Conversations with Tehran

The Washington Post demonstrates that its editors possess a sophistication that is absent among the editors of the New York Times with Intelligence on Iran. After noting the positive implications of the 2007 NIE, the editors write ”

Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons,” says the summary’s second sentence. Yet within hours of the report’s release, European diplomats and some U.S officials were saying that it could kill an arduous American effort to win support for a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment. It could also hinder separate U.S.-French efforts to create a new sanctions coalition outside the United Nations. In other words, the new report may have the effect of neutering the very strategy of pressure that it says might be effective if “intensified.”

The editorial continues to argue that until Tehran starts abiding by “binding U.N. resolutions and seriously address[es] other U.S. concerns” there is no room for dialogue.
(via memeorandum)Robert Kagan, on the other hand, argues that the NIE deprives the United States of necessary leverage against Tehran and that the United States should therefore open talks with the regime.

This is as good a time as any. The United States is not in a position of weakness. The embarrassment of the NIE will be fleeting. Strategic realities are more durable. America remains powerful in the world and in the Middle East. The success of the surge policy in Iraq means that the United States may be establishing a sustainable position in the region — a far cry from a year ago, when it seemed about to be driven out. If Iraq is on the road to recovery, this shifts the balance against Iran, which was already isolated.There are other reasons to move now. Even if the NIE forecasts that Iran cannot build a nuclear bomb before 2010, the time is still finite. The next administration, especially if it is Democratic, will probably want to try to talk to Tehran. But it couldn’t begin talks before the summer of 2009, at which point, if the NIE is right, Iran could be moving into the final stages of developing a bomb. Better to get negotiations started so that by the time the next administration settles in, it will be able to assess the progress, or lack thereof, after a year of talks. If it decides it must take strong action, it will have an easier time showing that all other options were exhausted.

Better, too, if talks are launched by this administration. Although trust between the parties has broken down, American policy toward Iran needs broad support in both parties. Bush could even name a hard-nosed Democrat to lead the talks.

(via memeorandum)

Yesterday I expressed skepticism that the NIE report was meant to undermine President Bush. Two articles I’ve seen, read the situation the same way. Gabriel Schoenfeld writes:

There are significant ambiguities in this NIE, and as Max Boot rightly points out, it still leaves ample reason to worry about Iranian nuclear ambitions. But in the current climate of skepticism about the competence of the CIA and other intelligence bodies, the idea that intelligence officials engaged in a coordinated effort to cook the evidence seems impossible to credit. Even if there was a shared desire among all sixteen agencies to do such a thing (which seems implausible on its face) pulling off such a caper would be a hugely difficult task, and almost certainly beyond the capacity even of America’s most ingenious spies — assuming we even have any ingenious spies.

Writing in Time Magazine, Robert Baer goes even further and argues that President Bush was behind the release of the NIE at this time.

The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi’a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran’s surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman. Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran’s head.

Israel remains unconvinced that Iran has definitely stopped as Israel Matzav observed and this could lead to a policy collision between Israel and the United States. (This is something that Ha’aretz already alluded to.)

(via memeorandum)

It would seem that the NIE really is reflective of the Bush administration’s policy. I can’t see that the President will follow Robert Kagan’s advice. Expect diplomatic pressure to continue and maybe even increase. But I don’t think that the current administration fears an Iranian nuclear bomb during its term in office.
Crossposted at Soccer Dad.