Comes from Roger Cohen's 20 May NYT column.
The guts of the argument:
Iran has been producing, under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, LEU (enriched to about 5 percent). It is this LEU that would have to be turned into bomb-grade uranium (over 90 percent) if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon. The idea behind the American deal in Geneva last October was to get a big chunk of LEU out of Iran to build confidence, create some negotiating space, and remove material that could get subverted. In exchange, Iran would later get fuel rods for a medical research reactor in Tehran.
Iran, doing the bazaar routine, said yes, maybe and no, infuriating Obama. Iran now wanted the LEU stored on Iranian soil under I.A.E.A. control, phased movement of the LEU to this location, and a simultaneous fuel rod exchange. Forget it, Obama said.
Well, Turkey and Brazil have now restored the core elements of the October deal: a single shipment of the 1,200 kilograms of LEU to a location (Turkey) outside Iran and a one-year gap — essential for broader negotiations to begin — between this Iranian deposit in escrow and the import of the fuel rods.
And what’s the U.S. response? To pursue “strong sanctions” (if no longer “crippling”) against Iran at the United Nations; and insist now on a prior suspension of enrichment that was not in the October deal (indeed this was a core Obama departure from Bush doctrine).
Obama could instead have said: “Pressure works! Iran blinked on the eve of new U.N. sanctions. It’s come back to our offer. We need to be prudent, given past Iranian duplicity, but this is progress. Isolation serves Iranian hard-liners.”
No wonder Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, is angry. I believe him when he says Obama and U.S. officials encouraged Turkey earlier this year to revive the deal: “What they wanted us to do was give the confidence to Iran to do the swap. We have done our duty.”
Yes, Turkey has. I know, the 1,200 kilograms now represents a smaller proportion of Iran’s LEU than in October and it’s no longer clear that the fuel rods will come from the conversion of the LEU in escrow. But that’s small potatoes when you’re trying to build a tenuous bridge between “mendacious” Iranians and “bullying” Americans in the interests of global security.
The French and Chinese reactions — cautious support — made sense. The American made none, or did only in the light of the strong Congressional push for “crushing” sanctions. Further sanctions will not change Iran’s nuclear behavior; negotiations might.
I sense no overriding vision whatsoever, and when the administration's top people try to articulate any, it just comes off as so reactive--nuanced to the point of incoherence. I read through Obama's recent military academy speech previewing a new national security strategy: it was all just nouns and verbs strung together in the most boiler-plate fashion. There is the sense of care-taking of the system but nothing more. We don't have leaders anymore; we have good stewards of the Earth--fine I guess, but oh so tiresome. There's nothing to push against with this bunch; it's like an entire administration of Condi Rices--full of points, neatly arranged, signifying nothing but intelligent coping with the world as they find it. Leadership is left to others; we play zone defense.
Sad times for the grand strategist.
I cannot help but detect this tendency in Obama to give the people what they want in U.S. foreign policy--as quickly as possible. People want out of Iraq; full speed ahead! People want to deal our way out of Afghanistan; advantage Islamabad. People want sanctions on "crazy" Iran; stitch that meaningless package together and spend all our diplomacy on UNSC resolutions.
Cohen on the same:
Presidents must lead on major foreign policy initiatives, not be bullied by domestic political considerations, in this case incandescent Iran ire on the Hill in an election year.
Hillary's response to the Brazil-Turkey deal was snide to the point of condescension--so much for the multi-partner world.
This is what you get with a lot of lawyers running the show, I suppose. They want to win in court, no matter how mendacious they come off at various points.
I know, I know. You make your bed and then you have to lie in it. Problem is, the alternative sucked worse, not that that makes my disillusionment any less painful.
Nice piece by Cohen though. It scratched one mighty intellectual itch.