Two must-read analyses of the Iran portion from last night’s final presidential debate are brought to us by TIME’s Tony Karon and the Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann. (This TPM headline also sums up the entire debate quite nicely: “Romney’s Final Debate Message: I’ll Be A Better Obama”.)
Two must-read analyses of the Iran portion from last night’s final presidential debate are brought to us by TIME’s Tony Karon and the Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann. (This TPM headline also sums up the entire debate quite nicely: “Romney’s Final Debate Message: I’ll Be A Better Obama”.)
Karon writes that regardless of who wins the 2012 presidential election, the United States will consider direct talks with Iran:
“It is essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran,” Romney said in Monday’s foreign policy debate, “and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means.” His leverage of choice: “crippling sanctions” with the threat of military action as a last resort should Iran cross a red line toward developing “nuclear-weapons capability.” That’s broadly the same policy the Obama Administration has followed. Asked to differentiate himself, in the debate, Romney didn’t even raise the ambiguous question of where to draw the red line. (Obama sets his red line for action at Iran moving to acquire a nuclear weapon; Romney uses the phrase nuclear-weapons capability – although it’s not exactly clear whether this means the capability to build nuclear weapons, which Iran perhaps already has in latent form, or the capability to rapidly assemble and deploy nuclear warheads atop missiles.) Instead Romney simply insisted he’d have imposed tighter sanctions sooner.
But inflexibility from both sides may prevent a peaceful resolution to the Iran-US impasse:
While he may be open to a genuine compromise, Khamenei can’t be seen to surrender on “nuclear rights” for which Iran has fought and suffered growing isolation over the past decade, notes University of Hawaii Iran scholar Farideh Farhi. “With the draconian economic measures imposed on Iran in the past year, the [domestic] political terrain makes quite impossible the acceptance of a deal that does not bring about some immediate, palpable, even if small, relaxation of the sanctions regime,” says Farhi. Imagining sanctions as an alternative to military action may be misleading, she argues, because Khamenei believes their purpose is regime change, and mounting economic pain could prompt the regime to become more reckless in its effort to break out of the noose.
(Interestingly, Romney previously dodged questions about meeting directly with Iran, but Benjamin Armbruster reports that Paul Ryan was on network morning shows today saying that Romney would engage in bilateral talks without preconditions [from the Iranians?]).
Thielmann, a former senior State Department intelligence analyst, meanwhile clarifies the candidates’ positions on Iran:
Obama concluded last night that: “There is a deal to be had, and that is that [the Iranians] abide by the rules that have already been established. They convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear [weapons] program. There are inspections that are very intrusive. But over time, what they can do is regain credibility. In the meantime, though, we’re not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that that takes place.” At the same time, he warned that “the clock is ticking” and that he would not allow negotiations “to go on forever.”
For his part, Governor Romney appeared to tack away during the debate from his previous posture on Iran. Earlier, he had followed the lead of Israel’s prime minister, appearing more skeptical that any acceptable compromise could be reached with the current regime in Tehran and more willing to imply that unilateral military action would be taken sooner rather than later. Last night, Romney’s martial alarm was barely audible. Yet his avowed interest in diplomacy was belied by his call for treating Iran’s diplomats “as the pariahs they are.” It is difficult to negotiate constructively with those you are simultaneously labeling “pariahs.”
Both candidates appeared united in making one point about Iran policy options. Whatever the consequences of exercising the military option, they each signaled willingness ultimately to launch a preventive attack against Iran. This in spite of a near consensus among experts that, short of invasion and occupation, such an attack would not prevent but would bring about a nuclear-armed Iran.
]]>
Now, what is said on the campaign trail, you know, those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities. They are not commander-in-chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war. I’m reminded that the decision that I have to make, in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impact that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy. This is not a game, and there is nothing casual about it. And, you know, when I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we’ve been doing over the last three years. It indicates to me that that is more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem. Now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war they should say so, and they should explain to the american people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be.
The President also reminded Americans that ”it’s not the folks who are popping off who pay the price it’s the men and women in uniform who pay the price” and that the Iranian issue requires a “careful, thoughtful approach.” In a likely attempt to pressure the U.S. into incorporating Israel’s red line on Iran (obtaining nuclear capability) into its policy decisions (something which could make war much more imminent), Netanyahu said last night that “We have waited for diplomacy to work, we have waited for sanctions to work. We cannot afford to wait much longer.” But while Obama continues to declare that a nuclear-armed Iran is “unacceptable” he also asserted that the U.S. would not be pressured into making rushed decisions: “This notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next week or two weeks or month or two months is not borne out by the facts.” The President also emphasized that the world still has a “window of opportunity where this could be resolved diplomatically” and that a “diplomatic” solution is “deeply in everybody’s interest.”
]]>The CPAC agenda has [...]]]>
The CPAC agenda has not yet been formally released but a file posted by Citizens United to Scribd, a document sharing service, lists the “CPAC Theater Schedule – Sponsored by Citizens United Productions.” Three of the sixteen films scheduled for screenings are right up Frank Gaffney’s—and CPAC-approved Clifford May’s—alley.
They are:
“Iranium”- Ali and I just posted our review of the film on Tehran Bureau. The film is the latest production from the Clarion Fund. Clarion–which appears to be an offshoot of the evangelist, ultra-orthodox, Jerusalem-based Aish-HaTorah– gained notoriety for mailing 28 million copies of “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” to swing state voters before the 2008 presidential election. “Iranium” contains similar themes to the Fund’s previous films, suggesting that a clash of civilizations is imminent and that anti-Semitism and irrational hatred toward Israel are key to understanding the anger and frustration voiced by Muslim countries in opposition to the United States.
“America At Risk: The War With No Name” – A Citizens United Production starring Newt and Callista Gingrich. Talking Points Memo’s Rachel Slajda observed that “America at Risk” bears striking similarities to Clarion Fund films. “This is the end of times. This is the final struggle,” intones a narrator in the film’s trailer.
“The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave Of The 911 Attack”— The documentary, executive produced by notorious anti-Jihad blogger Pamela Geller along with associate producer Robert Spencer, will document the anti-Park 51 Islamic community center campaign from last summer. The screening will be followed by “a question and action and strategy session on stopping the mosque.”
With films like these being promoted during the three day conference, it seems safe to say that Islamophobia and anti-Muslim propaganda will continue to find a safe haven at CPAC.
]]>