Blogs and Stories
America Is Getting Hustled
White House photo by Pete Souza
Yes, diplomatic talks are good. But the Iranians have conceded virtually nothing of value, while Obama has conceded a fair bit. And, Reihan Salam argues, Russia is stringing the U.S. along.
After the revelation of Iran's previously secret uranium-enrichment near facility Qom, home to the country's clerical elite, Barack Obama, flanked by Gordon Brown and the hawkish Nicolas Sarkozy, eloquently condemned Iran for its contemptuous disregard for international law. The visuals were powerful: while the Bush administration had been condemned for its unilateralism, here was President Obama standing with the leaders of America's allies, all of them offering a single forceful message. It didn't hurt that Obama towered over the perpetually hunched-over British prime minister and the charmingly elfin French president. This display followed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's odd statement earlier that week that "sanctions are seldom productive but they are sometimes inevitable," a sign that Russia might be willing to exert pressure on Iran—long one of the most enthusiastic consumers of high-tech Russian military hardware.
While the Iranians will hand over low-enriched nuclear fuel they've said they have, they're not about to give up the nuclear they haven't said they have. Get it?
This week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has agreed to transfer most of his country's acknowledged low-enriched nuclear fuel out of the country for purposes of further enrichment, and Iranian negotiators have signaled a willingness to engage in further talks. All of this sounds like good news, and it is. Unfortunately, it is also extremely good news for Iran and Ahmadinejad, who has managed to buy still more time to build his weapons program.
There's little doubt that the Qom facility is just part of a vast network of secret nuclear facilities that the Iranians have been building for years to evade inspectors. It solves the "puzzle" of why the Iranians haven't been able to account for large amounts of uranium from one of their mines. Imagine a conversation with Iranian nuclear officials offer the missing uranium: "Oh, well, we use it as part of a traditional Persian headache remedy." While international inspectors sought full access to Iran's Potemkin nuclear program, the Iranians, having learned the lesson of Iraq's Osirak facility, destroyed by an Israeli air attack in 1981, have created a hardened weapons program that will be difficult if not impossible to destroy.
• The Daily Beast’s Michael Adler: Exclusive Iran Nuke Deal Details
• The Daily Beast’s Reza Aslan: Naïve Obama Gets Iran Results
• Gary Sick: Real Progress with Iran So while the Iranians will hand over low-enriched nuclear fuel they've said they have, they're not about to give up the nuclear they haven't said they have. Get it? As for the further talks, the United States wants to talk about ending Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians want to talk about… virtually everything else, ranging from "creating a world filled with spirituality, friendship, prosperity, wellness, and security" to "the management and fair use of space" to, yes, abolishing all the world's nuclear weapons. Suffice it to say, this is a fairly broad agenda. Indeed, it is so broad that one wonders if the Iranians are taking this process as seriously as we'd like to think.
The rumor is that Iran "revealed" the Qom facility after discovering the Western intelligence officials had learned of its existence, and that Sarkozy was planning on making a dramatic announcement at the United Nations General Assembly. But of course the Iranians didn't invite U.N. inspectors to drop by immediately after making the announcement. When Iranian nuclear officials say that they need time—weeks if not months—before inspectors can arrive, their motivation could be the fastidiousness of gracious hosts, e.g., they want to be sure the pillows are fluffed and that various Iranian delicacies are seasoned to perfection. Or they could be hard at work scrubbing the enrichment facility of any incriminating evidence that goes beyond the massively incriminating evidence that they built it in the first place. One gets the uncomfortable sense that the United States is getting hustled, just as we were hustled by North Korea.
Back when we started negotiating with the North Koreans over their nuclear program, we were convinced that continued discussions were vitally important, and that we could deal with temper tantrums and half-hearted non-concessions. Now, of course, the North Koreans have nuclear weapons, and they are arguably more dangerous than ever.
While the Iranians have conceded virtually nothing of value, President Obama has conceded a fair bit, particularly to the Russians. If the Russians were serious about aiding the United States in its efforts to contain Iran's nuclear efforts, they could pledge not to sell Iran the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. The S-300 is capable of destroying all but the most advanced American military aircraft, and it is one of the main reasons the Pentagon has invested billions in the Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22.
Earlier this month, the United States abandoned its Bush-era effort to deploy a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Bush White House insisted that the system was designed to deal with an Iranian missile threat, but Moscow was convinced that it represented a threat to their own deterrent. It seems clear that President Obama decided to abandon the missile-defense system to win favor with the Russians, which could later be used in a showdown with Iran. But would it have been too much to ask for a concrete concession on the S-300 in return? The danger here is that the Poles and the Czechs would see this as a new Yalta, in which they were being sold out for a grand strategic design. Instead, they were sold out—to put it harshly—in the vague hope that the Russians would be pleased.
To be sure, Medvedev's slippery statement about "inevitable" sanctions was very well-timed—and it may have even spooked the Iranians. Unfortunately, there's real doubt about whether Medvedev is running Russian foreign policy; many if not most observers believe that Vladimir Putin still dominates, and that he has no intention of disrupting Russia's amicable, and very profitable, relationship with the Islamic Republic. Some argue that Russia intends to keep Iran's nuclear program before the U.N. Security Council in an effort to constrain the options of the United States and its NATO allies.
Were the Russians to be totally frank about not cooperating with Western efforts, it's easy to imagine Obama and Sarkozy and Brown walking away from the Security Council. Instead, Medvedev and Putin are still stringing the United States along, all while Iran's not-so-secret secret weapons program keeps plugging away. President Obama is, like President Bush, doing his best to deal with an almost impossible situation, and it's hard not to sympathize. One hopes that the Iranians will come to their senses, and that the Russians aren't playing a double-game and that Obama's diplomatic approach will work. But my fear is that this won't end well.
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
The Trouble With John McCain
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
Now's the GOP's Time to Strike
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
The Taliban's Deadly Plan
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
redspruce
Wild analysis, that is, above. Everone knows it is Israel's nuclear arsenal that is the unspoken issue hanging over the Middle East, the ultimate blackmail scheme. Stop with the double talk, please.
Glenda1976
Last time I checked, the Israelis had not threaten to wipe Iran off the map.
realist54
Neither has Iran. You should stop believing the rhetorical propaganda, disseminated by the MSM. I refer you to salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/
al-nafs
No, wiping people off of the map isn't their style. They'd like to use the land afterwards. They'll just move into your neighborhood and push you off of your land, just like they are doing to the Palestinians.
The aggression is the same though.
meglon978
Check up on how many times Israel has invaded other countries in the past 20-30 years. Or, how many times it's threatened Iran specifically with military action over "facts" that are nothing but speculation. Or maybe, how many times other countries of the world would have sanctioned Israel in the past 50 years, if the US hadn't stepped in and said "Israel can do no wrong, not matter how many times they murder children in the street."
Get frakin real.
Daveparts
The President of Iran said that Isreal would dissapear from the pages of time.
Neo-cons like Mr. Salam made that into whipe Israel off the map. Read the Israeli press and then the Iranian press and then tell me who is spoiling for a fight. Name the last country Iran invaded?
jeffreygeez
Your kidding right? Israel is in charge of subtle threats, at least Iran has the lungs to say what it would do if attacked without reason. My guess is that if Iran has weapons of mass destruction they stole the weapons from Iraq. Because we know Iraq had them, where the heck did they go? Iran!!
Israeliagent
Hey I am telling you. Reihan Salam is not really Yehuda Bengurion and her is not a Israeli agent. REALLY Honestly!!!! As to why he is pretending to be I dont know!!!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
maddy12
I hope they get a big bang out of this behavior. A muslim holacaust? Are they crazy enough to throw the first punch. Are they crazy, are they crazy, are they crazy.....lets hope so!!!! Maybe nuts, like dah man Quadaffi Duck. He dah man. Oh yeah.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
seanmike
This comment is not a direct reply to your comment, sorry, not really..
I have gandered at the comments and replies, interesting. I see that you all speak loosely though about the situation we face. In the "Grand Design" of all of this, do you believe "money" will be the ultimate glorification for Al-Quaida and the Taliban?. Monies value is purely a figment of every living being on this earths imagination (no need to explain that one I hope!) Retribution however, is real and coincides with death. You may not harbor the feeling of vindication to the point of extreme violence, but chances are you have felt rage to someone who has (in your point of view) wronged you or continues to do so as you sit back and watch. You may validate these feelings in many ways. Taliban and Al-Quaida and others can equivocate their actions to the use of prophetic visions through their own Koran/Quaran our own New/Old Testament..Nagasaki and Hyroshima. Money, the collapse of our government, the absolution of our own double-talk and back-alley meetings and treaties to side against one another will never be sufficient for idea-ill-logical fanaticists. It went for the persecution of Christians, obviously still now and again for the Jews, and now I guess if your American. With everyone worried about Money once again and now the colour of our President/ Commander-In-Chief it is no wonder we will be distracted while our own demise awaits and plays out as instructed. As anyone, man or woman, who has been apart of a team can relate, you must give a higher percentage of "ummphff" in your participation in order to become triumphant. These men don't care about blackmail, subtle threats, turf wars, little Israel making idle threats, but they do care about little Israels big-brother The United States/CNN. So take heed loose lippers, should The Al-Quaida and Taliban make their shift to Pakistan a successful one. They will have the Finances, the room and political advantage to bring on the The Real Holy War. Can we all Say this together? H-u-m-a-n S-u-i-t-c-a-s-e _ _ _ _ . It's really sad to think that many of you believe this is just a political game and that these dogs are just barking, and they just want seats and the respect to be called a "World Power". I mean do you believe the Taliban and Al-Quaida are going to go down in history as a force who gave one helluva fight just to surrender like many others in history to U.S. Coalition forces and for their very name to be scoffed at in the books? These dogs bite children so please don't get to close...P-out Sean.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
slmpirate
well stated..
inexpugnable0199
The 800 lbs. gorilla that is never mentioned in this article is that Bibi Netanyahu, the PM of Israel has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he wants to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. This has the support of the Israeli people and large numbers of Americans, though, as this article states, Obama, Brown, and Sarkozy favor sanctions and inspections which this article argues are ineffective. Some questions that I would like Mr. Salam to address: Israel can act unilaterally, but can they finish the job? Wouldn't this be a blatant declaration of war that could easily accelerate into a broader regional war or even larger conflict? What are the repercussions for two American armies and the good sized NATO force now flanking Iran? Does any semi reasonable person think that Iran can be stopped from getting nuclear weapons without the military defeat and occupation of Iran? Why would that be worth it, even to Israel? Who gains and who loses from these options and why?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
SaintV
Black and White is for peasants - rarely if ever is anything truly "evil" or "good". Your idealized Iran has (in the last 6 months alone) killed its own people for challenging their power structure, stated that it hates the Western World, and has now covertly developed an extensive Nuclear network that it only feels compelled to disclose AFTER it's been found.
I certainly don't mean to defend Israel - I'm more concerned that you're defending Iran in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're intent on developing their capacity to destroy anyone and anything they wish. PERSONALLY, I'm opposed to any country that adheres without question to the dogma of ANY religion before that of common sense and reason. Especially the arming of any MORE irrational dictators and religious fanatics than the global community already has to deal with...
pasos-bill
Israel isn't funding training and equipping terrorists, raining rockets down on Iranian cities is it ? Is Israel supporting any proxy terrorist armies blowing themselves up in your neighborhoods. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. PERIOD! You think these mullah want nuclear power to play nice nice ? Fanatical savages run Iran , proven even against there own people~! I think I'd sleep better at night knowing they don't have the capability to make nuclear weapons.
piktor
Let's get all worked up about an Iranian military dwarf that fought Iraq for eight years and could not win.
Mr. Aslan offers nothing but hunches and no proof to document his dire predictions.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
shiraz54
Iran fought Iraq and United States for Eight years and nobody won.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
NickPowers
You can't just say,
"Oh, since Iran could not defeat Iraq after eight years, then we never have to worry about them." Which is what I think is the point you are making. Should we really honestly think that? A cobra fights a mongoose for eight years and is always beaten. But then that cobra gets one good bite on a human and kills him. But you are saying, oh, that cobra can not even defeat a mongoose, we never have to worry about him.
Why don't we just offer to build a nuclear power plant outside Iran, maybe in Iraq, and then run the electricity into Iran. Then Iran won't have a need to have a nuclear facility on its soil at all, if the true reason for them wanting one is solely just to have energy. What if there's a war and we cut off their power? Well it's better than getting invaded because the world thinks that you are trying to build a nuclear weapon.
taxman92571
You're kidding right? Iran has threaten to drive Israel into the sea. Iran sponces terrorist groups, supplies those terrorist with weapons that kill innconent women and children. Iran, along with other Arab neighbors have attacked Israel. Iran started every war with Israel and they lost every time.And it is acceptable to allow them to build nuclear weapons? I tihnk this is called insanity. Until Iran has leaders have a change of heart, stop making war againt Isreal, stop funding terrorist, allow Iraq and Afganistan to grow in its own freedom the world can not allow them to go nuclear. The world must do what is needed to end their program, whether it is sactions or the military.
khepri
America is getting hustled alright--hustled by the likes of you and other frustrated neocons. There is no effect without a cause; yet causes get short shrift in analysis.
khepri
America has been hustled for decades by neocon militarists. This writer supports the perpetual war mindset by identifying perpetual threats.
connie47
Yes, a group against which Eisenhower warned the country.
JohnnyCakes
AMEN!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
taxman92571
We are being warned, this time by President Obama. Do you consider Obama to be a necon? Or maybe Obama is correct in his analysis of the threat Iran poses to the free world. Why else would he come out and announce to the world this new threat and demand action?
djanimaequeen
You got it right.
watching
Salam is a hawk without wings and consistently without substance.......everyone has a HUNCH.
unsuiatlarge
That's what I thought as well while reading this essay. I thought to check out the New America Foundation: Fareed Zakaria, Christine Todd Whitman, Francis Fukuyama...another conservative think tank. Surprise!
I love how these guys all see the abandonment of Reagan's pie in the sky missile defense shield as a huge concession. It has never been shown to be an effective program, cost billions and billions, needlessly alienated the Russians (who saw it as a first strike capability on their very border) and it has been replaced by a far more viable system that targets the Iranian missile capability specifically. Good job Obama!
taxman92571
This is more than a huge concession, this was dumb. Our techonogly improves everyday, the sea based was the front line and the land based was the backup system. Now if we miss the first time there is no backup system. Reagan was a true visionary. He saw the future, the problems that the world WILL face. His "star wars" program, as some like to call it, was the way to make nuclear missles infective. We proved it can work on ships, so why would you think we can not make it work for land based systems? Bush offer to let Russia control part of the system even add it into their country but he would surrender the security of Europe and the world, Obama surrendered America's security and didn't even get his 30 pieces of silver.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--grumpyguyslmpirate
Youre correct..Hunch's-feelings-Beliefs.. That is all that the neocon hawks can draw upon..No concrete information that is actionable, and yet they would support the US taking military action.. How pathetic these clowns are, if they support it, it should be written into our constitution that these modern day snakeoil salesmen have to fight it as well
scott1607
Why is it when I see the tagline "Reihan Salam" I just know the article is going to be sub-optimal. The only one being hustled is the person paying for your submissions. Give it up already...
sophia5
Seems like the Russians would have an interest in
containing Iran's nuclear ambitions, considering
a launched nuke could possibly hit parts of Europe. No ?
theserex
They probably have more of an interest in giving the US and Obama headaches. If you recall earlier this summer, Obama's meetings in Russia met a lot of patronizing verbage, which Obama matched with a lot of material concessions from the US. I believe his diplomatic impotence in Russia is why he gave up the defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. He can't very well be the least effective US president in relations with Russia since the iron curtain, can he?
VoltoSanto
I don't get your analysis. Material concession? The clearest objective for abandoning the defense system was to avoid an escalation of military build up. There's a clear difference in the role of diplomacy between Bush and Obama. You seem to prefer Bush's approach of provocation. An approach that has yielded disasterous results. And frankly, I don't see any connection between provoking and having good relations with Russia. The last U.S. President to have decent relations with Russia was Reagan. But the threat of a nuclear holocaust can cause people of disparate ideologies to come together. Ideally, we should avoid reaching the brink of war before realizing the foolishness of our approach.
Salam's article is filled with too much speculation to be of any real value. I wonder how he knows how developed Iran's weapons program is when it's hidden? Further, Iran should be able to use nuclear power as an alternative energy source.
bhavanibbana
Here's a phrase I was uncertain I would ever type:
Good point, sophia5.
awgkolapis55
Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons to counter the 200 Israeli secret nuclear warheads
jdl054
how can they be secret if you know about them? Cat's out the bag now!!
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--morecowbelltblunt
If Iran blocks the flow of tankers through the straits of Homuz after being attacked, which is incredibly easy to do, the stock market will crash right after oil spikes to $200.00, $300.00 or more, a barrel...Gas here @$6.00 to $8.00 a gallon will tank the economy...The Saudis could pump more but it makes no difference if the tankers cant safely cruise the gulf...The GOP lied about Iraq and now they are lying about Iran...They truly are a "Lie factory"...Mr Salam is a perfect example.
rjad1972
we get most of our oil from Canada and South America, I will never understand why our prices change so much because of Middle Eastern problems
apberusdisvet
Speculators/commodity traders are the reason for price spikes
shiraz54
Americans are addicted to oil they do any thing and spend any amount of money to get it!
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--billnbaghdadrealist54
Salam knows he will never advance his career if he does not spew the same propaganda as he MSM.
Being a Bangladeshi, it would be impossible to believe, he might be impartial to Muslims or Iranians?
Unless one has a "willing suspension of disbelief".
BasPos
Why can't gDOp bloggers behave like anything but trolls? Little, piggy trolls.
ThinkAgain
Your deep analysis and contribution here does make one ponder how great true discourse can be.
BasPos
TA, sorry about the brevity of the comment. The "troll" connection is, however, accurate. As Obama tries to clean up the mess left by Bush and company, the republicans are reduced to muck-throwers from the sidelines.
theserex
By muck-throwers, you mean like the left had during the Bush administration? I don't care how incompetent you thought he was, it's the same thing. And may I remind you that problems with Iran have been copious since President Carter's deposing of the Shah...I thought you lefties were supposed to have more vision than just the past 8 years.
spinozareader
President Carter didn't depose the Shah.
bcaldwell
True Spinzo, Carter did not depose the Shah, he did much worse, he abandoned him just like he abandoned Samoza in Nicaragua . seems to be the M.O. for Democrats, make a deal and when it is no longer convenient a
bandon your friend you made the deal with- like South VietNam and one could say that FDR cut the balls off of the Eastern Europeans at Yalta as well. Democrats ...... be careful if one is your friend
But yes, spinzoreader you are correct we did not depose the Shah.
nikkya
i am sure some of that can be expected with all these so called lawmakers up on the hill literally commiting treason and getting away with it i wonder if they realize how much they are hurting this country people let bush and the repubs nearly ruin this country and now they are going to try and finish the job
Israeliagent
Well those lawmakers dont take money from us They money we give the mostly comes from the US foreign aid to Israel paid by Us tax payer so you can technically say the Us lawmakers are paid bu the US tax payers via Isrel lobby group and we take a percentage for our trouble. What is wrong with that?
ThinkAgain
What else is new? But it doesn't hurt to try different things while we're kicking the can down the road. The political winds in Iran are changing and the global players are at least pretending to have a different attitude.
mcmchugh99
Given our present weakened condition, with the economy on the verge of collapse and being propped up with government money, we are in no condition to play the role of Great Superpower of 1945. If there is a real confrontation with Iran, the oil shock alone would sink us forever.
This must be one reason that Obama is seeking detente with Russia, Iran, North Korea and anyone else who wants it--a realistic assessment of how weak we really are, and that is not likely to change any time soon.
Without all that borrowed money from China, would would hardly have an economy now, much less a military. That's the situation. That's how bad our condition really is. Nor do I think it was all the doing of Bush-Cheney since we've been in decline since the 1970s: they were just the nail in the coffin that finally finished us off.
We could not afford a war with Iran even if we had the will to do so. For that matter, Obama would probably like to deescalate in Afghanistan as he already is in Iraq.
Well, that's my case for detente, and just going along and getting along. We literally can't afford to do anything else.
Israeliagent
You guys should fight Iran. Israeli lives are too precious and too few. we can pay your politicians and your TV evangelists to get you to fight our enemies. You only lost a few thousand here and there but you have a lot of people. So what is wrong with that?
LutfiUSMC
I still have faith in my President, and I believe that he can turn around Iran, but the biggest obsticule for the change in attitude toward the Middle East lies in the US through the neo-cone, and pro- Israel Friends in this country. we don't need any nuclear arsenal in the ME that include Israel .
Israeliagent
Shalom
Your president is only president because we let him. If he does not do what Israel wants we will elect someone else. We have paid for your politicians and if you don't believe me listed to Rices speech in front of APAC
flyoverland
Charles Krauthammer said it best today: "When France chides you for appeasement, you know you are scraping bottom."
BasPos
Krauthammer is grasping at straws. He represents one of the most thoroughly discredited political caves - neo-conservatism.
flyoverland
I am sure Dr Krauthammer, a psychiatrist, would be happy to help you work out your issues.
unsuiatlarge
When has Krauthammer ever been right about anything pertaining to the Middle East? Please, when you are resorting to quotes from Krauthammer, you are truly scraping the the bottom of the barrel.
clearthinker
the ever clever cliche's from Bas and unsui....."grasping at straws" and "scraping the bottom". I thought you lefties were the intellegent ones? just kidding BasPos, unball your fists.
Although I understand having diplomacy and trying to talk some sense into Iran. I think it is good to understand strategy. Put yourself in the shoes of Iran or any other "enemy". Would you rather deal with a nice guy like Obama or a guy who may be a little "off" like Bush? Let's put it like this, if I were Iran I might get a little nervous of a neo-con because I wouldn't know exactly what he would do. With Obama, it's simple, the guy is going to talk...he is going to "lend a hand if we close our fist". He is going to apologize for his nation in an effort to show humility.
Basically, if someone kisses your ass, you lose respect for them. I understand it doesn't make for many friends in the world, but the world had a certain amount of fear for Bush because he let it be known that he would attack and didn't need much reason for it.
oakely
clearthinker, we knew about the Iranian nukes seven years ago. What did Bush and Cheney do? Seven years of empty threats, that's what.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.