The confrontation between Washington and Tehran may have turned the corner this week as advocates for restraint managed to gain the upper hand even as the war hawks' disinformation campaign intensified.
The week started out so well for the faction that could be called the Apocalyticists. This group includes three elements:
- those Christian, Shiite and Jewish zealots who tend to react to the possibility of bombs falling in the Middle East not with a knot in the pit of their stomachs but instead with a rush of blood to a somewhat lower region of their torsos;
- those who are sanguine about how their side would fare in a war between the U. S. and Iran; and
- those players with so little to lose that they're willing to gamble everything on a military solution.
But by midweek, things started to go badly for those who lust for "shock and awe" as they looked for what war gamer Sam Gardiner calls "a smoking gun" that would provide public relations cover for an attack. Last Sunday, there was a leak, supposedly from IAEA officials, that inspectors had found Iranian uranium enriched far beyond the 5% level necessary for nuclear power generation, lending credence to Apocalypticists' claims both about Iranian intent and how close Tehran was to producing bomb-quality material. By Thursday, however, experts were attributing the detected high levels to materials bought from the Chinese as far back as 1992 before China had signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling into doubt even Iran's own assertions about the success it has had with nuclear technology. This news upset Apocalypticists in Iran, who quickly disputed the finding and claimed that they had, in fact, succeeded in enriching uranium on their own. Apocalypticist forces in the West, like Murdoch's Reuter's news service, were happy to report the Iranian bluster under misleading headlines repeated uncritically in the Washington Post.
Things were not much better for the Apocalypticists on the diplomatic front. Again, things went well early in the week as Ahmadinejad ridiculed the efforts of the EU-3 to find an accommodation, calling it an offer of "walnuts and chocolate for gold." When the story broke about how that "gold" really came from China more than a dozen years ago, the Iranian position became more flexible. Late on Thursday, "Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani promised that Tehran would cooperate with UN inspectors, in a meeting late on Thursday in Vienna with International Atomic Energy Agency Chief Mohamed ElBaradei." Then on Friday, this initiative by ElBaradei moved another step forward when IAEA officials leaked that their chief would meet with Secretary of State Rice next week "to press the Administration to moderate its stance." This morning, diplomats were quoted that the Security Council Permanent Five were ready to offer Iran an end to Security Council involvement under certain conditions:
The proposal says the international community will ``agree to suspend discussion of Iran's file at the Security Council,'' if Tehran resumes discussion on its nuclear program, suspends enrichment during such talks and lifts a ban on intrusive inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
It also offers help in ``the building of new light-water reactors in Iran,'' offers an assured supply of nuclear fuel for up to five years and asks Tehran to accept a plan that would move its enrichment program to Russia.
If Iran does not cooperate, however, the draft calls for bans on travel visas, freezing assets and banning financial transactions of key government figures and those involved in Iran's nuclear program; an arms embargo, and other measures including an embargo on shipping refined oil products to Iran. While Iran is a major exporter of crude it has a shortage of gasoline and other oil derivatives.
``Where appropriate, these measures would be adopted under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter,'' says the draft, referring to provisions that add the implicit threat of military force to a Security Council resolution.
That section - backed by the United States, France and Britain - remains controversial, however, and the head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency plans to urge the Bush administration next week to ease its push for tough Security Council action.
The week now appears to be a net gain for the "Chicken Littles," a group that includes both the outright "chickens" who are antiwar in nearly all circumstances (where I fit), but also those "pessimists" who oppose a U. S. attack not out of pacifist beliefs but because they think it would be disastrous for everyone.
Even the Apocalypticists' attempts to spread disinformation ended up making their government supporters look ridiculous. On Friday, a rightwing Canadian newspaper with severe credibility problems reported that Iran had plans to require Jews to wear yellow armbands. Not only did this tidbit make the rounds of the Internet, including dKos, but the governments of Canada, Australia and the U. S. actually commented on these "reports." From the Canadian Prime Minister:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday blasted Iran's "absolutely abhorrent" plan to make Jews and Christians wear coloured labels, as Iranian politicians denied the anti-Semitic law was even in the works.
Harper said he hadn't confirmed if a newspaper report about the law was true, but suggested past actions by the hardline Islamic government didn't give him much cause for doubt.
"Unfortunately, we have seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," Harper said.
From the Australian Prime Minister:
Mr Howard said he had not been formally briefed on the law but if the report was true, it would be totally repugnant.
"It obviously echoes the most horrible period of genocide in the world's history and the marking of Jewish people with a mark on their clothing by the Nazis, and anything of that kind would be totally repugnant to civilised countries," Mr Howard said.
"If it is the case, it's something that would just further indicate to me the nature of this regime. It's a calculated insult - if it's true - not only to Christians but most particularly to Jews and therefore it has direct connotation for the state of Israel, which has been the object of hate speeches and speeches of vilification. It would be appalling."
From the U. S. State Department:
"If you did have such an occurrence, whether it was in Iran or elsewhere, it would certainly be despicable," US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington. "I think it has clear echoes of Germany under Hitler."
Slight problem: there was no basis for the reports. The Toronto Star reports today:
Iranian legislators condemned as an insult yesterday a suggestion in the National Post that they would require Jews to wear a yellow patch on their clothes.
"Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed," Iranian legislator Morris Motamed, one of 25,000 Jews living in Iran, told The Associated Press.
"Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."
Legislator Emad Afroogh said the Post story distorts a bill he presented to parliament calling for Muslims to dress conservatively. It seeks to have women avoid Western fashions, he said.
"It's a sheer lie," Afroogh said of any suggestion of minority tags. "There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill."
...Repeated calls to Post editor-in-chief Doug Kelly went unreturned. The paper's website ran a story headlined "Experts say report of badges ... is untrue."
This trend toward sanity must have been disappointing for the Machiavellians, those elements in the U. S. and the international community who have cynically watched the deteriorating situation and seen opportunities for themselves rather than death and destruction for hundreds of thousands of human beings. Hugo Chavez played with the idea of selling old F-16s to Iran since he could no longer get spare parts for them. China invited Ahmadinejad to attent the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting next month. But by week's end, growing hopes that war would be avoided brought down oil prices and lowered the Machiavellians' expectations.
The most encouraging development of all may be the decision of five Democratic U. S. Senators to send a letter to Bush requesting a National Intelligence Estmate on Iran in anticipation of a debate in Congress on Iranian policy:
There are many questions about the exact nature of Iran's activities and intentions, the objectives of US policy, and your Administration's strategy, including the role of diplomacy, sanctions and the potential role of military force. In order to avoid repeating mistakes made in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, we must have objective intelligence untainted by political considerations or policy preferences and a comprehensive debate in the Congress about the best short and long-term approaches to resolving the international community's differences with Iran.
As a first step in these efforts, we therefore request that you direct the intelligence community to provide Congress with an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. In order to facilitate the public debate we ask that you provide, consistent with protecting sources and methods, an unclassified summary of the key judgments. The process should be started now to enable the Intelligence Community to have sufficient time to produce a comprehensive, well-thought out product.
Among other potential issues, we believe this assessment should explore:
1. Iran's foreign policy and regime objectives.
2. The current status of Iran's nuclear programs, including any current and projected capabilities to design, build and deploy a nuclear weapon, and the intelligence community's assessment of Iran's intentions regarding possible development of nuclear weapons, what motivations underlie those intentions, and what might cause those intentions to change.
3. Iran's military and defense capabilities, including any other weapons of mass destruction programs and their delivery systems.
4. Iran's relationship with terrorist organizations, its use of terrorist organizations in furtherance of its foreign policy objectives, and what might cause Iran to reduce or end these relationships.
5. The prospects for support from the international community for various potential courses of action, including diplomacy, sanctions, and military action.
6. Iran's expected reaction to a range of diplomatic, economic, and military options available to the United States and the international community, including an assessment of what steps are most likely to successfully influence Iran's objectionable policies.
7. The level of popular and elite support within Iran for that country's nuclear ambitions and for the Iranian regime and its policies, and prospects for reform and political change within Iran.
8. Popular and elite Iranian views of the United States, including views of direct discussions with or normalization of relations with the United States, and views of other key states involved in nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
9. The likely consequences of military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program or other regime interests.
10. The confidence level of key judgments, the quality of the sources of intelligence on Iran, the nature and scope of any intelligence gaps, and any significant alternative views.
We hope that such an updated intelligence estimate can be provided at the earliest opportunity. We also hope that you and other Administration officials will take the opportunity in the coming weeks to provide members of Congress and the American people a full overview of your strategy on Iran.
I have been very critical of Harry Reid since he signed on as a cosponsor of the Iran Freedom Support Act on May 8 and sent a very hawkish letter to George Bush about Iranian and Russian policy that was also signed by Levin and Biden. I don't know whether he has had a change of heart or those actions were part of some masterful triangulation plan that has always included an intention to force Bush to provide justification before launching an attack. I am very glad to be wrong about what he and other Democratic Senators would do. This is the kind of action that antiwar Democrats have been hoping for from the Senate leadership. Reid, Durbin, Levin, Rockefeller and Biden have stepped forward to offer leadership to prevent Bush from lying America into another, even more disastrous war. They deserve our support, praise and, perhaps, continued prodding to do the right thing.
Chances for another war are anything but dead. Iran and/or the U. S. are using violence in southeast Iran to spark a wider conflict. The Bush administration still rejects calls from Kofi Annan and even Henry Kissinger for direct talks with Iran. The news about Iran's limited progress in uranium enrichment may be largely ignored by the U. S. press and administration. But much happened this week in the international community and among Democrats in the Senate to give us reason for hope.
Cross-posted at My Left Wing and Euro Trib