If, at the Moscow talks, the U.S. and other Western countries were able to deliver convincing proof that Iran’s program is geared toward weaponization, Russia, China, India and other states would likely withdraw their support for Iran’s right to nuclear technology. The problem, of course, is that the United States has been unable to deliver convincing proof of weaponization at the level of certainty that these other states demand, and it seems unlikely that such evidence will be available for the next round of talks either.
Where the United States has been far more successful, however, is in documenting Iran’s evasiveness, its patterns of nondisclosure and its continued unwillingness to allow transparent oversight of all aspects of its nuclear program. Indeed, the international sanctions that, over the past four years, have been imposed against Iran, with Russia and China’s concurrence, have focused precisely on Tehran’s failure to meet its obligations to allow full and free IAEA inspections of its nuclear program.
The Moscow talks, as they are currently framed, are likely to fail because Iran is almost certainly going to reject the demand spearheaded by the U.S. for Iran to stop enriching uranium at the 20 percent level -- and to ultimately dismantle those capabilities. So it may be a better negotiating strategy to focus less on capabilities, especially haggling over what Iran will give up, and instead to begin substantive talks on a possible inspections regime. Taking as a starting point Putin’s declaration that Iran has a right to technology, and applying Ronald Reagan’s famous dictum of “trust but verify,” the West should move the focus of talks away from sparring over Iran’s nuclear power infrastructure to pressuring the Iranians to open all their sites to neutral verification that no weapons program is underway.
Wow. I cannot begin to express my disdain for the idiocy of this proposal.
Let's overlook that the Cuban Missile Crisis example was one where we proved the Soviets were doing something and not the Soviets failing to prove they weren't doing something.
Let's also overlook the fact that in confronting nuts with nukes (even if the true nuts were the Cubans and the nukes were owned by the Soviets), we came too close to nuclear war.
Let's just point out that the Iraq example the author cites is actually Exhibit A in why his proposal for Iran would not work.
Recall that under the terms of the ceasefire after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saddam had to demonstrate to us that he had accounted for and destroyed all his WMD programs and materials. He did not do that.
Indeed, over time liberals here started talking about our failure to find WMD to justify an invasion. Which was an exact inversion of what the ceasefire terms stated on this issue.
In what world would any inspections regime that starts with demanding Iran prove it is not pursuing nuclear weapons not degenerate into a game of hide and seek where the mullahs have learned much from watching Saddam's game?
In modern "realism's" world, apparently, a sense of shame motivates Russian and Chinese actions, and our own left wing doesn't slowly (or not so slowly) gravitate toward our enemy's position. In time, the deep thinkers here will be earnestly asking "why do the Iranian mullahs hate us?" And then debating what we need to change to stop earning that hate, of course.
Oh, and for real comedy gold, the author says that Iran's failure to prove innocence will lead Russia and China to abandon support for Iran! Please, ladies and gentlemen, tip your wait staff well and he'll be playing all week. Tell your friends.
This guy gives modern "realism" a bad name. "Realism" used to mean doing what it takes to win the Cold War. Modern "realism" has simply degenerated into an excuse to stick our head in the sand, cut a deal with enemies, and pretend we're doing something.
Traditional realism would say we need to destroy the mullah regime in Iran. The problem isn't that Iran will get nukes--as bad as that would be for proliferation--but that nuts in Iran will get nukes. That's the real problem. Get rid of the nuts and the nukes aren't as scary. I mean, I don't even worry that socialists in France now have the French nuclear button.
