In a recent radio interview with “Voices of the Middle East” , Flynt makes an important point: the “Iranian exception” in the Nuclear Posture Review is very harmful to already badly damaged perceptions in Iran of America’s fundamental attitude toward the Islamic Republic. (The interview is roughly 20 minutes long; to go directly to Flynt’s contributions, fast forward five minutes into the podcast.)
We have previously emphasized that the “Iranian exception” in the Nuclear Posture Review, from a purely strategic perspective, actually incentivizes Iran to move toward weaponization of its expanding nuclear capabilities. However, a www.TheRaceForIran.com reader in Iran argued that the real issue regarding the “Iranian exception” in the Nuclear Posture Review is not the prospect of “any change in Iran’s policy regarding its nuclear program”, but rather
“that the Iranians see Obama and even the U.S. media in a different light than before. To see a U.S. president threaten a nation with mass murder and then see that the U.S. and Western media is not outraged is a clear sign that Iran should never trust the U.S.”
This is an extremely important point. As Flynt notes in the radio interview, the Iranian exception in the Nuclear Posture Review will “feed into a growing perception in [Iran] that the Obama Administration is not really serious about improving American relations with the Islamic Republic.” As we have written previously, official Iranian reaction to the Nuclear Posture Review is emphasizing the illegitimacy of an American threat to use nuclear weapons against the Islamic Republic. This almost certainly reflects not simply a political calculation about how to “score” the most points against the United States in the court of international public opinion, but also genuine revulsion and outrage in Iranian society against a perceived nuclear threat to the Islamic Republic. (Keep in mind that the Islamic Republic actually experienced the downing of a fully-loaded civilian airliner, Iran Air 655, by a U.S. Navy vessel in 1988 and was the target of WMD attacks by Iraq in the 1980s.)
In this regard, we wanted to respond to an argument from our respected colleague, Greg Thielman. We admire Greg very much—during the run up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he was one of the few stalwarts in the State Department who showed genuine integrity and courage in analyzing the intelligence on Iraqi WMD. In a comment on www.TheRaceForIran.com , Greg agrees that “the nuclear threat against a non-nuclear Iran, implied by the [Nuclear Posture Review], is counterproductive”. He notes that, at an on-the-record briefing at the Council on Foreign Relations last week, State Department senior nonproliferation adviser Robert Einhorn denied that the Nuclear Posture Review threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, contending that “the U.S. makes an explicit pledge in the [Nuclear Posture Review] to NPT members in good standing and merely notes that some countries are not affected by this pledge”. Greg then goes on to argue that
“there is nothing new to the U.S. nuclear threat against Iran. At least three previous administrations have made explicit that the U.S. reserves the right to respond to CW or BW attacks with nuclear weapons. George W. Bush’s inclusion of preventive war in his 2002 military doctrine implied that the U.S. would have been willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran even if Iran had not attacked anyone. The 2010 [Nuclear Posture Review] is therefore accurate in claiming: ‘this does not mean that our willingness to use nuclear weapons against countries not covered by the new assurance has in any way increased’.”
Greg’s presentation is, in its own terms, completely correct. But the “Iranian exception” in the Nuclear Posture Review is counterproductive, as Greg readily agrees it is, because of its impact on Iranian perceptions of U.S. credibility and U.S. intentions toward the Islamic Republic. The Nuclear Posture Review is meant to show the world that the United States is reducing the role of nuclear weapons in its defense posture—except where Iran and perhaps one or two other countries are concerned. In our view, the United States should not be threatening nuclear first use against anyone.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
I hear the excuse all the time: he needs the jewish vote. Ok, there are over 300 million people in the USA, less than 6 million are jewish. Now why is their vote any more important than mine or other non-jews? Do they have blue, green or purple blood? Maybe its because they are GOD’s chosen people. Ooooooops, I get it: AIPAC, money, blackmail, should I say more. If Obama had any integrity he would say the hell with those votes, I am gonna do the right thing and actually do what his base really put him in there to do. But I guess he like other politicians in US government know who are his true masters.
Fiorangela,
Thanks for the text of the letter sent by the Iranian delegation to the UN. Bob Gates’s vicious threat is set out very clearly indeed.
I like to remember Gates’s career at CIA in the 1980s, when he did all he could to exaggerate many times over, the “threat” posed by the Soviet Union. Gates was the armaments manufacturers’ best friend. And he still is.
Dan Coeper,
I heartily agree with you that Ahamdinejad’s sincerity is to be preferred over the shameless lying and cheating of George W. Bush! That bullying moron destroyed the lives of millions of people in the Middle East. And the question before us is: Is Obama in effect yet another stooge of the warmongers, manipulated by Aipac and other “supporters” of Israel – - meaning, promoters of permanent oppression of the Palestinians and suppression of their legitimate national aspirations?
kooshy,
Great post! By all means, run a shuttle between Washington (DC) and Tel Aviv! Keep it packed with Senators, Congressmen, generals, admirals, and on down the line! How many retired generals and admirals were paid to deceive the American public, in the run-up to the idiotic invasion of Iraq? There were many stooges of the warmongers on the payroll.
U.S. has been carrying out media operations to incite anti-Iranian sentiments vigorously. Some recent efforts include the establishment of websites such as “United Against Nuclear Iran” and the production of Hollywood-sponsored movies “300″ and “The Wrestler”.
The American psychological warfare, however, is not limited to mainstream media outlets, NY Times and Fox News-like stuff, campaign websites and TV shows. A number of bloggers also have been mobilized to take part in the cyber maneuver against Iran. It means that the wave of American psychological operation against Iran has become so extensive and far-reaching that even involves bloggers and independent commentators who run e-zines and online publications.
Dear President Obama; we know that whoever rises to presidency in your country should be first an expert of psychological warfare and a dexterous pamphleteer; you’ve done your job successfully by teaching us that you have the potentiality to be a duplicate of Mr. George W. Bush. Now you’ve satisfied your Zionist supervisors excellently. The only thing which you should know is that you had better take the options off the table and save more space consequently!”
I would like to end this post with a quote from one of America’s most fearless writers, John Kaminski, for the benefit of Barack Obama: “I wish we had a president as decent as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current and outspoken president of Iran. I mean, just compare the two men as human beings. Mr. Ahmadinejad seems like a decent guy from the neighborhood, trying to tell the truth while being trampled by the demonic Jewish spin machine. And here is George W. Bush (interchangeable with Barack Obama, as have been all American presidents since U.S. Grant), revealing himself to the world as a lying, pathological killer. Hey, which one would you choose?”
http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/war/210191-when-qbarackq-decides-to-head-a-barrack
from the link kooshy posted: values US military shares with Israel
” US Generals and Admirals Who Have Accepted Free Trips to Israel;
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affair
JINSA Flag & General Officers Ad
JINSA Report #: 976 – April 2, 2010
The correct response to those who denigrate the U.S.-Israel relationship, is to note that Israel is a friend by virtue of shared civic and political values and a security asset upon which the United States can rely.”
Journalist Mark Danner discussing his latest book, “Stripping the Body Bare,” Nov 12 2009, 12, 2009, World Affairs Council of N. California Books, Inc..
“Mark Danner talks about his book of essays which covers such topics as the war on terror, the use of torture by the Bush administration, and U.S. involvement in the Balkans and Haiti. He spoke at the World Affairs Council in San Francisco.”
at 19 min to 26 min:
“…walling, the use of the towel – they later devised a leather collar with handles — the towel wrapped around the neck, smashing him against the wall repeatedly. This probably came from the Israelis who use this in their interrogations…”
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290218-1&start=1180
This one is the beauty
All Expense Paid
US Generals and Admirals Who Have Accepted Free Trips to Israel
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25228.htm
I find it very difficult to understand how the president could be very specific about Iran’s nuclear project and yet begin to talk in general terms when questioned about Israel’s.
The fact here is that unlike Iran, Israel has already developed illegal nuclear weapons and refused to sign the NPT. Added to the catastrophic mess it has created in Gaza, Israel is ranking as the number one threat to world peace and security.
Does the word “hypocrisy” mean anything to the president?
Alan,
Thanks. I recommend James Mather’s review of The Iraq Papers, in The Spectator March 27th. “[T"hey show how the genesis of the [Iraq War] lay as much in the realm of ideas as in calculations made behind closed doors. . . Together, they read like a parable of how political rhetoric conspires to make facts – - and wars.”
Also: “I”n the founding script of the neo-con worldview, international law was dismissed as a dangerous indulgence.”
Great stuff James.
The Iranians are continuing to call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, and the Tehran conference will be next week (on that topic). So, is the Obama administration praising Iran’s efforts to advance HIS OWN AGENDA? Of course not! Instead, Obama is rather stupidly allowing neocons and other fools in his administration to put pressure on other countries NOT TO ATTEND THE CONFERENCE! What total imbecility. Unless, that is, the political calculation in the White House is that the wingnuts will go berserk if he says positive things about Iran, and Iran’s programme for ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
I think the Iranian government needs to retain the moral high ground, and to continue to call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. Remarkably, or at least it should be remarkable, many if not most Americans are not even aware Iran has called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.
The neocon game plan has been to attempt to get Iran to pull out of the NPT, to set up an Israeli attack on Iran. This vivious, murderous strategy obviously needs to be confounded.
I hope the Iranian people understand that many, if not most, reasonably well-informed Americans resent the extent to which their political leaders are stooges of the government-of-the-day of Israel, but see little that they can do about it.
As soon as I heard Bob Gates demonizing Iran, and putting Iran in the same category as North Korea, I said to myself: What utter stupidity! And how totally predictable!
Gates seriously lacks a strategic sense. This gap in his repertoire also exists in that of Hillary Clinton. And it may also exist in Barack Obama.
Iran calls it nuclear blackmail.
Below is a reprint of the letter sent by Iran’s U.N. delegation
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
No: 135 13 April 2010
Excellency,
On 6 April 2010, the United States government published its Nuclear Posture Review [NPR] which outlines the U.S. nuclear strategy and policy, and among others, contains groundless allegations against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Following the release of NPR, some high-ranking officials of the United States including the U.S. President and Secretaries of State and Defense, on the basis of wholly wrong assumption, have made public and implicit statements, threatening to use nuclear weapons against the Islamic Republic of Iran. For instance, Secretary of Defense of the United States, in a news briefing held on 6 April 2010 at the Pentagon, asserted that “the NPR has a very strong message for Iran…, because whether it’s in declaratory policy or in other elements of the NPR, we essentially carve out states like Iran…. And basically all options are on the table when it comes to countries in that category”. He added “so, if there is a message for Iran here, it is that… all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you.”
In view of these developments, I would like to draw your kind attention to the following points:
1- Such inflammatory statements which are tantamount to nuclear blackmail against a non-nuclear-weapon State signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) constitute a serious violation of the United States obligations and commitment, under international law, particularly Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations and also the provisions of the Security Council resolution 984 (1995), to refrain from the threat or use of force against any State.
2- It is evident that these statements are not only declaration of intention but also part of official document which articulate the United States policy on first use of nuclear weapons, at its discretion, against a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the NPT, and, therefore, pose a real threat to international peace and security and undermine the credibility of the NPT. Such remarks by the U.S officials display once again the reliance of the U.S government on militarized approach to various issues, to which the threats of use of nuclear weapons are not a solution at all.
3- The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a victim of weapons of mass destruction in the recent history, is firmly committed to pursuing the realization of a world free from weapons of mass destruction, not only in words, but also by full implementation of three major legal instruments banning weapons of mass destruction, namely NPT, Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). In addition, the Islamic Republic of Iran has categorically and consistently rejected the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on religious and constitutional grounds. Iran’s nuclear activities are, and always have been, for peaceful purposes.
4- After 40 years since the entry into force of the NPT, and while the U.S. officials are apparently advocating the nuclear non-proliferation, let’s not forget that the United States as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon against the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result of which 200,000 people perished, continues to illegitimately designate a non-nuclear weapon State as target of its nuclear weapons and contemplates military plans accordingly.
In view of the above-mentioned points, members of the United Nations should not condone or tolerate such nuclear blackmail in 21st century, and should take resolute action to ensure the total elimination of all nuclear weapons as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. In this regard, the United Nations and its relevant organs have a fundamental responsibility to strongly oppose the threat of use of nuclear weapons and to reject it.
It would be highly appreciated if this letter could be circulated as a document of the Security Council and that of the General Assembly, under agenda item 9, 82, 92, 93, 96 and 107.
Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Mohammad Khazaee
Ambassador
Permanent Representative
H.E. Mr. Takasu,
President of the Security Council
United Nations, New York
CC:
H.E. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary General
United Nations, New York
H.E. Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki
President of the General Assembly
United Nations, New York
from a slightly different perspective — Obama must have known that he would lose credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people, much less its government. It’s reasonable to assume he calculated the trade-off: Iranian public vs American VOTING public. Obama’s Democratic base is restive — it’s not happy that health care reform had no public option, etc. As well, the GOP is intent on punishing Iran because…. well, just because. Both parties are vying for Jewish financial support; it is only recognizing reality to state that a large proportion of Democratic financial support comes from Jewish voters, and the recent dust-up with Netanyahu has strained some ties.
I searched a major Democratic party website to check my thesis, that at least part of Obama’s Iran strategy is for American domestic political consumption; indeed, Obama’s pitch hit its target:
“US/China Reach IRAN SANCTIONS Deal. Neocon Fail!”
To their credit, many commenters to this article were more discerning than the author of the original post, and observed that China had NOT agreed to a “deal” on sanctions, China merely agreed to discuss a deal on sanctions.
One commenter, ‘Vorkosigan,’ posted this very interesting response:
“Dude, this diary is totally wrong on China (www dot dailykos.com/story/2010/4/12/856694/-US-China-Reach-IRAN-SANCTIONS-Deal.-Neocon-Fail!)
Don’t you get it? They are playing a game. Nothing is going to change. China’s pattern is to make agreements and then go on with what it was doing through back channels. China is an important trade partner of Iran and they aren’t going to give that up. It is China that is keeping the Iranian nuke program going by selling it nuke technology through third parties, a cheap investment that not only returns a profit to Chinese firms, but is like waving a red flag in front of our middle-east obsessed foreign policy makers. Iran has been an area where the US has simply been killed by China. Meanwhile Karzai cozies up to Beijing as American troops die to make Afghanistan safe for Chinese expansionism. As we play our losing hand in Central Asia out to the last card, only China wins.
But above that, the China Reform Monitor noted the other day:
“China is constructing three primary high-speed rail lines: a southern line through Southeast Asia to Singapore; a western line from Xinjiang through Central Asia; and a northern line through Russia’s gas fields to Europe. A proposed South Asia branch will start in Kunming and run through Burma to New Delhi, Lahore and on to Tehran to join the Central Asia line. Beijing has concluded agreements with Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and negotiations with over a dozen countries are underway. Construction has begun on the southern line, running from Kunming to Singapore. In the best-case scenario the rail link will be completed by 2025, when a train from Beijing to London will take only two days. But differences in countries’ track gages and poor track quality in some areas hinder the project. In Cambodia, over 650 km of track needs renovation and Burma’s track is below the required standards, The Hindu reports.”
So… China will be a the hub of a vast HSR network spanning two continents, while the US will…win another great victory in Iran like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
China is playing a game, just stringing the US along because it knows perfectly well the Americans won’t retaliate. This is not a triumph for Obama, but another delaying operation by Beijing.
Vorkosigan”
The battlelines are taking shape: Germany is investing heavily in rail lines and roadways across the Arabian peninsula to facilitate Red Sea transport to the Mediterranean; Israel is allied with this contingent insofar as Israel will deploy its German-made subs to patrol the Persian Gulf.
According to this excerpt from China Reform Monitor, China is creating its ‘new Silk Road’ through the ’stans. According to JPPPI, an Israeli organization chaired by Dennis Ross, Israel considers it a policy priority to establish Israeli alliances with China. Israel has pipeline interests in the ’stans.
To expand on ‘Vorkosigan’s’ conclusion:
“So… China will be a the hub of a vast HSR network spanning two continents,”
Germany and Israel will be part of a competing transit systems across the Arabian peninsula,
“while the US will…win another great victory in Iran like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan” (Verkosigan).
US activity in the ’stans appears to be military in nature, not commercial; Institute for Defense Analysis U.S. Bases in Central Asia Susan Clark Sestak
The US appears to have been made the cat’s paw of her allies: US allies are developing long-term investment and commercial opportunities in the Middle East on inroads created with US blood and treasure, and guarded by US military forces.
Firstly, while I agree with Greg’s statement about their being little or no practical change in the Nuclear Posture toward Iran, I also agree it sends the wrong message at a time when we want things to de-escalate.
Eric – interesting stuff as usual. I’m not sure the extrapolations you have made are necessarily where we are with this. I think the NPR is simply about the use of nuclear weapons, not about the “right” or “legal” foundation for going to war. The NPR concerns the methods used to fight the war, rather than justification for the war in the first place.
I suppose, although I detest it, the justification for including the “exception” is to account for the possibility that a country may be nuclear armed although not declared as such. For an NPT participant, that would mean a clear violation of their NPT obligations. That would mean the posture toward that country should be the same as the posture toward a declared nuclear-armed state, so this wording makes that possible.
In the current climate, that zeroes in on Iran, which is highly counterproductive, but it is a wording that has a certain logic to it nonetheless.
One wonders where Israel falls in this. They are officially (though not in reality) a non-nuclear weapons state, but as they are not in the NPT, the same wording technically makes them a potential target as well.
Greg Thielman,
What struck me more about your comment on the Leveretts’ earlier piece (a few days back) was your report of Einhorn’s remark at the April 8 CFR conference you attended. Einhorn pointed out that the NPR explicitly pledged that the US would not use nuclear weapons against any NPT signatory that was in compliance with its NPT obligations, but added that such a pledge did not apply to certain countries. Presumably Einhorn was not referring to any country by name, but rather was referring categorically to any country that was not in compliance with its NPT obligations. We all know who that means, of course — thus, the “Iran exception” (and North Korea).
Einhorn might argue that he was merely stating the obvious, but this strikes me as a possible end run around the UNSC resolutions on Iran’s nuclear program.
First, Einhorn’s remark left unanswered a two-part question analogous to one that arose just before the Iraq invasion in 2003:
Who gets to decide (1) whether a country is in compliance with its NPT obligations and (2) what should be done if it is not?
From your report, I gather Einhorn’s answer would be the same as George Bush’s answer in March 2003 — the US, not the UNSC (or, God forbid, the IAEA). If so, this is not surprising — rarely does a state renounce its right to over-reach when it got away with it last time. But if Einhorn meant all that I suspect he meant, it appears to me the US’ position may actually be a very dangerous step beyond its position in 2003.
China and Russia have gone to great lengths to ensure that the UNSC resolutions to date against Iran are based on Article 40, rather than Article 39, so that those resolutions cannot serve as a basis for military action under Article 42. The 2002 UNSC resolution on Iraq, by contrast to the Iran resolutions, was based on Article 39, meaning that military action would be among the available remedies if the resolution were violated. The US’ unilateral decision to attack Iraq based on that UNSC resolution thus amounted “only” to a unilateral declaration by the US that (1) the UNSC resolution had been violated; and (2) therefore (in the US’ view, at least), any UN member state was authorized to enforce the resolution without further explicit authorization from the UNSC. The US did not, however, need also to decide unilaterally that a violation of the Iraq resolution justified the use of military force against the violator. The Article 39 basis of the 2002 Iraq resolution meant that military force was already included among the permissible remedies for a violation.
This time, however, there has not been a UN Iran resolution based on Article 39. This means that a unilateral US decision that Iran has violated one or more of the UNSC’s resolutions and that US military action is therefore warranted would be qualitatively (and dangerously) different from the US’ unilateral decision regarding Iraq’s violation of the UNSC’S 2002 Iraq resolution. The US would not merely be declaring (as it declared in 2003 with respect to Iraq) that Iran had violated a resolution that, if violated, would justify US military action against the violator. It would also be adding remedies that the UNSC has never authorized for a violation of its Iran resolutions. It would be transforming resolutions that, if violated, do not authorize military action (because, at Russia’s and China’s insistence, they have been based on Article 40, rather than Article 39) into resolutions that do authorize military action upon a violation.
It’s a fair bet that China and Russia have carefully avoided agreeing to any Article 39-based resolution against Iran precisely because they knew (from recent experience with the 2002 Iraq resolution) that the US would consider an Article 39-based resolution to be sufficient authorization for the US (1) to decide unilaterally whether the resolution had been violated; and (2) if so, to implement whatever remedies were authorized under the UN charter upon such a violation, without returning to the UNSC for explicit permission. Even if the US were to behave in exactly the same manner with respect to the UNSC’s Iran resolutions, basing those resolutions on Article 40 rather than on Article 39 would nonetheless leave the US short of what it needed — and what it had had in March 2003: a UN-sanctioned basis for military action, since violation of an Article 40-based resolution does not authorize military action under Article 42.
In essence, if I am interpreting Einhorn’s remark correctly, what he said was this:
1. Though China and Russia may believe their careful UNSC drafting efforts ensure that the US (even if it once again decides unilaterally that a violation has occurred and to implement authorized remedies for the violation) must first obtain an Article 39 resolution before it may take military action against Iran, the US doesn’t consider itself limited at all by the Article 40 basis of the UNSC’s Iran resolutions. It considers itself free to behave just the same is it could behave if those carefully circumscribed UNSC Iran resolutions had instead been carte blanche resolutions based on Article 39.
2. Therefore, whenever the US feels like declaring that Iran is violating its NPT obligations (or the UNSC resolutions, which effectively incorporate Iran’s key NPT obligations), the US may drop nuclear bombs on Iran.
Do you, Greg, or anyone else, have thoughts on this?
A very good piece.
There is a Persian proverb, which a few days back, President Ahmadinijad actually used to describe Mr. Obama’s goodwill for Iranians for this exact issue of NPR, In Persian is (Mara Beh Khayer -e- Tow Omied Niest Sharr Maresan) which translates to “We have no hope for your goodwill, please don’t increase the misbehavior”
Remembering Mr. Obama’s campaign promises to broaden his base and get nominated, one should understand that he is a lawyer and has a master in double talks and braking promises, just a few weeks ago he sends a new year Norooz greetings to the Iranians that we value your contribution to culture and history of the world. Yet a few weeks after he publicly sends them a new message that we may chose to Nuoooooc you to obliteration, which is if we found that at our discretions you are not bending to give up your rights per our demands.
It seems that the American president does not know what he wants from the Iranian people, he should make up his mind and perhaps note that he has graduated from high school and act like a head of state.