Iran and Reactions

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner says Democrats would do the same.

Despite huge proven natural gas reserves, Iran's restarted its nuclear program. Iran's leader remains defiant:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline President of Iran, launched an angry tirade against the West yesterday, accusing it of a 'dark ages' mentality and threatening retaliation unless it recognised his country's nuclear ambitions.

In a blistering assault, Ahmadinejad repeated the Islamic regime's position that it would press ahead with a nuclear programme despite threats by the European Union and United States to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, where it could face possible sanctions. He added that Iran was a 'civilised nation' that did not need such weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a wholly peaceful attempt to generate electricity.

Addressing a rare press conference in Tehran, he appeared to issue thinly veiled threats against Western countries, implying that they could face serious consequences unless they backed down. 'You need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation,' Ahmadinejad said. 'Why are you putting on airs? You don't have that might.' . . .

Ahmadinejad accused the West of misusing bodies such as the UN and IAEA. 'Why are you damaging the good name of the security council and IAEA for you own political purposes?' he asked. 'Don't take away the credibility of legitimate forums.

So how has Europe -- the principal diplomatic contact -- responded? And what's the reaction elsewhere? Assorted, fluid--and frightened.

1. Kofi Annan:
   
   12 January 2006 - Secretary-General's press encounter:

   Q: [D]o you foresee any possible role for you to play as a possible go-between, and are you indicating that perhaps it is too early for the IAEA to refer the Iranian dispute to the Security Council?
   
   Annan: I think we should try and resolve it, if possible, in the IAEA context. [Mohamed] ElBaradei is working with the parties, doing his best to try and resolve it there. Once that process is exhausted, it may end up in the [Security] Council and then I would leave it to the Council, to decide what to do, if it were to come here. I wouldn't want to preempt them.
   
   I have been talking to all the parties, doing whatever I can to encourage a negotiated settlement and really keeping people at the table and trying to discourage escalation, and I will continue to do that. My good offices are always available; if I need to do more, and the parties so wish, I will do it.

   February 1998, on returning from Iraq:

   Saddam Hussein is a man I can do business with.

   Sound familiar?¹



2. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei:

   [W]e are coming to the litmus test in the next few weeks. Diplomacy is not just talking. Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it.

3. The EU: They sound tough:

   A committee led by the French, which includes America and other European powers, is drawing up a list of sanction options likely to influence any resolution put before the U.N. Security Council next month. The list includes limiting the travel of Iranian diplomats; restricting their membership in international organizations; expelling known intelligence officers attached to Iranian embassies; limiting Iran's import of dual-use items that could be diverted to its nuclear program, and - at its most punitive - banning the export of refined petroleum to the country, which imports 40% of the refined petroleum it uses.

   The Washington Times' Tony Blankley takes Europe seriously:

   When cautious and circumspect European diplomats use words like "serious," "grave," "disastrous," "red line for international community," "urge Iran to immediately and unconditionally reverse its decision," the rest of us should take these phrases as unambiguous evidence that an international crisis of the first water is fast building.
   
   The event that may precipitate formal diplomatic action will occur in March, when IAEA head Mr. ElBaradei will file his next report to the United Nations on the nuclear program status of Iran.
   
   The question remains whether all this diplomatic agitation will lead to effective international action. It is generally recognized among leading American and European statesmen that the period of negotiating with Iran is about at an end. We are now entering a period of what is being called coercive diplomacy. The spectrum of actions range from mere criticism, to censure, to diplomatic isolation, to economic sanctions as punishment, to specific barring of importation into Iran of products and services critical to nuclear weapons production, to military actions intended to physically destroy Iran's nuclear capacity.

   But, cautions the WSJ, we've seen this movie before:

   What we are really witnessing is a demonstration of what happens when Iran's provocations are dealt with in a manner that suits Europe's feckless diplomatic "consensus." After more than two years of nonstop diplomacy and appeasement, the world is no closer to resolving its nuclear stand-off with Iran. But Iran is considerably closer to acquiring the critical mass of technology and know-how needed to build a nuclear weapon.

4. Austria: Austrian Chancellor (and temporary president of the European Union) Wolfgang Schüssel warned that it would be premature to discuss sanctions.



5. France: French Foreign Minster Philippe Douste-Blazy warned: "We urge Iran to immediately and unconditionally reverse its decision — [It]is a reason for very serious concern."



6. Germany: Take your pick--
   
   Pessimistic:

   Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore première at the Cannes Film Festival.

   Optimistic:

   German Chancellor Angela Merkel met President Vladimir Putin on Monday for talks in which she was expected to press him to support European Union and U.S. diplomatic pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. . .
   
   "There are a range of bilateral issues to discuss here ... There are international themes to be discussed, connected to your chairmanship of the G8 and also opinions to be exchanged about conflicts," Merkel told Putin as they met.

7. United Kingdom:
   
   Prime Minister Blair:

   Prime Minister Tony Blair called on Wednesday for the U.N. Security Council to consider action against Iran after it resumed nuclear fuel research, but Iran's hardline president said his country would pursue its course regardless.
   
   Blair told parliament he aimed to secure international agreement to haul Iran before the Security Council, which can impose punitive measures.
   
   "Then .. we have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all," he added.
   
   Blair made no direct reference to military force, but his remarks seemed stronger than those of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who said on Tuesday military action was not on Britain's agenda and that he believed it was not on anyone else's.

   Foreign Secretary Straw:

   Mr Straw's officials have indicated that they're prepared to consider the possibility of possibly considering the preparation of a possible motion on sanctions for the UN Security Council to consider the possibility of considering.
   
   But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any more than necessary. Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders".
   
   That'll show 'em: Iranian missiles may be able to leave Iranian airspace, but the deputy trade minister won't. No more trips to Paris for the spring collections or skiing in Gstaad for the A-list ayatollahs.

8. Russia:

   Russia is a complicated issue. Defense Minister Sergei Lavrov is playing the KGB two face. Not a particularly settling dance. He has hinted at Russian approval of a move to refer Iran to the UNSC, but at the same time has said there will be no change to a deal giving Iran short-range missiles that could be used with developed nuclear warheads. Again, they’ll follow their national interests, which will be in terms of its international place in the world and its energy interests with Iran. The problem is that it might not be in line with the West, as a nuclear Iran probably poses little threat to Russia. And China, for that matter. You don’t here them shouting, “Death to Russia!” do you?

9. China:

   China has offered to help rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions and ease U.S. complaints about pirated goods ahead of a Washington visit by President Hu Jintao expected in mid-April, visiting U.S. congressmen said on Wednesday.
   
   The chairman of China's National People's Congress, Wu Bangguo, told the congressmen China "agreed that they (Iran) should not have nuclear weapons, and agreed to working with the United States and especially the EU3" on Iran, Mark Kirk, a Republican Congressman from Illinois, told reporters.

10. Egypt:

    Egypt on Monday said it supported using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes but rejected the emergence of a nuclear military power in the region, in its first official reaction to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program.
    
    "All countries should adhere to their commitments in a way to allow the international community to be sure of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program, as we do not accept the emergence of a nuclear military power," Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said in a statement.

11. Turkey:

    Turkey on Saturday called on neighboring Iran to rapidly cooperate with the European Union and the United Nation's (U.N.) nuclear watchdog to overcome a crisis over the country's nuclear program. Turkish politicians argue that Iran should not escalate tension in the region and should take all possible measures for co-operations. . .
    
    Turkey called on neighboring Iran to avoid any move that could erode its dialogue with the international society.
    
    "Turkey hopes that Iran would immediately engage into a full and transparent cooperation with the tripartite European Union (EU) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to overcome the crisis of confidence," the statement from Foreign Ministry said on Saturday. . .
    
    One of the Turkish diplomat told the [Journal of Turkish Weekly] that "Turkey's support to Iran is not limitless".

12. Saudi Arabia:

    Saudi Arabia broke its silence yesterday in the growing row between the West and Iran by warning Tehran that its nuclear ambitions could bring disaster to the region.
    
    Prince Saud al-Faisal, the veteran Saudi Foreign Minister, criticised President Ahmadinejad’s Administration, urging him to forgo atomic energy, to moderate his foreign policy and resist the temptation of interfering in Iraq.
    
    Speaking before a terrorism conference in London, which he will be attending today, Prince Saud spoke for many in the Arab world when he cautioned of the dangers of a regional arms race.
    
    “We are urging Iran to accept the position that we have taken to make the Gulf, as part of the Middle East, nuclear free and free of weapons of mass destruction. We hope that they will join us in this policy and assure that no new threat of arms race happens in this region,” he told The Times.

13. Israel: Leaderless, Israel's attitude remains a guess; the WSJ's summary is as good as any:

    [T]here are an increasing number of credible reports that Israel is well along in planning a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear sites. And these reports have new urgency given the news of Iran's impending purchase of advanced Russian anti-aircraft missiles that would complicate any strike. Given that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe the Jewish state "off the map," an Israeli pre-emption would certainly be justified, though the regional consequences -- including a ballistic missile exchange between the two countries -- may well be severe.
    
    It should not be Israel's lot to safeguard the security of the West in the face of a common threat, as it did when it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. But if we're going to avoid this grim scenario, both Europe and the U.S. need to threaten, and apply, stiffer penalties against Iran than they have suggested so far.

14. The United States:
    
    Christiane Amanpour, photo and caption on AP:
    
    
    Cnn's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, laughs before Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press conference in Tehran on Saturday, Jan. 14, 2006.
    
    (source: AP via Yahoo)
    
    Secretary Rice:

    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme. . .
    
    Speaking to reporters in Washington, she said Tehran had deliberately escalated the situation and was "in dangerous defiance of the entire international community".
    
    Ms Rice talked of "a menu of possibilities" for diplomatic action against Iran.
    
    But she said the US did not "at this point" have on its agenda the option of military action.

    Other officials may be bolder:

    These diplomatic developments portend a confrontation next month between Iran and America's ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who will hold the rotating presidency of the Security Council in February. Mr. Bolton has been one of the toughest critics of Iran inside the Bush administration since he oversaw the nonproliferation and arms control file for the State Department in President Bush's first term. Mr. Bolton's advocacy for action against Iran - he opposed the postponement of a council referral in 2003 - has prompted the regime in Tehran to attack him personally in the state-run press.

    Informed speculation from WaPo writer William Arkin:

    The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed the military in 2002 to create the capability to undertake "unwarned strikes" in crisis situations.
    
    If Iran continues to defy the international community and manufactures nuclear weapons materials, and if U.S. intelligence detects peculiar movements or actions associated with nuclear facilities or, say, Iranian arming and alerting of its ballistic missile or fighter force, CONPLAN 8022 could be implemented to strike at the activity.
    
    Given that the justification for preemption and for the global strike capability is to prevent "another 9/11," this time one with WMD, it wouldn't be relevant whether the United States was confident that it knew where ever last gram of Iran's weapons were. The focus would be against Iran's ability to deliver a WMD. The objective would be to forestall another 9/11. A strike that halted preparations for attack and set back the program so that it was no longer an immediate threat would be a success under the Bush administration's plan.
    
    This is why commentators who warn that the United States does not know where all of Iran's nuclear capabilities are missing the point. Under global strike, the objective wouldn't be to "disarm" Iran: It would be to stop it.

Conclusion: My tally--

Hot: Egypt, Turkey

Hot and Cold: US, EU, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, IAEA, Israel, China

Stone Cold: Austria, Russia, UN

Got that? Neither did I. Best updates at Regime Change in Iran and Publius Pundit.

More:

Daniel Drezner takes on liberal critics of the Administration:

The approach the Bush administration has pursued towards Iran -- multilateralism, private and public diplomacy, occasionally deferring to allies -- is besotted with the very tropes that liberals like to see in their American foreign policy. I'm still not sure what the end game will be with regard to Iran, but to date I can't see how a Kerry administration would have played its cards any differently than the Bush team.

______________

¹ Compare fortuitously, Neville Chamberlain, October 1938, on returning from Munich: "[We] can trust the Fuhrer and that he is a man of his word and [I] can do business with him."

(via Publius Pundit, Regime Change in Iran, Officers' Club LGF)