- ‹ previous
- 2629 of 7881
- next ›
Departing US Iran Envoy Says Nuclear Issue Will Not Be Resolved By Time Bush Leaves Office
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns, who is due to leave the State Department after twenty-six years of service at the end of the month, spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington tonight. He discussed a range of issues, from Kosovo to North Korea. He said he believes that perhaps the biggest unanticipated issue for the next administration on the global front will be the energy issue, and its relation to global climate change.
But all were looking to Washington's top Iran envoy for a signal about what the Bush administration plans to do on the Iran nuclear issue over the next ten months; and for signs that Burns' imminent departure might be related to some bureaucratic battle - or simple exhaustion or frustration - at trying to lead the administration's effort to cobble and keep together an international coalition to pressure Iran diplomatically and with economic sanctions and other means to change its behavior on its nuclear program.
And Burns did deliver a fairly clear message on that question. He said that he did not think the Iran nuclear issue would be resolved by the end of the Bush administration and would still be outstanding when a new administration takes office.
"I don't think conflict with Iran is inevitable," Burns said. "There is plenty of space for diplomacy."
"I think the issue plays out well beyond 2009," Burns said.
Burns said he had led a meeting today with UN Security Council Permanent Five (P5) members plus Germany, where the discussion was two fold: agreeing on a third set of international sanctions he expects to be passed by the Security Council in two weeks. As well as, reiterating the offer to negotiate with Iran. Among the incentives offered to Iran to negotiate, Burns said: that an international consortium would provide Iran a civilian nuclear power facility, under which Russian would basically haul in the nuclear fuel and haul out the spent fuel.
He did say there was concern about uranium enrichment work at Natanz outpacing sanctions' ability to slow it down. "The pace of Iranian nuclear [development] at Natanz is outpacing sanctions," Burns said. "If the international community wants to avoid a military solution, then economic sanctions need to be more effective."
I asked Burns more about the effort to reiterate to Iran the standing offer to talk with it. He said Iran and its president Ahmadinejad and other officials had the offer on their desks, using his hands to pantomime someone putting a document on a desk. He said Iran has rejected the offer to talk with the U.S. four times already. I asked if the offer got on Ahmadinejad's desk through the Swiss channel, and he said that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had handed it to him. He said the U.S. and P5 still consider it a precondition for such talks that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment going into the talks. Presumably under the "suspension for suspension" arrangement Burns mentioned last year -- the offer that if Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment going into negotiations, the international community would suspend international economic sanctions.
"We are all anxious to continue to keep on the table the offer to negotiate with Iran," Burns said. "They have the offer on the table. President Ahmadinejad has it on the table. I think it's up to them."
I heard Burns speak a year ago on US Iran policy, when the US was trying to get a second round of economic sanctions through the UN Security Council. The message then, while containing many of the same elements as tonight's CFR speech, struck me as darker, and more deliberately calibrated to convey an underlying threat. Burns used language then about there not being endless amounts of time for diplomacy and to see Tehran's behavior change. Tonight, the message seemed to suggest a longer horizon, and perhaps as well a greater interest in probing for the possibility of talks. Whether that is because Burns feels more free to speak his mind now because he's leaving government service in a few days, or because the administration and its allies have determined they have more time, is not clear; perhaps a bit of both.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Don't ignore the article by William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh have published an article in the New York Review of Books entitled "A Solution for the US?Iran Nuclear Standoff", which proposes a way for Iran and the US to resolve their differences by creating a multinational enrichment facility in Iran.
The Iranians have already proposed the same themselves, as has the IAEA and the German Defense Minister and more recently the French -- all were shot down by US insistence that the Iranians shouldn't even have the knowledge of nuclear technology and more recently the US has demanded that Iran not only suspend enrichment but also "confess" to seeking nukes--- pretty obviously a high bar intended to scuttle any peaceful resolution.
Don't ignore the article by William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh have published an article in the New York Review of Books entitled "A Solution for the US?Iran Nuclear Standoff", which proposes a way for Iran and the US to resolve their differences by creating a multinational enrichment facility in Iran.
The Iranians have already proposed the same themselves, as has the IAEA and the German Defense Minister and more recently the French -- all were shot down by US insistence that the Iranians shouldn't even have the knowledge of nuclear technology and more recently the US has demanded that Iran not only suspend enrichment but also "confess" to seeking nukes--- pretty obviously a high bar intended to scuttle any peaceful resolution.
Don't ignore the article by William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh have published an article in the New York Review of Books entitled "A Solution for the USIran Nuclear Standoff", which proposes a way for Iran and the US to resolve their differences by creating a multinational enrichment facility in Iran.
The Iranians have already proposed the same themselves, as has the IAEA and the German Defense Minister and more recently the French -- all were shot down by US insistence that the Iranians shouldn't even have the knowledge of nuclear technology and more recently the US has demanded that Iran not only suspend enrichment but also "confess" to seeking nukes--- pretty obviously a high bar intended to scuttle any peaceful resolution.
Liz,
Thanks for the pointer. Burns explicitly mentioned that the offer of goodies for Tehran if they come to talks includes a civilian nuclear power facility run by an internatoinal consortium, in which Russia would basically control the nuclear fuel import and export.
The US is not rejecting that.
Indeed,the US has become a proponent of civilian nuclear power in India and the Middle East.
Sorry but that's not the same thing as an enrichment facility on Iranian soil and you should know better. The suggestion that Iran give up her right to enrichment and then rely on Russia to import nuclear fuel is ridiculous, considering that even Cheney has accused Russia of engaging in energy blackmail. And, note that the US has still maintained the precondition of an Iranian suspension -- knowing ful well that the issue in Iran has become such a nationalistic cause that no iranian government would accept such a precondition. In fact, the US not only demands a suspension, they now demand that Iran "confess" to making nukes. There is a pattern of moving goalposts here intended to avoid defusing the standoff and instead worsening it -- because the nuclear issue is really just a pretext for a regime change policy/
Here's a link to the article Liz recommends.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112
liz, it's not correct that the US is pursuing regime change on Iran. The policy for more than two years hs been behavior change - of this regime. In Iraq, Lebanon, on its nuclear program. There was a real tension in the administration on this point for a long time. But it has been resolved in favor of behavior change.
"There is plenty of space for diplomacy."--Burns
Yes. Now that this agent for military action against Iran is gone, we may no longer hear statements like: "Iran needs to learn to respect us and Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."
Thankfully Laura referred to him as an envoy and not as a diplomat, since diplomacy was a stranger to Burns.
Iran's nuclear program in in complete compliance with the NPT -- the real problem for the US regime is, as Burns stated, that Iran doesn't accept US hegemony in the ME. So the US has, in effect, already initiated a state of war against Iran when one considers: economic sanctions, naval fleets, propaganda, support of MEK terrorists in Iran and bombing threats.
The US is not pursuing regime change in Iran? No, it would never . . .oops, it already did it once.
Don,Liz,
Please see this interview in Harper's which sets out that Burns was very much part of the effort to tilt the Bush administration to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis -- and not to pursue regime change, as some hawks had advocated in Bush's first term.
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/sb-20070504crjk
From the interview: ...
1. How would you describe the Bush Administration's strategy towards Iran?
The administration's Iran policy was for years somewhat paralyzed by Iraq and an internal argument inside the administration between those who advocate "regime change" vs. those who advocate "behavior change." Led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the administration has come out pretty clearly in favor of "behavior change" towards Iran in recent months. The current effort to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program is headed by Rice's deputy, Nick Burns, and its goal is to create international diplomatic and economic pressure to isolate Iran. In return, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, have agreed to suspend U.N. sanctions on Iran for the duration of talks and have offered Iran pages and pages of inducements for giving up its nuclear program. The full list of incentives is unpublished, but it includes a nuclear energy program that would keep enriched fuel offshore, as well as economic inducements, such as membership in the W.T.O.
6. How will the conflict over Iran's nuclear program be resolved? Is there likely to be a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran before Bush leaves office?
Burns and Rice have been somewhat successful in cobbling together an international alliance to isolate Iran, and it's possible that a North Korea-style agreement could be pulled off. I think that's what Rice and Burns are hoping to achieve; there's not a great desire at the State Department or the Pentagon for another war. Some of this depends on what happens in Iraq and the larger region. If by September the "surge" is deemed to be ineffective, the Bush Administration may seek to blame Iran for its continuing difficulties. So I would not be surprised later this fall to see an uptick in Iran-bashing from elements of the administration and associated constituencies trying to gin up confrontation.
Iran, like the United States and 187 other nations, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"Article III"
"1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
There are only four nations that are not signatories to the NNPT - all of whom have nuclear weapons. The four rogue states are North Korea (which was a signatory, but withdrew after President Bush reneged on the 1994 Agreed Framework), Pakistan, India, and Israel.
So, why is the United Nations, under immense pressure from the United States, imposing punitive sanctions on a nation that, as far as we know at this point, is simply exercising its inalienable rights under the NNPT?
And, why is the United States strongly allied with three of the four nuclear rogue states; India (to whom Bush wants to transfer nuclear technology and enriched uranium), Pakistan (which has received over $10B in the past six years), and Israel (which gets billions of dollars in addition to advanced weaponry every year?
Does the law count for ANYTHING any more? Is the entire world now being forced under the authoritarian dominance of the Bush administration?
Israel
Russia and Iran both seek peace and stability in the Middle East. This most likely means Israel needs to get out of the Golan Heights and the West Bank. It also means the US needs to get out of Iraq and make plans to get out of Afghanistan.
http://www.marblehost.com