Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
From Russia with disdain
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Moscow earlier this week, seeking Russian support for tighter sanctions on Iran. And what did she get for his efforts? A few nice photo ops, plus an unambiguous "nyet" from Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov.
I have a couple of questions.
Did she go there believing that she really would get a meaningful commitment for tighter sanctions from the Russians? Or did she know beforehand that she wasn't going to get anywhere, but felt she had to go through the motions anyway?
Frankly, I don't know which answer would worry me more. If it's the former, she's getting very bad advice from her Russia experts, who clearly have no idea how Russia's leaders perceive their own interests. If the latter, she has no business wasting time and effort on a lost cause and giving Lavrov the opportunity to score points by stiffing her in public. The Secretary of State of a great power shouldn't be flying off to foreign capitals with the diplomatic equivalent of a tin cup, pleading with them to comply with our wishes. You're supposed to wait until your assistants have got the deal more-or-less in place, and then you show up to make the final push and iron out the last sticky details. Either way, this just wasn't very smart diplomacy.
And let's not overlook the obvious possibility that Lavrov was right: right now isn't an opportune time to threaten Iran with more sanctions. The initial round of talks were encouraging (though there's still a long way to go), and brandishing threats is probably the best way to derail them before any additional progress is made. There are undoubtedly people in the United States (and Iran) who would like to see that happen, but I didn't think Hillary was one of them.
DMITRY ASTAKHOV/AFP/Getty Images
- Eastern Europe | Middle East | Diplomacy | Hillary | Iran | Nukes | Russia
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
Reason and real reason?
Did she have a wider agenda?
Didn’t Russia and Iran have joint military maneuvers in the Caspian Sea last summer? Russia and China are quickly forming new military and joint economic agreements. China and Iran are doing their best to form new business joint ventures. Then, to top it off, they and others probably really are having secret meetings to figure out how far they can go to dump the dollar as the currency for oil trade.
President Obama stopped the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. So, I wonder if she isn’t trying to reassure Russia that we are sincere about that move and she was exploring additional ways to bridge a communication gap and even search for new ways to form a few joint agreements between Russia and ourselves. After all, who knows what the eventual consequences might be from an increasingly strong alliance between Russia, China, Iran as well as France and Arab countries.
Bob Spencer
indeed
What Stephen says seems so obvious to me but I have such a hard time understanding the national-security mindset. It seems to me to be so irrational, largely driven by domestic politics. A uni-polar legacy?
There are consequences to Georgia's actions
I think the word "disdain" is wrong. It's a perjorative interpretation not called for by the facts.
However, one has to understand that Russian clarity is a reflection of the fact that the US and Israel supported and armed Georgia for a mdnight, lethal and illegal attack against the Russian military.
Imagine, for a minute, the shoe on the other foot.
It was, in fact, a declaration of war that Russia has wisely put aside, but not forgotten.
For the record, the American resupply of the Georgia military has already begun.
Georgia's fault?
The Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was for the same reason as the Israeli invasion of the West Bank: to put an end to terrorist attacks on their population (cf. http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/code/535706-echo/). And if you think Putin had no role in getting the war started, you probably haven't heard about the trucks full of Russian passports, or the second front promptly opened in Abkhazia, or the large forces Putin had pre-positioned south of the Gori tunnel (not the peacekeepers -- and even they had a lot of artillery for peacekeepers). And why did the Russians keep going, destroying crops, burning houses, looting US-provided arsenals (why do you think we need to resupply Georgia now?), attacking the port of Poti, and bombing the pipeline?
Personally, I'm pretty sure that this was a war for oil, more than anything else -- to slow down the Nabucco pipeline. And if you're wondering why Europe is working on the Nabucco pipeline in the first place, it has a little to do with Putin's repeatedly cutting off natural gas to the Ukraine in the dead of winter -- the most recent time "accidentally" stopping supply to Germany and Poland as well.
"Trucks full of Russian passports..."?
Reminds me of the truckloads of Swedish citizenship papers Raoul Wallenberg handed to harried Jews in Hungary during WW2. That's how you protect an oppressed minority.
"...this was a war for oil..."? How wicked! We went and attacked Iraq twice in twelve years for vinegar, not oil.
And oh, just as it is the duty of the Middle East to sate our appetite for oil, it is Russia's responsibility to keep pumping natural gas to Germany, Poland and the Ukraine--especially if they adopt postures inimical to Russian interests.
You are profoundly
You are profoundly ill-informed and, apparently, not just about the Georgian war. You may want to look into the recent European Community's report on that war, for a start...
My comment refers to
My comment refers to ExOttoyuhr, not to Khalid Mufti's appropriate response.
Don't blame Russia and China
There is no question that curbing Iran's nuclear program is one of the most important parts of President Obama's foreign-policy. Likewise, there is no doubt that lobbying the U.N. Security Council for tougher sanctions is probably the best option for Washington thus far (a military-strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would have a significantly destabilizing effect on the entire region, for both U.S. interests in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip).
Yet, with that in mind, I am rather puzzled as to why American officials are so frustrated by Russia and China's behavior. Like Mr. Spencer has said, China and Russia are quickly establishing alliances among themselves and parts of the developing world to counter American influence in Asian affairs. China is expanding its presence in Latin America, Africa, and (of course) the Middle East while Russia seems intent on building up its own influence in its near-periphery (Iran included). Supporting tougher economic punishments on the Islamic Republic would severely contradict these efforts.
Not only would Moscow and Beijing lose a valuable trading-pipeline, but would also stop the much-needed revenue that is necessary for a healthy and sustaining national economy. We cannot underestimate Russia and China's relationship with Iran; the fourth-largest oil producer in the world.
China in particular would experience the difficulties and ramifications associated with Iranian sanctions. The country virtually sits on a dry-pit of land (natural-resource reference). Its economy is heavily dependent on foreign-sources of oil to keep its economy moving in the right direction. And of course, Beijing is desperately trying to expand Chinese power in every corner of the world. Taking this into account, what would happen if Hu Jintao decided to blindly follow the United States on the Security Council? The answer: all of the benefits that China has grown accustomed to would fall by the wayside.
It’s called the national-interest, and the concept has been around for over four centuries. Why the United States is so flabbergasted by Russia and China's reluctance is beyond comprehension. WHAT DID THEY EXPECT!!
http://depetris.wordpress.com
This is nonsense. You are
This is nonsense.
You are contradicting yourself.
You say:
'Likewise, there is no doubt that lobbying the U.N. Security Council for tougher sanctions is probably the best option for Washington thus far...'
And then you assert that there's pretty much no way China and Russia will go along with real sanctions.
So, what you're really saying is we should indulge in a pointless exercise at the UNSC to cover up the fact that we're really doing nothing, which contradicts your thesis:
'There is no question that curbing Iran's nuclear program is one of the most important parts of President Obama's foreign-policy.'
It's this kind of mind-numbing idiocy that one expects from Prof. Walt, so I guess it's no surprise to see it from his readers.
I'm telling you, taking this guy seriously will rot your brain cells...
So, what you're really saying
No, he's pointing out that
A)this is an important part of Obama's foreign policy, which does not necessarily mean he thinks it is good policy, and
B)the UNSC option is the "best option" Washington has, which is to say that it has no options at all, realistically speaking.
Thank you Brett for
Thank you Brett for simplifying my argument (only someone as intelligent as yourself can explain reality to a dogmatic ideologue).
President Obama possesses very few options with respect to Iran's nuclear program. Essentially, he has three alternatives: 1) continue pushing for sanctions at the U.N. Security Council 2) accept a nuclear-armed Iran, or 3) attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Taking all three options into account, engaging in diplomacy is by far the most pragmatic and rational course for the President to take.
Let's dissect the other two choices. Accepting a nuclear Iran- a policy that some academics have argued for- would be inherently catastrophic for U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. Fearing a Shia power with greater ambitions in the region, the Sunni community (led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the smaller Gulf States) would feel compelled to develop an indigenous program of their own. A Middle East arms-race would certainly gain traction- something that even "blue" would agree with. In fact, Egypt and the UAE have already acquired basic nuclear technology...a direct result of a rising Iranian hegemon to the east.
The last option- bombing Iran's nuclear facilities- hopefully speaks for itself. Even if the operation was successful, Iran's nuclear program would only be delayed for a couple years. Tehran would respond with equal ferocity, virtually surrounding Israel with the threat of Hezbollah attacks to the north and Hamas attacks to the west. U.S. troops would undoubtedly experience the after-effects of a bombing raid, either through Iranian-sponsored Shia militias in Iraq or insurgents in Afghanistan (something the United States certainly does not need).
In addition, Iran may very well withdraw from the NPT as a show of defiance and protest, giving them the opportunity to produce nuclear weapons without international inspections and surveillance.
Now, taking every alternative into consideration, what is the best option for President Obama...WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS AND THE CHINESE!! Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
My only point was that Washington should not expect full compliance by the Russians and the Chinese. Moscow and Beijing have their own national-interests to look after (natural resources, economic growth, global leadership, etc). Just because Putin and Jintao may oppose tougher economic penalties on Iran does not necessarily mean that the United States should continue to work with both countries through international channels.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
You're wrong.
Iran us a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) which is intended to prevent nuclear states from gaining nuclear weapons. As a provision of the treaty Iran has accepted UN safeguards which include full-time monitoring to insure that their treaty commitments have been satisfied. The IAEA has monitored the Iran nuclear program and has repeatedly and consistently reported that Iran is in NPT compliance -- that it is not diverting nuclear fuel to a nuclear weapons program. The CIA has reported similar findings.
So your bogus assumption that Iran will gain nuclear weapons is unfounded and misplaced, and makes you part of the problem.
Is this the same IAEA that
Is this the same IAEA that consistently leaves the nuclear-Iran possibility open? I think so, considering the fact that every report the organization releases repeatedly says that Iran fails to answer all questions related to its program. As far as your claim that Iran is in full compliance to the treaty, that is completely "bogus." What evidence do YOU have that supports this assumption? Ever since the Iranian dilemma has surfaced, I have not once heard the IAEA officially declare Tehran's full cooperation. Try reading the facts before you state falsities.
Sure, Iran is part of the NPT. And yes, Iran is susceptible to the same safeguards and surveillance that other signatories are required to follow. But, the fact remains that there is a huge difference between the rest of the nuclear community and the Islamic Republic; the latter is anything but transparent.
If you have such trust in the NPT, maybe you should explain why Iran has managed to develop two nuclear facilities under the nose of the international community? Surely, building up a covert nuclear program- at Natanz and now in the holy city of Qom- is not part of the "NPT compliance" that you speak of.
And if there are more alternatives for the United States, please state them. You start your argument by quoting me, but fail to provide any evidence that there is a "saving grace" to the whole situation.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Iran has been in full NPT compliance.
The NPT requires that signatories agree to safeguards on nuclear fuel which exclusively verify the non-diversion of fuel to weapons programs. The IAEA has repeatedly and consistently found that Iran is in full compliance with its NPT requirements it agree to under treaty.
There is also the CIA report:
And the NPT provision which gives Iran, like any NPT signatory, full right to have a pecaeful nuclear program. In fact it is encouraged.
From Russia with Disdain
What about the possibility that Sec. Clinton wanted to show Iran that the US is not sitting around just waiting. Maybe her visit to Mr. Lavrov was in fact a sign for Iran to see that if no progress is made, the US is still working on alternatives, such as sanctions?
More than meets the Eye
I'm with the view there must be more to this visit. The obvious press concern with Iran is what probably drew forth those remarks. Team Obama knows better, even tho Hillary is steering her own boat when she leaves town. Or maybe not even then; She's shaping up as quite the team-player and seems comfortable at it.
No. There are alot of other things of concern, although it will be done through staff work as was noted. What could have drawn her there, which makes sense, is hauling water for our 51rst state; to stress to them how serious Israel is about this business. Keep the big picture in mind, and remember Netanyahu's leaked visit. I wouldn't be surprised the main purpose was to underline his message to the Russians.
Frankly, I don't know which
Who are Clinton's lead advisors on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular in the state department? Considering her and Bill's penchant for long-term loyalty in terms of aides, it's possible she's carrying over an old coterie of Russia hands who have outdated views.
It strikes me as hard to miss that the Russians weren't going to go "quid pro quo" on Iran in exchange for dismantling the Polish-Czech Missile Shield, seeing as how they'd been denying any link between the two repeatedly for months. But considering how it kept propping up in the media, I suppose it's possible that people did believe that it was a serious possibility - or that the Russians could be brought around, in spite of strong commercial and technological ties they've been cultivating with Iran.
The only problem with that is that the US has been swinging around the threat of new sanctions for literally months now, so it's not as if this is some sudden bolt out of the blue that would have the Iranians going "Aha! So it's a lie after all!"
or
unless of course she wanted to be seen to be stiffed in public.
"we did everything we could. we went the extra mile. but these people. . . "
Disdain, well-earned
Russian AND Chinese motivations are obvious.
They correctly disdain a nation that makes its foreign policy on the basis of domestic politics.
They see no need to kowtow to the US and its little infant terrible Israel, harm their own commercial relations -- in a world where, thanks to our numbingly stupid support for the little Prussia-on-Jordan -- we're steadily losing respect and support around the globe.
Let's be clear -- agreeing to the foundation of Israel was the biggest foreign policy blunder by the US -- ever. For the grand prize thousands dead, billions poured down rat holes in Iraq and Afghanistan, attacks on our embassies and 911 -- we get defiance and arrogance.
This sixty year delusion will result in a gigantic defeat for US foreign policy. Much of the world has already begun making its won financial, commercial and security arrangements, talking among themselves while we continue blathering.
We are in the process of becoming what the militarists so feared -- a pitiful helpless giant. Israel isn't the only reason for that, but it's a major factor.
This couldn't have helped.
What was Clinton thinking? Or was she thinking? The civil rights of Russian citizens are now a top US foreign policy issue, calling for the US Secretary of State to be "very critical of the Russian authorities"?
Stupid, I say. One can't imagine the Russians coming to the US and doing something similar. They have more sense than that.
Perhaps someone should inform
Perhaps someone should inform Secretary Clinton of the "real situation" of independent journalism in the American theaters of endless war... or about Iran... or for that matter, heaven forbid, "independent journalism" in mainstream USA.
Some truth to this assessment
I think that the Obama administration is suffering somewhat from a Bush foreign policy strategy hangover that was two pronged in nature while attempting to inject their own new call for engagement and diplomacy.
If you look at what has been going on recently, the US is sending mixed signals like the Bush administration did. Just following the nuclear agreement that was made in the recent low level talks with Iran, the Obama administration requested funding for new bunker busters and subsequently sought sanctions from Russia.
I would speculate that a few things may be at play here.
1) The US is not taking the Iranians at their word when it comes to their agreement to release their lower enriched nuclear materials.
2) Russia is not taking the US at its word that it wants to settle this matter diplomatically and fear that further sanctions will lead to enhanced legitimacy for military use further down the road. While I do not believe that the US will use military action against Iran, we must keep in mind that Russia exists in a perpetual state of distrust when it comes to American intent.
3) Iran is merely buying time to further its nuclear programs through the same accept and stall tactics that Saddam Hussein used throughout the '90s.
Perhaps all are happening at the same time.
What are you talking about?
I suppose this is in reference to a relatively small amount of low-enriched uranium that Iran wants to send out-of-country for further enrichment (still below weapons grade) for medical purposes or something. If so, calling it an agreement is lofty language for something thay want, and need, to do.
It sounds like US propaganda, where as a result of Obama's toughness and US resolve the US forced the Iranians to capitulate on two important matters -- monitoring at Qum and this matter -- things the Iranians had already expressed a desire to have happen.
Or is it something else?
Not Only New FP Substance, New Style As Well
You say, Mr. Walt, "If the latter, she has no business wasting time and effort on a lost cause and giving Lavrov the opportunity to score points by stiffing her in public."
I disagree. This administration is all about changing the way international relations are handled. No more petulance, one-upmanship. It's okay to let the other guy look tough, score a few points. We'll get through it if HRC suffers a little snub from her Russian counterpart.
One observation made during the campaign was that Obama is an excellent counter-puncher.
Russian Reset
Remember Hillary's embarrassment when she handed her Russian counterpart a reset button with the wrong translation of "reset?"
Among the thousands of employees in the Department of State, wasn't there one person who could accurately translate into Russian?
A matter of competence, really. Also shows the importance we attach to diplomacy.
Really?
"There are undoubtedly people in the United States (and Iran) who would like to see that happen, but I didn't think Hillary was one of them."
I'm surprised that you are surprised. Did you really think Hillary was not "one of them"? Given what she has said, on numerous occasions, Hillary is/was the loudest among "them."
Cheerio.
Bananastan
So Mr. Walt
If you don't think this is the right time to impose sanctions on Iran, when do you think the right time is??? Iran has continually lied to the UN, doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, and basically poking a sharp stick in the eye of the US. I'm sorry, but if sanctions are not implemented, it gives the Iranians the go ahead to in essence continue to lie, obfuscate and laugh.
Sanctions exist & they don't work
There have been sanctions on Iran for some time, both commercial and financial. Western sanctions don't work. Iran is in Asia and has many friends and trading partners there, including Japan, China, India and Malaysia, plus independent commercial traders that will do business (as is the case with China now). Iran is also backed by the 100+ nation Non Aligned Movement, also Russia, Brazil and Venezuela. All of these nations are against further sanctions, which don't work anyhow.