Friday, June 02, 2006

Iran: Is it All Carrot and No Stick?   [Andy McCarthy]

As Cliff pointed out yesterday, any value of the purported united front against Iran would depend on the sticks that the U.S. has gotten China, Russia and the Europeans to agree would be imposed if Iran is not bought off by the carrots — carrots which, as I noted yesterday, are evidently being offered with exclusive focus on Iran's nuclear program notwithstanding the incontestable fact that the mullahcracy is an incorrigible abettor of terrorism.  Under the Bush Doctrine, of course, it has repeatedly been claimed that we don't do carrots for terror facilitators. 

The reporting this morning and the State Department's vaporous comments make it very difficult to discern whether there really is any agreement about sanctions if, as expected, Iran thumbs its nose.  The parties only want to talk about incentives.

On one hand, the New York Times indicates that there has only been agreement on carrots.  The Times suggests that, at best, there is agreement to consider unspecified sanctions at some unspecified time down the road after Iran makes its position known:

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, insisted that any consideration of punitive action in the Security Council be frozen until Iran had a chance to respond to the current offer, said one senior European official who, like some others, spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

"The Security Council has stopped," this official said. "If we fail, we will come back to the Security Council, but the process is now stalled until we see the reaction of Iran. They asked for it to be frozen, and they got it."

The Washington Post, on the other hand, says State continues to insist that there is some kind of understanding about sanctions, and that maybe the Russians (and Chinese) are simply avoiding any mention of them.  But the Post, too, intimates that this is all a big diplo-speak charade — i.e., that there may have been consensus about what sanctions were conceivable, but there is none regarding what sanctions would actually be imposed if Iran won't yield. Of course, you don't need diplomats for that — we could do it here on NRO.  In any event, the Post reports (italics mine):  

Aides to Rice said the deal also commits China and Russia to a long list of specific steps to punish Iran if it refuses to halt its enrichment program. Both countries have resisted sanctions for months, arguing that they could backfire.

Addressing reporters here, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov emphasized the incentives in the package and did not mention possible negative measures. He said it was important that all six powers be united in making the offer, including the United States, which he said found it difficult to offer inducements to Iran.

The possible sanctions in the agreement are listed as a menu, ranging from minor to major, diplomats said. It was unclear whether there was agreement on which options to choose if Iran fails to act.

Diplomats have said that measures under discussion include an embargo on export of goods and technologies relevant to nuclear programs, the freezing of assets of organizations and people involved in the programs, and a suspension of technical cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Broader measures include a freeze on bilateral contacts, a visa and travel ban for senior Iranian officials, an arms embargo, an embargo on certain exports and an end to support for Iran's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

Meanwhile, again, nobody is talking about Iran and terror — despite the fact that we are actively at war with both al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, each of which Iran facilitates.  REMINDER:  Here is what President Bush said only a week ago at West Point, in reaffirming the Bush Doctrine:

In this new war, we have set a clear doctrine. After the attacks of September the 11th, I told a joint session of Congress: America makes no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. If you harbor a terrorist, you are just as guilty as the terrorists and you're an enemy of the United States of America.  In the months that followed, I also made clear the principles that will guide us in this new war: America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront threats before they fully materialize. We will stay on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

06/02 10:16 AMShare