Iran

Diplomacy in action

It’s obviously excellent news that the five British sailors incarcerated by Iran on Monday night have been released without incident. Exacerbating already strained diplomatic tensions would have been an enormous temptation to the Iranian regime and David Miliband is right to commend their “professional” conduct in this matter. Miliband said:  “The Iranian authorities gave us every indication that they wanted to deal with this in a straightforward, consular way. It was never a political matter and I welcome the fact they have dealt with it in this professional way.” The Foreign Secretary added, “it proves that diplomacy can work”. Well yes, but there is a world of difference between Iran

The clock is ticking on Iran

When I visited Israel last year, various sources there were convinced – adamant, even – that Iran was within a year or two of creating an atomic bomb.  That may or may not have been the case, but it’s still ominous that that hypothetical timeline is nearly up.  We can all too easily forget that, in the background to all the column inches and comment pieces expended on Iran, there are genuine and pressing concerns that the country is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. Which is why the two latest news stories from the country are particularly worrying: the capture of a racing yacht by the Iranian

Who is John Limbert?

Well, he’s the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iran in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs who is, according to Melanie Phillips, a “fifth columnist” who is “in hock to the Iranian regime”. Melanie suggests that Limbert’s appointment means Tehran “now has its own man running the United States’s policy towards Iran” and asks “Has there ever been a situation where the President of a country delivers his country in this fashion to its mortal enemy?” May I quietly suggest that this is not quite the case? Until recently Limbert was Professor of International Affairs at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. Before that he enjoyed a 33

Surprising fact about the Iranian opposition: they take Iran’s national interest seriously!

On the whole, Washington cynicism may be preferable to Washington’s special brand of bemused naivete. Consider Jackson Diehl’s remarkable column in this morning’s Washington Post in which he seems astonished to discover that the Iranian opposition is made up of Iranians, not all of whom share the west’s analysis of what Iran should do next. Fancy that! Ataollah Mohajerani, who has been a spokesman in Europe for presidential candidate-turned-dissident Mehdi Karroubi, came to Washington to address the annual conference of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and

The end of special relationships

Today, two of my colleagues, former senior MoD official Nick Witney and US analyst Jeremy Shapiro, issued a hard-hitting report about transatlantic relationships. Their message is simple. Europe has the US president it wished for, but Barack Obama lacks the strong transatlantic partner he desired. With EU leaders heading to Washington for their transatlantic summit on 3 November, Shapiro and Witney caution European governments: an unsentimental President Obama has already lost patience with a Europe lacking coherence and purpose. In a post-American world, the United States knows it needs effective partners. And if Europe cannot step up, the US will look for other privileged partners to do business with. Unfortunately,

Playing Poker with Iran

Robert Kagan worries that Barack Obama isn’t a strong enough poker player to beat Iran. This is probably not much of a surprise. But here’s how Kagan puts it: Many of us worry that, for Obama, engagement is an end in itself, not a means to an end. We worry that every time Iran rejects one proposal, the president will simply resume negotiations on another proposal and that this will continue right up until the day Iran finally tests its first nuclear weapon, at which point the president will simply begin negotiations again to try to persuade Iran to put its nuclear genie back in the bottle… The worst of

The West’s intelligence deficit on Iran

At the headquarters of the Defense Intelligence Agency outside of Washington DC, there are no cardboard mockups of Iran’s nuclear sites that can be used for briefing the military on plans of attack. Instead, there is a very cool 3D map table that allows the viewer to fly into and through the many layers of the nuclear facilities. A movement of the hands can expand or contract the view from an image of an individual room to the perspective from an overhead satellite. On the basis of that briefing, an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites looks easy, right down to the dialing in of the depth at which a new

Russia pockets Obama’s concession and moves on

The strategic logic behind President Obama’s decision to alter US plans for a missile defence shield based in Eastern Europe was that this would persuade the Russians, who didn’t like the shield, to agree to the US’s push for tougher sanctions on Iran. But it appears that Moscow isn’t going to play ball.   The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared after a meeting with Hillary Clinton yesterday that, “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” So, all that Obama’s concession has done is anger the Czechs and the Poles who weren’t told about the move until the last minute. Iran

Does Obama Care About Human Rights in Iran?

As readers know, in general terms I think the Obama administration has taken a fairly sensible, moderate approach towards Iran. Nevertheless, it’s possible to take this too far. And this seems, on the face of it, to be one example of when carefulness crosses the line and becomes craven: For the past five years, researchers in a modest office overlooking the New Haven green have carefully documented cases of assassination and torture of democracy activists in Iran. With more than $3 million in grants from the US State Department, they have pored over thousands of documents and Persian-language press reports and interviewed scores of witnesses and survivors to build dossiers

Iran’s threshold power

The discovery that Iran’s regime has, yet again, deceived the international community and secretly built an additional nuclear facility has made world leaders re-focus on the issue. On Friday, the US, UK and France said the UN had to be given immediate access and urged tough new sanctions. Even Russia expressed concern. Today, the Iranian regime’s  response came. According to Ali Akbar Salehi, who heads the Atomic Energy Organisation, Iran will keep its uranium enrichment level at up to five percent – much lower than bomb-grade. “We don’t want to change the arrangement of five-percent enrichment merely to produce 150 to 300 kilos of 20-percent (enriched) fuel,” ILNA news agency

The Persian Problem

The news that Iran has a second, secret nuclear installation can hardly be considered a surprise. Nor, alas, is there anything surprising about Charles Krauthammer’s reaction to Barack Obama’s decision to make nuclear proliferation an issue at the UN General Assembly: What did he accomplish? Nothing. This is really quite surreal. As we speak, the Iranians are spinning thousands of centrifuges and developing uranium. The American delegate at IAEA announces that Iran already has enough uranium to construct a bomb. It’s testing its missiles, flouting all U.N. resolutions, as are the North Koreans. And the response of America? The president of the United States — on camera, of course —

James Forsyth

US efforts to engage Iran appear to be over

New York The reaction of the Obama administration to the discovery of a secret, underground Iranian nuclear plant strongly suggests, as the Washington Post points out, that the administration has given up on engagement. Attempts to engage with the Iranian regime were always likely to be futile. But Washington had to show the international community, and the American public, that it had tried. The criticism you can make of the administration is that its effort took too long, nine months when the Iranian nuclear clock might have as little as 18 months left on it.  Now, the focus turns to sanctions. Can the UN pass sanctions that block gasoline imports, a

Gordon Brown gets something right!

Gordon Brown is expected to offer to decommission one of Britain’s four Trident submarines as part of nuclear non-proliferation discussions at the UN today. The Times has the details: ‘Mr Brown will signal tomorrow that he is ready to negotiate at a meeting of the UN Security Council on nuclear non-proliferation. It follows President Obama’s decision to ditch the US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe. That move, and Russia’s delighted response, has bolstered hopes that a new non-proliferation treaty could be agreed next spring. Officials travelling with the Prime Minister to New York insisted that there was no question of surrendering Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. They claimed that current

Following a strike, would Iran close the Straits of Hormuz?

In most discussions about what would happen following a strike on Iran it is taken as a given that the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz, through which 90 percent of Persian Gulf oil exports pass. The thinking goes that this would lead to a huge spike in world oil prices. But an interesting article in the new issue of Foreign Policy argues that it would be far harder for Iran to close the Straits than is commonly assumed. It points out that oil tankers can travel through 20 miles of the Straits rather than just the 4 mile official channel, that oil tankers are actually not that vulnerable

The West must prepare contingency plans to bomb Iran

Chuck Wald, a retired US Air Force General who was the air commander for the US response to the 9/11 attacks, has an important op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about Iran. Wald argues that while no one wants to see the military options explored before all others have been exhausted, it would be a mistake to think that there are none. He argues that even the mere act of a military build up might persuade the Iranian regime that the cost of continuing with their nuclear programme would be being bombed and thus persuade them to give up. Alternatively, a naval blockade could deny Tehran the petrol imports

Iran’s Red Line? A Case for Caution, Not Action

As is customary, James and I disagree about Iran. Or perhaps we merely have different ideas about what constitutes the most important Persian questions. James, I think (and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong), places the nuclear issue above all others. I’m more agitated by the nature of the regime in Tehran. That is, I doubt that we can prevent Iran from acquiring a nulear capability at some point and that, while it would certainly be preferable if Iran didn’t have the bomb, we might have to get used to the idea that it will. It’s also quite possible, perhaps even probable, that a new regime in Tehran

Looking for Laku in Nicaragua

More evidence emerges to support the notion that Scoop is really a work of non-fiction. This time it’s in the form of this report in the Washington Post: For months, the reports percolated in Washington and other capitals. Iran was constructing a major beachhead in Nicaragua as part of a diplomatic push into Latin America, featuring huge investment deals, new embassies and even TV programming from the Islamic republic. “The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned in May. “And you can only imagine what that’s for.” But here in Nicaragua, no one can find any super-embassy. Nicaraguan reporters scoured the sprawling

Iran’s Dubček moment

Even though the Second Iranian Revolution may, for the time being, be quelled by the Mullahs, many different foreign policy factions in the West see the events of the last few weeks as good for their preferred Iran policy. Writing in the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland argued it has helped the anti-war contingent. Now that the world has seen how freedom-yearning Iran’s youth is, how can anyone condone a bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities that may kill some of the Twitter-using students? But a very senior US official, who spoke on background, told me that the State Department, at least, see the incipient revolution as good for its potential post-engagement

Iran Solidarity

David T over at Harry’s Place blog has drawn my attention to this post from “habibi”. I’m happy to endorse the message. “This Thursday is the tenth anniversary of the brutal repression of students in Iran. Today a new round of repression is underway in Iran.Here is something you can do about it. An anniversary demonstration at the Iranian embassy in London is scheduled for this Thursday, starting at 6 PM. Please wear green and come along to 16 Prince’s Gate, SW7. The nearest Tube station is South Kensington.The only point – and I hope this leads other British bloggers to echo this call – is to show solidarity with

The waning authority of the Iranian regime

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East hand, has an interesting analysis of the huge news from Iran, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum have declared the election invalid and the Ahamdinejad government illegitimate. What will happen next is crucial but unpredictable. Gerecht speculates that: “If Khamenei tries to crush Qom in the way that Khomeini crushed Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari in Tabriz in 1979/80, he’ll probably push Qom into open rebellion. If he tries using the Guards Corps as a vehicle of oppression against the clerical establishment, he would surely risk his office. The unthinkable–being dethroned by the Assembly of [clerical] Experts, the institution that constitutionally has