RSSWhy John Bolton is Right on Iran
Armageddon Man is unhappy with his President
Guest Column: Dr. Gary Sick of Columbia, a preeminent U.S. scholar on Iran, is a must-read analyst given his wide experience engaging with the leadership in Tehran and in U.S. government service (he honed his expertise on the National Security Council). Having spent quite some time on these pages offering analysis on why, despite the rhetoric, the Bush Administration is unlikely to attack Iran, I was delighted to receive in email form the attached analysis, reproduced with Gary’s approval. It’s a great read:
As usual, John Bolton is absolutely right. His policy prescriptions may be reckless to the point of foolishness (”When in doubt, bomb!”), but his understanding of what is happening in Washington policy (as outlined in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday) is unerringly accurate.
While much of the world was hyper-ventilating over the possibility that the United States (and maybe Israel) were getting ready to launch a new war against Iran, Bolton was looking at the realities and concluding that far from bombing the US was preparing to do a deal with Iran. He had noticed that over the past two years the US had completely reversed its position that originally opposed European talks with Iran.
First, the US indicated that it would participate if the negotiations showed progress. Then, when they didn’t, we went further and actively participated in negotiating a new and more attractive offer of incentives to Iran. Bolton noticed that when that package was delivered to Tehran by Xavier Solana, the signature of one Condoleeza Rice was there, along with representatives of the other five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
He had probably also noticed Secretary Rice’s suggestion of possibly opening a US interests section in Tehran — the first step toward reestablishing diplomatic relations. And he didn’t overlook the softening of rhetoric in Under Secretary Wm Burn’s recent testimony to the Congress about Iran.
Now, just one day after Bolton’s cry of alarm that the US is going soft on Iran, we learn that the same Bill Burns will participate directly in the talks that are going to be held on Saturday in Geneva with the chief Iranian negotiator on the nuclear file. Bolton’s worst suspicions seem to be confirmed.
Unlike many observers and commentators, Bolton has been looking, not at what the US administration says, but what it does. Ever since the congressional elections of 2006, the US has been in the process of a fundamental change in its policy on a number of key issues: the Arab-Israel dispute, the North Korean nuclear issue, and Iran. Since the administration proclaims loudly that its policies have not changed, and since the tough rhetoric of the past dominates the discussion, it is easy to overlook what is actually going on.
Bolton no doubt noticed that Rumsfeld is gone and replaced with Robert Gates, a very different sort of secretary of Defense. He will have observed that the worst of the neocons (including himself) are now writing books and spending more time with families and friends, cheer-leading for more war by writing op-eds from the outside rather than pursuing their strategies in policy meetings in the White House.
He will have seen the gradual shift of the policy center of gravity from Dick Cheney to Rice and Gates. He will have been listening when the Chairman of the JCS and others have said as clearly as they realistically can that the military option, though never renounced as a theoretical possibility, is the least attractive option available to us and in fact is close to impossible given our over-stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, Bolton, as someone whose policies (in my view) are certifiably insane, recognizes real pragmatism and moderation in Washington when he sees it. And he does not like what he sees in this lame duck administration.
Over the past two or three years, we have been treated to one sensational threat after another about the likelihood of imminent war with Iran. All of these alarms and predictions have one thing in common: they never happened. Perhaps it is time for us to join Bolton in looking at the real indicators. When Bolton quits writing his jeremiads or when he begins to express satisfaction with the direction of US policy, that is when we should start to get worried.
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
22 Responses to “Why John Bolton is Right on Iran”
Now when the current occupant of the White House went to war in Iraq was there a good faith effort to defuse a crisis that was fabricated to ensure war? Who can say with any certainty that the same outcome will not occur again in this case with Iran even in meeting with the Iranians?
[...] Why John Bolton is right on Iran By Gary Sick, Rootless Cosmopolitan, July 16, 2008 [...]
The “real indicators” are that the Israelis have demanded from Bush that there be no compromise on the precondition that Iran must end uranium enrichment.
The other real indicator is that Iran’s repeated offers to resolve this standoff peacefully — offers that are endorsed by international experts because they would address any REAL concern over nuclear weapons, btw — have been consistently ignored and downplayed by the same Bush administration because the Israelis don’t want the US and Iran to get along.
After all, if the US and Iran start to get along, who needs Israel?
I become a bigger fan with every read, Mr. Karon. Very insightful article and definitely an original interpretation/analysis of the situation by Mr. Sick.
Blog digged again.
http://digg.com/world_news/Why_John_Bolton_is_Right_on_Iran
Readers may digg this entry at the link above.
Many thanks for this, Tony. Excellent, Joshua
[...] expert Gary Sick responds to an op-ed by John Bolton that appears in the war mongering WSJ. Bolton has been aggressively [...]
Not so fast, Professor Sick. While the positive events you describe surely weigh in the balance of war vs. no-war, Israel’s “red line” is still “nuclear capability” meaning enough LEU to build a bomb. Israel has powerful allies in Cheney and AIPAC, witness the 347 co-sponsors of H.Con.Res.362 which essentially calls for an act of war (an embargo). Perhaps the latest diplomatic moves and the “freeze-for-freeze” idea may delay matters for 6 weeks, but if Iran then refuses total suspension of Uranium enrichment, as it well may, and the 5+1 will not go along with some “limited enrichment + intrusive inspections”, we’re back at square one, and the embargo idea, with it’s risk of war, will emerge.
The bottom line of all this is that if we don’t want a disastrous war with Iran, we cannot assume that it won’t happen. We must keep up the pressure against the countervailing pro-war forces which are waiting to pounce if these latest diplomatic endeavors fail.
While the positive events you describe surely weigh in the balance of war vs. no-war, Israel’s “red line” is still “nuclear capability” meaning enough LEU to build a bomb.
The “red line” has already been crossed. Once Iran has the ability to reliably enrich uranium even if it is to only low levels on enrichment then Iran has a “nuclear capability” (if you don’t believe me read up on Little Boy). That is why the US demanded that Iran stop its enrichment program and why Iran refused. Now that Iran has almost certainly mastered the technology, it can afford to suspend enrichment during negotiations and why the US has to negotiate.
The Israelis are now the victims of nuclear ambiguity rather than its sole owner and, not surprisingly, they don’t like it.
Funny - Bush ignored Iranian peace offers and brushed them off for 7.5 years, and now that only 6 months remain in his administration, he has deigned fit to send a representative to the Iran-EU talks — a representative who specifically is instructed NOT to negotiate with the Iranians but to only insist on the old preconditions on negotiations.
And yet we’re told this is a “major shift in policy”
Go on, pull the other one.
A former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and conservative commentator, John Bolton, was biting in his criticism over the decision to send Burns (to Geneva).
‘This is, and the evidence is plain for all to see, the total intellectual collapse of the Bush administration,’ Bolton said.
(LOL)
If Bush is to attack Iran, we must consider the context: collapsing international support, a collapsing economy, bank seizures or takeovers, bank runs, hyperinflation and a virtually worthless dollar. Couple this with the disastrous economies in Europe and you have with a high degree of certainty a world careening into real ‘dark age’ territory.
Under the circumstances and with no hyperbole intended anyone who even suggest we start another war such as an attack on Iran should be placed in an insane asylum for life–at the very least. In the case of Israel, we need to immediately cease all support–of any kind, arrest AIPAC/JINSA leaders for treason and force Israel to give up it WMD’s. Israel cannot be allowed to continue as it has in the past. And no more inspired Israeli ‘false flags’.
We are edging toward a civilizational collapse here. Our situation is compounded by the fact that our “leaderS” are uniformly compromised (part of a vast criminal gang)and incompetent beyond belief.
Virtually everyone at the top–even in the military command are the worst ones to be there IN THIS CRISIS.
WE NEED MASS ACTIONS NOW TO EVEN BEGIN TO TURN THIS SITUATION AROUND.
There are two individuals that annoy me no end when they start talking ( this excludes Pres Bush who belongs to a category of his own ), one of them being Mr Bolton. Everytime he has to say something about our foreign policy specially vis-a-vis Iran, I wish, he would stop ( I even offered to help Mr Monbiot with citizen arrest at Hay Festival so we could put him away in a jail and not to have to hear him ) but now I realise, I was wrong. Thank you Prof Sick for your enlightening analysis. Yes, when he stops complaining about the Bush administration policy, we know for sure, we are heading towards a disastrous course, satisfying to Mr Bolton.
[...] and actually enter a diplomatic process? Laura takes a look at that question too, and so does Iran expert Gary Sick, at TonyKaron.com. Personally, my sense is that there are two barriers to diplomacy by the Bush [...]
[...] met Iran zoekt in plaats van het land kapot te bomdbarderen, en ziet zijn gelijk nu bevestigd (zie Gary Sick met een mooie analyse op de website Rootless Cosmopolitan van Tony Karon) (ook gevonden via War in Context). Hoe invloedrijk dit soortgeluiden zijn, valt moeilijk in te [...]
http://digg.com/world_news/Iran_does_not_intend_to_wipe_out_Israel
Digg the word.
Very insightful post.
I think anyone can agree that diplomatic talks with Iran has more or less failed, and the belief that holding more of them will not prove to be fruitful.
However, with the influence of Iran having been strengthened with US presence in Iraq, I think any sort of bombing on behalf of Israel or the US will probably have consequences to the US policy in Iraq and the internal security of Israel, as Iran will now be more willing than ever to fund insurgents that are able and ready to attack US and Iraqi security forces, as well as step up its funding of Hamas’ attacks on Israelis.
Whatever the outcome will be, the position is very tough as a lot of time has already been wasted. Once again excellent post!
[...] here, by John Bolton of all people. Also, you can find some good commentary on his commentary here at Rootless Cosmopolitan. « Still living in [...]
#17 -
“I think anyone can agree that diplomatic talks with Iran has more or less failed, and the belief that holding more of them will not prove to be fruitful.”
What I would have told you before last Saturday:
Diplomacy is not the art of demanding the very thing you are negotiating for as a prerequisite to talking with your adversary.
What I will tell you now:
Diplomacy is not the art of signaling to the world that you will not budge an inch to compromise and showing up to talks to demand suspension of a sovereign country’s legal right to uranium enrichment without substantive proof of their alleged intentions to pursue nuclear arms, especially when there IS substantive proof to the contrary.
Sounds, instead, like a lot of bullying and propaganda based on speculation at best. It’s time the mainstream media started reflecting the facts and not the speculation. It was actually time YESTERDAY.
john bolton is a war nutter who has troubles tying his shoelaces without israels o.k.
rojDtVqlMkfyN
Iran is run by an oligarchy of clerical thieves and their lackies. The people of Iran want regime change. Everyone should oppose the Iranian regime going nuclear, among other things they will use the weapons to threaten their own citizens if cities rebel or try to have plebiscites not run by the clerical regime. The government of Iran is not Al Quada but they are every bit as dangerous and crazy as all Quaeda and they hate America as much or more. If the ignorant people reading this blog truly believe throwing Israel to the wolves (ie Iran) will placate Iran, you are not only suffering from a low IQ, you are insane. Israel will just be a preliminaryappetizer for Iran, they want to dominate the whole middle East and then go for the rest of the world. If Israel goes the next thing Iran will grab will be the Emirates or the Shia part of Iraq
Leave a Reply