Keeping It Cool On Iran

It looks like the Obama administration, by keeping cool and focused, has spooked Iran into serious talks about nuclear weapons and backed Israel away from a dangerous preemptive strike. As war fears recede, score a win for the president. But as James Risen writes, much hinges on May's followup talks in Iraq:

Mr. Obama made it clear that he would not be willing to pursue a policy of “containment” on Iran, in which the United States would accept an Iranian nuclear weapon while seeking to prevent a further nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Abandoning containment as a policy option was the result of an intense debate within the administration, and moved Washington a bit closer to the Israeli position, and it was considered by the White House to be the biggest reward they were willing to give Mr. Netanyahu during his [March] visit. Yet Mr. Obama also made it clear that he believes now is the time to give diplomacy a chance.

But some analysts warned that the Iran crisis could heat up again if there was not much progress at the Baghdad talks. The Istanbul meetings were designed simply to determine whether Iran was serious about beginning a new round of negotiations, but in the Baghdad sessions, the United States and other countries are expected to demand that Iran begin to discuss the details of a possible deal. That would require that Iran show a willingness to compromise on its uranium enrichment program, perhaps by agreeing to halt its efforts to enrich at 20 percent, a level that is higher than is needed for civilian nuclear power.

Benny Chill

Israel's military chief of staff believes Iran's leaders are rational and won't risk annihilation by building a nuclear weapon.

"Give Talks With Iran A Chance"

As Richard Nixon would have as well, Malou Innocent, writing at the former Nixon Center's National Interest, advocates negotiations instead of war to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon:

Negotiating with Iranian leaders will not resolve the nuclear issue in the next few months. What’s needed is a process that encourages Tehran to make tactical concessions, such as persuading it to forestall uranium enrichment at higher levels and allowing for more intrusive inspections. Next month, when Turkey hosts talks between Iran and the “5+1 group”—the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany—American officials should move toward adopting a long-term policy that incorporates Iran into the community of nations. Diplomacy remains the best means of containing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, diplomacy is unpopular with those who see war as the answer to most international problems.

Oh, Yeah, And It Would Kill Millions Of People

Somewhat bloodcurdlingly, experts conclude that just an itty-bitty nuclear war might reverse global warming.

Joker Of The Week

Criticizing Iran's bozo president's way too easy. His critique of western capitalism doesn't withstand a moment's contemplation of the generations of angry, desperate men twisted toward terrorism by the miserably run and in some cases woman-hating regimes of the Arab and Muslim worlds. And then this:

Ahmadinejad proposed that the United Nations name the coming 10 years "the decade for the joint global governance."

Agreed. We vote no bomb for Iran. Moved, seconded, passed.

Bringing Krauthammer Down

Charles Krauthammer says the French think we're appeasing Iran. Actually, I wonder if the distinguished columnist can actually prove that. Evidently President Nicolas Sarkozy (or his aides, who had to rewrite his speech, poor dears) wanted President Obama to reveal Iran's secret nuclear facility last week during the UN Security Council meeting instead of a day later at the G-20 summit. The news from Qom was so dramatic, the weakening impact on Iran's position so immediately discernible, that it doesn't matter where Obama sprang it. But it appears Krauthammer also would have preferred the grandeur of the once-hated UN to the prosaism of Pittsburgh.

What a difference a year makes. To employ a favorite device of U.S. conservatives, the right would've given George W. Bush high fives and hallelujahs for irritating the French and choosing a city in Gov. Palin's "real America" for his dramatic announcement. Le difference is that Krauthammer thinks Obama's wasting time on Iran with weak diplomatic posturing. While I agree that Iran's bomb is probably our greatest national security challenge, it's too early to pronounce the Obama policy a failure. For instance, Krauthammer's column fails to take into account positive developments at this week's Geneva meeting.

I suppose if you think that Obama is hopelessly incompetent or feckless, that he would never be willing to take the ultimate steps that may someday be necessary to keep a madman from having a doomsday weapon, then you want to underrate and even undermine everything he does. I'm just not that pessimistic. I also believe that irrespective of the eventual outcome of the Iraq war, history will judge Bush harshly for failing to push harder on sanctions before going to war. So with Iran, every possible diplomatic expedient must be used short of the use of military power, including delaying tactics in the hope of regime change in Tehran.

Nobody should be eager to go to war against Iran (or anyone). So everyone should be hoping the Obama policy succeeds. By the same token, it makes no sense to pretend it's working when it isn't. But the French president's speechwriter's having to crank out a new draft and a questionable location choice for a press conference don't rise to the level of five-alarm crisis.

To Russia With Gloves

The Geneva talks sound like another win for President Obama:

Iran’s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing — if it happens — would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.

Is Iran Nuking Up Or Not?

Amazing that "intelligence" involves so much guesswork.

"You Lie!" Says Ahmadinejad

The BBC:

[Iranian President] Ahmadinejad...flatly denied claims - by US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown - that the plant was a secret facility.

Qum's The Word

Spy novel stuff in the New York Times as the Obama administration decided how to use George W. Bush-era intelligence on Iran's now-blown (only figuratively for now) outlaw nuclear facility near Qum to apply maximum leverage on the Iranians when all the leaders were together for the General Assembly opening this week:

At his meeting at the Waldorf the next morning, Mr. Obama decided that he would personally tell Mr. Medvedev, the Russian president, when they met Wednesday afternoon for a previously scheduled meeting. Mr. Obama also spoke with Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Brown. Meanwhile, Jeff Bader, a senior White House adviser for China, informed his Chinese counterparts.

On Thursday, while Mr. Obama was leading the Security Council meeting, General Jones left his seat behind Mr. Obama, walked over to Mr. Prikhodko, the Russian national security adviser, and whispered in his ear. Mr. Prikhodko got up and followed General Jones out of the room. Minutes later, General Jones sent an aide back to get his Chinese counterpart as well.

Administration officials said they were gratified with Russia’s reaction — Mr. Medvedev signaled he would be amenable to tougher sanctions on Iran.

Dmitri Said "Sanctions"

President Obama was smiling today on this sidewalk on Broadway around 110th and yesterday at the UN -- and with good reason. He persuaded the Russian President to suggest that Moscow would be open to punishing Iran for failing to cooperate with international efforts to deter it from developing nuclear weapons.

The New York Times speculates that we got the Russians on board by scraping the current U.S. policy on our so-called missile shield over the former Warsaw Pact countries. If that's true, according to a friend who's an expert on arms control and SDI, then Obama's breakthrough came in exchange for virtually nothing, because the shield has been a chimera (although, in fairness, evidently never to the Russians) ever since President Reagan became infatuated with the idea in the 1980s. Reports the Times on this ten-strike win for Obama's foreign policy:

With a beaming Mr. Obama standing next to him, [Russian President Dmitri] Medvedev signaled for the first time that Russia would be amenable to longstanding American requests to toughen sanctions against Iran significantly if, as expected, nuclear talks scheduled for next month failed to make progress.

“I told His Excellency Mr. President that we believe we need to help Iran to take a right decision,” Mr. Medvedev said, adding that “sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases, sanctions are inevitable.”

White House officials could barely hide their glee. “I couldn’t have said it any better myself,” a delighted Michael McFaul, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser for democracy and Russia, told reporters after the meeting. He insisted nonetheless that the administration had not tried to buy Russia’s cooperation with its decision to scrap the missile shield in Europe in favor of a reconfigured system.

Whom To Believe?

Iran says it doesn't want nukes.

It's All About The Imam, Ma'am

At the annual Quds Day rally called by Iran's regime to express solidarity with Palestinians, thousands instead protested the tainted presidential elections. In the run-up to Oct. 1 talks which will include the U.S., President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again denied that the Holocaust occurred. Andrew Sullivan has details from Iran of apparent attacks on reformist and opposition leaders by pro-regime thugs. Meanwhile NBC's Ann Curry got an hour-long interview with Ahmadinejad yesterday. Watch the whole thing and decide whether he is a menace or whether we can do business with him. I fear we can't.

Before he answers the first question, Ahmadinejad prays for the return of the hidden 12th imam, which, in the light of his previously reported expectation that this moment would occur in his lifetime, sounded like an invocation of the end times. Not an encouraging start. He then says grandiosely that Iran's decision to participate in talks with the Security Council powers had actually inaugurated a new dispensation. "The movement around the world," he says, "is moving in the direction of our ideals." So right off the bat you're dealing with a fellow with a healthy self-image who seems to imagine himself as a character in an Islamic Left Behind, which is the essence, of course, of U.S. and Israeli concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran.

Curry spends several minutes trying to get Ahmadinejad to say that Iran would never under any circumstances develop nuclear weapons, as though Iran's weapons program were not already well underway. You get the feeling she thinks that his refusal to make a blanket disavowal will be deemed significant in Jerusalem and Washington. Actually, a leader, whether governed by reason or not, should never answer such an open-ended hypothetical question. Although Curry presses him pretty effectively on nukes and the possibility of Iran provoking an Middle East arms race, if a yes or no answer was so important to her, she might have said bluntly, "Are you developing a nuke right now?"

She asked him twice if he'd stolen the recent election. A clear "no" again evaded him. Given the mortal risks Iranians are taking to challenge the results, his stonewalling and ritualistic denunciations of British and U.S. devils were sickening. When he asked if Obama had stolen the 2008 election, Curry didn't say anything. Perhaps she shook her head; the editor didn't cut to her at that point. I wish she had said, "President Obama didn't steal his election, and the whole world knows it. But the world thinks you stole yours." Curry's best moment: "The question has to be asked: Where was your compassion for your people?"

This was no Dan Rather-Saddam Hussein lapdog interview. A tough reporter with a relentlessly gracious mien, Curry was rarely derailed. But I wish that in 63 minutes she had found time to confront Ahmadinejad about denying the Holocaust and about his anti-Semitism. Israel, he said, is an "illegal, murderous regime [which is] being influenced by parties which are in Europe and in the U.S. in political corners." Isn't there something in Mein Kampf about rats scurrying in corners? For more on the whole range of durable vermin metaphors, see the first scene of "Inglorious Basterds." These Jews and Jew-lovers, Ahmadinejad implied, are "connected with the arms-industrial complex" and "certain U.S. capitalists... certain officials." (One can't tell whether the unmistakable "I'm talking about Jews" emphasis was added by the translator.) Another golden oldie: As for the "Zionists which are lobbying inside the U.S....If conflict continues, their pockets will be lined." Does anyone seriously wonder why his having a nuclear weapon is an impossible scenario for Israel?

As for whether Ahmadinejad plans to use his bomb to ignite Armageddon, he strictly ruled that out. He denies ever having said that the 12th imam would return in his lifetime; more lies by his international enemies. Besides, he added, all that will happen whenever the imam arrives is that peace and tranquility will reign -- which made me wonder about his opening claim that he had personally inaugurated a new global movement toward peace and disarmament just by planning to sit down with the great powers.

Perhaps he really does think he's the agent of the divine. And yet don't all people of faith think that way? When Curry asked about his personal conversations with the still-hidden imam, he turned the tables:

"[I]t's roughly the same as the relationship which exists between Christians and Christ. They speak with Jesus Christ, and they are sure that Christ hears them and responds...

I hope so. One of my prayers is that the international community, acting as one, will encircle and deter Iran until it has the leadership it deserves (and perhaps elected in June).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

No Nukes

Iran agrees to meet with us and the other permanent UN Security Council members in October as long as the agenda doesn't include the main issue of concern.

We'll Give Up Ours If You Give Up Yours

Charles Krauthammer thinks President Obama's call for the abolition of nuclear weapons would carry more weight if he were more effective at persuading Iran and North Korea to give up theirs.