dictate to Tehran is a good way of shutting down a very delicate process.

It’s still possible that a small gesture could put matters back on track: one way would be to find a face-saving arrangement for LEU exports (e.g., two or three shipments, all before the end of the year, or shipment to yet another state that could hold it “in escrow”). Another way would be to make a public statement about the willingness of the United States to support IAEA Technical Cooperation activity at TRR. But maybe the most important single thing for both sides is actually to stop negotiating through public statements.

Update. President Obama’s Nov. 3 statement reads like a reply to Ayatollah Khamene’i:

Thirty years ago today, the American Embassy in Tehran was seized. The 444 days that began on November 4, 1979 deeply affected the lives of courageous Americans who were unjustly held hostage, and we owe these Americans and their families our gratitude for their extraordinary service and sacrifice.

This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation. I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran’s request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community.

Iran must choose. We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for. The American people have great respect for the people of Iran and their rich history. The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice, and their courageous pursuit of universal rights. It is time for the Iranian government to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity, and justice for its people.

When President Obama says, “Iran must choose,” this probably should be seen in the light of the “two-track” strategy. The implication is that the time is soon coming when Iran either will step through the diplomatic door that its own leaders opened in early June, or the leaders of Western countries, and other countries besides, will move on to strategies other than negotiation.

In practice, I believe that the moment of decision is the opening of the next IAEA Board of Governors meeting, on November 26. Further elaboration on this point appears in the comments.

Five retired military strategists from key NATO countries — including Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Pres. Clinton and former NATO commander — have authored a manifesto on NATO’s future saying among other things that:

The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The goal of the manifesto, according to its authors, is to revive the troubled trans-atlantic alliance.

Huh?! How could a renewed emphasis on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons possibly promote NATO unity?! The authors apparently missed the Schultz-Perry-Kissinger-Nunn op-eds in the WSJ endorsing the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and less reliance on them in the meantime.

NATO sure could use a jolt of energy and some fresh thinking, particularly as European publics sour on the NATO mission in Afghanistan and the United States remains bogged down in Iraq (see my colleagues Larry Korb and Caroline Wadham’s stellar report on Afghanistan). But the manifesto’s Cold War-like emphasis on nuclear weapons is what will grab the headlines and could prejudice the rest of the report, which has plenty of food for thought. And that’s a real shame.

The other four strategists are General Klaus Naumann, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato’s military committee; General Henk van den Breemen, former Dutch chief of staff; Admiral Jacques Lanxade, former French chief of staff; and Lord Inge, a British field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defense staff. According to the Guardian, the manifesto has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days.

Update: CSIS has the full manifesto, entitled “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership,” available here. (Thanks Eli!)