Search
Gunboat Diplomacy? Not This Time

The U.S.S. Nimitz is in the Persian Gulf
So, Condi Rice failed to “bump into” her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, in Egypt last week, meaning that despite the junior-high flirtation tactics employed by the Administration, there were no direct talks between the U.S. and Iran.
Tom Engelhardt and Michael Klare have reminded us that despite the artless diplomacy, the reality remains that the USS Nimitz is fast approaching the Persian Gulf, suggesting that diplomacy may not really be what the Administration has in mind anyway, when it has enough airborne firepower assembled just off Iran’s coast to pulverize a lot of Iranian concrete — and vaporize a lot of Iranian flesh.
And it’s certainly hard to take seriously the “diplomatic” language. Tom reminds us that when Bush was asked whether Rice would meet Mottaki, he answered: “Should the Foreign Minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won’t be rude. She’s not a rude person. I’m sure she’ll be polite. But she’ll also be firm in reminding this representative of the Iranian government that there’s a better way forward for the Iranian people than isolation… [I]f, in fact, there is a conversation, it will be one that says if the Iranian government wants to have a serious conversation with the United States and others, they ought to give up their enrichment program in a verifiable fashion. And we will sit down at the table with them, along with our European partners, and Russia, as well. That’s what she’ll tell them.”
In other words, if Rice ran into Mottaki, she’d lower herself to scold him over Iran’s nuclear program and its alleged support for Shiite insurgents in Iraq. Needless to say, the Iranians were never going to take seriously such silliness. As Mottaki told my friend and colleague Scott MacLeod in an exclusive interview at the Sharm el-Sheik meeting, it was frankly childish. “There was no advance planning for a meeting — that’s why it didn’t take place,” Mottaki said. “Ministers of foreign affairs don’t just meet accidentally. You need to have certain preparations in advance. First of all, there should be a political will for the meeting. They should have an agenda of what they are going to talk about. We don’t want to have this conversation for the sake of a conversation. We are not looking for a theatrical show.” Indeed, he said, Iran was very keen to hold substantive talks with the U.S. adding that such talks with the EU over a nuclear compromise were going well.
For Klare, the Bush “diplomacy” is simply a ruse. He writes:
President Bush keeps insisting that he would like to see these “diplomatic” endeavors — as he describes them — succeed, but he has yet to bring up a single proposal or incentive that might offer any realistic prospect of eliciting a positive Iranian response.
And so, knowing that his “diplomatic” efforts are almost certain to fail, Bush may simply be waiting for the day when he can announce to the American people that he has “tried everything”; that “his patience has run out”; and that he can “no longer risk the security of the American people” by “indulging in further fruitless negotiations,” thereby allowing the Iranians “to proceed farther down the path of nuclear bomb-making,” and so has taken the perilous but necessary step of ordering American forces to conduct air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. At that point, the 80 planes aboard the Nimitz — and those on the Eisenhower and the Stennis as well — will be on their way to targets in Iran, along with hundreds of TLAMs and a host of other weapons now being assembled in the Gulf.
While the importance of his warning that the amassing of this armada is not going unnoticed by the Iranians even if the U.S. media is largely ignoring it, I don’t share his sense that the diplomacy is simply a charade. Bush may be unable or even unwilling at this point to acknowledge the reality of his situation — and by extension, of what a conversation with Iran will entail — and he and his handlers are certainly not likely to admit to the U.S. public that they will, in fact, have to approach Iran in the supplicant position. Yes, even with those carrier battlegroups deployed off its coastline, the Iranians remain confident. Mottaki certainly didn’t seek out Rice, after all. He actually avoided her. The reason for Iran’s relative confidence is not only that they’re moving along nicely in progress towards a deal with the Europeans to take the sting out of the nuclear issue; it’s that the U.S. is mired ever deeper in the bloody quagmire of Iraq.
No matter how hard Washington has pushed, the Iraqi leadership has shown no inclination to implement the U.S. script in respect of political moves deemed necessary to resolve the conflict there — and no amount of threats and benchmarks from the Democrats is likely to make the Iraqis do U.S. bidding. The U.S. is truly stuck, because it can’t afford the geopolitical consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, yet it can’t control the Iraqi political space — Maliki has no intention of acting out the U.S. script, and yet Maliki can’t be replaced because to impose a more malleable government, the U.S. would face the wrath of the Shiite street and find its position there quickly untenable.
So, not that they’re ready to admit it, but the U.S. is more dependent than ever on Iranian cooperation in Iraq as the only basis for a credible retreat. Iran has considerably greater leverage over the Iraqi Shiites, in terms of persuading them to make accommodations for the Sunnis, than the U.S. does. In fact, it may be precisely the realization that Iranian cooperation is essential to restoring stability in Iraq that explains the mounting frustration among U.S.-allied Arab regimes over Washington’s refusal to engage with Tehran.
If the U.S. did strike at Iran, its ability to pull its hand out of the Iraq meat grinder would go up in smoke. Not that this would necessarily restrain Bush and Cheney whispering in his ear out of the side of his mouth, but it’s a safe bet that the likes of Defense Secretary Gates (and probably even Rice) would make sure that this didn’t happen — because they know it would create a situation nothing short of calamitous for the U.S. situation in Iraq, and throughout the Middle East.
So, despite the firepower being in position, my bet is still that the U.S. refrains from attacking Iran. Indeed, already now, the hawkish position on Iran is has been substantially weakened in Washington, and is almost entirely isolated abroad.
The Latest
Guest Columns
How I Overcame My Jewish-Evangelical Upbringing and Learned to Love Christmas, Anyway
Guest Column: Gavin Evans Back in the day, when Gavin and I were young activists trying to change the world, the doorbell rang at our Observatory student house. I opened it to see a tall and handsome man in the silky purple shirt and dog collar of an Anglican Bishop. "You must be Tony," said Bis...Featured Analysis
Does Obama Have a Mideast Plan B?
It's hardly surprising that President Barack Obama chose to schedule a White House visit by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the dead of night on Monday, because right now Obama has little to show for his 10-month effort to revive a Middle East peace process. The Israeli leader's refu...Unholy War
Who Lost Fatah?
‘Who lost China?” was the battle cry of a witch-hunt conducted in the US State Department following the 1949 victory of Mao Zedong’s communists. The department’s “China hands”, critics charged, had been woefully ignorant of the dynamics at work on the ground in China after the Second W...A Skeptical Read
More Iran Hysteria from the NY Times
The surest sign that another neocon bill of goods is being hawked in respect of the Iran "nuclear peril" is the revival of Rumsfeld-esque "unknowable unknowns", a la Iraq WMD panic circa late 2002. In the real world, of course, solid progress is being made towards a plausible diplomatic deal to ...99c Blogging
The 'Metrics' of Obama's Vietnam
Why is the Administration conducting a "test run" for its metrics of success in Afghanistan? Because the metrics used will be those that provide the desired verdictHear! Hear!
Helena Cobban Explains FatahIf I Was a Blogger...
More Dennis Ross Dissembling
Obama's Iran point man can't seem to get his head around the reasons for Israeli emigrationA Wondering Jew
Obama, Foxman and Israel's Purpose
Having spent decades drumming home the idea that Israel is rooted squarely in the Holocaust experience, and should be viewed by the world as the state of the survivors, Israelis and some of their most fervent backers in the U.S. are suddenly insisting that this is a misleading, even hostile idea.Glancing Headers
The Shebab, the Shahids and the Champion's League Final
The Shebab gunman on the left appears to be a Gunner, i.e. an Arsenal fan... In honor of today's Champion's League final, I republish my op ed that ran in the National a year ago. What was most fascinating about the photograph of the Somali gunman who was part of the crowd dragging the body...Annals of Globalization
The Shebab, the Shahids and the Champion's League Final
The Shebab gunman on the left appears to be a Gunner, i.e. an Arsenal fan... In honor of today's Champion's League final, I republish my op ed that ran in the National a year ago. What was most fascinating about the photograph of the Somali gunman who was part of the crowd dragging the body...The Whole World's Africa
Congo's Not Africa's WWI, It's Worse Than That
If there is a European analogy to be applied in the Congo, it would be the brutal Thirty Year War in Germany that ended in 1648Shameless Cronyism
Embedded with the Jihadis
My crazy friend Nir Rosen goes on embed with the Taliban, and finds out just why the U.S. can't win in AfghanistanRebellion Into Money
Why Joe Strummer Was a Socialist
Hint: It had nothing to do with bailing out banksCould Die Laughing
Whatever Became of that Nice Mr. Blair...
The problem with a global conversation between Muslims and Christians refereed by Tony Blair? Two words: Tony Blair.The 51st State
A Teachable Moment in Basra
It should come as no surprise that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's disastrous offensive against the Mahdi Army of Moqtada Sadr in Basra has had the exact opposite effect of that intended -- strengthening rather than weakening Sadr, and making clear that he, and the Iranians, have far greater in...Futures Market
Will Russia Partition Kosovo?
Why my tea-leaf reading suggests that Moscow has a nasty surprise in store for Washington in the BalkansCuisine
Yummy yummy Umami
Why a leftover lamb bone turned a bean stew into an ecstatic eventHousekeeping
'Lost' Entries on Rootless Cosmopolitan
Previous entries that now register as "not available" are ones that got left behind in a server migration. We're working on retrieving themNew York Moments
The Debka Made ‘Em Do ItFrom Tony's Archive
A Playground Lesson for Bush
How a spontaneous alliance of jocks, do-gooders and lesser bullies against the biggest bully at the school changed the balance of power at Milnerton Primary
7 Responses to “Gunboat Diplomacy? Not This Time”
Tony,
The Eisenhower is en route home, so only 2 carriers will be on station.
http://www.gonavy.jp/gonavy604.html
As of May 2nd, it was in the Red Sea, heading home, and has since passed through the Suez Canal, according to Debka File. Meanwhile the Nimitz was still east of Singapore. The Realists seem to be in charge, with the only wild card being the Iranians, who have been intentionally provoked and might make a response. That’s what the Cheney Hawks are counting on. Time will tell, but I agree war seems less likely with each passing week. The Iranians are winning and all they have to do is to wait.
Yeah, thanks for that John. Another reader added via email that the French carrier that had been on the scene has also departed. I entirely agree that the momentum is away from confrontation, not towards one.
I think we’re going to see an interesting year in Iran as its own election cycle gets underway, with an alliance of reformers and conservative pragmatists challenging Ahmedinajad. Who knows what that will bring by way of changes and/or provocations…
[...] And, for those of you looking for more, um, substantial reading, I recommend Tony Karon’s latest Rootless Cosmopolitan bit on Condi, Iran and “diplomacy.” [...]
I’ll be interested as well in the results of the Iranian elections (at least as much as they actually are elections and not just tightly controlled ruses - btw, how disgusting and saddening was Nigeria’s recent election?) as it’s entirely likely that Ahmadinejad will be taken out of the picture as the snarling veneer, forcing Bill Kristol to find a new dramatic foil for our righteous nation. Larijani or Khatami need to start spending more time on Holocaust denial and befriending Hugo Chavez if they’re going to play realistic villains in this whole thing.
Also, this is a great piece:
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
Did you catch the story of the Turkish airliner that made an emergency landing in Tehran (sorry, I’ve lost the link)?
One of the passengers was an Israeli who became terrified and begged the pilot to let him stay on board. To no avail. The Iranian security men escorted him to their office and told him “We know you’re Israeli. No need to pretend otherwise.”
After a few hours, when the plane was about to leave again, the security guards gave the Israeli a music box as a souvenir (and I naively thought only the Swiss had music boxes) and he and the guards, by then fast friends, pledged to visit each other’s country… when there’s peace.
When there’s peace… That sentence is enough to make a neocon weep.
A side yet significant fact is that Bush is meeting with the Pope on June 14 approx. You don’t need to be a vaticanist to know that if before that day Bush orders an unprovoked, preemptive strike against CIVILIAN nuclear installations the Pope will unilaterally cancel the audience. Bush would not knowingly expose himself to such a slap in the face.
Interesting blog post. What would you say was the most important factor in using NLP?
Leave a Reply