Iran Nuclear Deal - Implementation

The implementation of the Geneva interim nuclear deal will begin on January 20th. That's welcome news. After all, in recent weeks it seemed like the agreement might fall apart before it even began. On another positive note, Iran will shortly begin to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Still, I have a number of concerns.

• While inspectors will apparently be allowed daily, physical access to the Fordo site, there will only be monthly inspections at the Arak based heavy water reactor. That's far from ideal. If the Iranians are serious about addressing fears that they are pursuing a plutonium-route nuclear weapon, allowing more vigorous inspections at Arak would be the perfect place to start. Instead, the reluctance to afford access to Arak suggests that the Iranians may want to hide what's happening there. It raises questions and it fosters mistrust.

• The Iranians are crowing. While this is to be expected at some level (and helps Iranian moderates placate their hard-line colleagues), it's worrying that many Iranian officials are so gleeful in their claims that this deal doesn't bind them in any significant way. Again, it suggests an absence of seriousness in the pursuit of trust towards a lasting arrangement. Without hope of a lasting agreement, this deal will be rendered into irrelevance.

• It's problematic that the negotiators have taken so long to reach implementation. This reality suggests an agenda disconnect. Since 2003, Iran has attempted to evade the international community in its efforts to ensure a non-weaponized nuclear program. Delay has formed the primary strategic gambit on Iran's part. In short, what we're seeing looks like more deliberate time wasting.

While I supported this deal at the time of its creation, it's also abundantly clear to me that Geneva hasn't got off to a good start. The US will have to work exceptionally hard to ensure that Iran fulfills its obligations. At the same time, Congress will have to play a constructive but cautious role in supporting US diplomacy. Still, if this effort fails, the only options left available will be dramatically tightened sanctions alongside the prospect of military force. 

Time is running short.

Related thoughts

Iran and Congress - A moment of consequence

A few thoughts on the moves in Congress to pass a tough new sanctions bill.

1) It's already clear that the Iran deal is in jeopardy. The Iranians have yet to commit to a timetable for enaction of the Geneva protocols. At the same time, the Iranian government is complaining about US action to tighten existing sanctions. In short, the omens don't look good. For a Congress that was already deeply skeptical of the President's deal, evidence of Iranian non-compliance is a catalyst for existing trepidation. In this sense, it's obvious that the President is going to have a tough time convincing Democrats to back down.

2) It's also clear that Israeli concerns are heavily influencing this deal. In contrast to the President, the Israelis believe that only a full cessation of Iranian nuclear activities will suffice. Obama is open to a final agreement that allows for a low-enrichment capped continuation of the Iranian nuclear program. If this bill does in fact pass and carries a stipulation that the President must only accept a deal that ends Iran's nuclear program completely, the Israelis will have dragged the Administration into alignment with their own position.

           That being said, as Commander-in-Chief, Obama has significant flexibility in the conduct of US foreign policy.

3) In its present reported form, this bill would, if passed, also bring other US-Iranian points of discord into the nuclear negotiations process. For a start, the bill contains caveats that continued Iranian support for terrorism against the US, and/or a bad faith negotiating strategy, would both cause these new sanctions to kick in. While I understand and share these concerns (more so than many others), their introduction into this process will be profoundly unhelpful. It would create two negative follow on effects. First, Iranian hardliners would never agree to halt ongoing covert operations against the US (these occur all the time, but rarely make the news). Second, the caveats would be destabilizing to those on the Iranian side who are prospectively amenable to a deal. It's important to remember that Iran's negotiating strategy is infected by hesitation and a balancing of interests - Rouhani's 'moderates' vs IRGC hardliners. New pressure in different areas of policy would isolate the moderates. For one example, do we seriously expect that Iran will cease support for groups like the Lebanese Hizballah?* At a basic political level, these concerns seem to have been included in the bill in order to provide Congress with a subjective window of opportunity in which to enact sanctions at a point of their own choosing. After all, Congressional leaders are fully aware that Iran will never conform to the stipulations that this bill would lay down.

4) Although the present character of this bill is unhelpful, Congress can play a constructive role here. First, as is the case with Israel, Congressional anger over this deal may actually strengthen the President's hand in the negotiating process - encouraging the Iranians to swiftly comply with that which they've already said they would comply with. Second, if Congress were to pass a simpler, tighter bill - one that focused on a clear articulation of automatic sanctions if Iran fails to enact the Geneva deal within a short time window (for example...), they could reinforce the strength of their role as noted in point one. An effective bill would also offer automatic sanctions in the event of Iranian 'game playing' with the implementation of Geneva. By pursuing this course, Congress would produce a necessary understanding in the Iranian hardliners - that the US is neither weak nor open to perpetual delays.

* - Were the bill to specify that the caveats only applied to specific terrorist attacks against US citizens, that would of course be legitimate.

Related thoughts.

The Donkey, The Elephant and the Stan McChrystal school of responsibility

It's obvious that American political life needs a renewed culture of responsibility. The President has his 'matrix' and too many Republicans remain unwilling to speak up for the ethos of reason.

This speaks to something deeper. American politicians need to remember a long forgotten truth - responsibility and effective service are mutually dependent. American politicians need an example.

Stan McChrystal offers one.

Don't get me wrong, I know that McChrystal resigned amidst scandal. Ultimately however, that's the key point - McChrystal's imperfect life story speaks to the merits of responsibility. He proves the truth that so many reject - the truth that a life of honor need not be defined by a moment of disrepute. That redemption isn't just possible, but empowering.

McChrystal's life proves that taking political responsibility (whether via a resignation, or unqualified apology, or changing approach etc.) makes virtuous sense. As I see it, McChrystal's example offers three particular lessons.

1) The responsibility of accepting failure fosters 'institutional learning' - Absent a perceivable culture of responsibility, of 'institutional learning', leaders cannot inspire/expect high standards of initiative, conduct and commitment from their staff. This is critically important for an institution/company/political party/government's long term effectiveness. As McChrystal notes in regards to US Special Forces, accepting (rather than hiding from) failure enabled the stellar capabilities that define that military branch today. The lesson is clear - without a perceivable willingness to engage in serious introspection, trust hemorrhages from government.

2) Responsibility connects government to society - With public regard for government at an all time low, the need for a better union between politicians and society is great. The dichotomy is clear. While many Americans believe that their employment performance is inextricably tied to future advancement/employment opportunities, the political class is seen to play by a different set of rules. Or no rules at all (voting in ways that simply facilitate future careers on K Street). By taking responsibility as McChrystal did when he resigned, politicians would be seen as serious, accountable, respectable and redeemable (Mark Sanford won election to Congress because he was seen to have accepted and apologized for his indiscretions. At least in part, Weiner failed because he was seen as having attempted to evade his indiscretions).

3) Responsibility makes patriotic-political sense - In the face of his controversy, McChrystal resigned without qualification. In his words - as commander, “you’re responsible for everything bad that happens and everything good, and I accept that.'' In the end, McChrystal implicitly recognized that the 'service' is more important than 'the servant'. By putting the ideal before himself, McChrystal overcame his scandal. In its dissipating wake, he's cultivated a highly respected place in American society. But he's done more than that, he's also given strength to the notion of responsible public service.

American politicians could learn much from his example.

Conservatives must learn from the shutdown

Speaker Boehner: ‘’We just didn’t win’’

16 days overdue, thus ends an American take on Monty Python. Without the satire.

The White House has preserved ObamaCare, Democrats have won clean resolutions and the GOP has been humbled into a very public and very bloody retreat.

For Republicans, there are only two positives.

First, with this deal, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has probably saved the GOP from being vanquished in next year’s Mid-Terms. Second, McConnell has challenged the President to live up to his word and engage in serious negotiations (my take on 'serious') before next January. In short, McConnell has given CPR to a party drowning in emotion.

For leading the GOP off its Maginot Line, McConnell deserves the gratitude of all conservatives.

Unfortunately, he won’t get it. 

Instead, the very opposite is likely to occur. Conservative firebrands will rage against his ‘betrayal of conservative values’. McConnell’s primary challenger, Matt Bevin, can expect his campaign coffers to brim. After all, for a loud but vocal conservative minority, compromise is treason. A capital crime. 

This insipid absolutism can’t continue. It’s time for us, the majority of conservatives; the ‘quiet conservatives’, to bring reason back to Republican politics.

For a start, we need to recognize what we’re up against - that there are those in our movement who see ‘purity’ as their defining cause. That for these conservatives, politics isn’t about asserting an agenda, it’s about purging the ‘ideologically impure’. We need to recognize that these partisans see themselves as the modern incarnations of John Stark’s heroic toast, - ‘’Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.’’ That for these men and women, political death is preferable to compromise.

Next, we need to point out the fallacy of their argument.

Let’s cut the faux patriotism, ObamaCare is not the British Army and this isn’t the Revolutionary War. In their struggle, Stark and his comrades were fighting for an ideal that was both pure and possible – freedom and independence.

Neither was true with regards to the GOP strategy on ObamaCare. As I argued earlier this week, demanding that Obama sacrifice his landmark law was always implausible. Democrats control the Senate and the Executive. The Judiciary has rendered its decision- the law conforms with the Constitution. The polls were also clear- Americans might dislike ObamaCare, but they disliked the GOP’s brinkmanship even more. On top of it all, Obama had a post-Syria necessity to project clear leadership.

Unsurprisingly, the news coverage has reflected this understanding. Instead of focusing on the absurd incompetence of the ObamaCare rollout, the media set up camp on a different story – one centered in a Republican celebration of rudderless obstructionism. A political opposition marching in perfect step with Democratic propaganda. A modern tea party… without the tea.

For conservatives, this strategic delusion speaks to our burgeoning fetish - self-immolation at the shrine of partisan resistance.

Over the last two weeks, the House GOP has rendered itself the governing equivalent of a skydiving team without parachutes- for two minutes, soaring ecstasy as the jumpers sail through the clouds. Until terminal velocity meets certain gravity. Then truth renders its judgment – the illusion of omnipotence at an awful price. Self-destruction is the nemesis of political reason.

If we’re serious about preventing an American welfare state, we conservatives need to get serious.

We need to grasp the virtuous truth- that Political leadership demands both courage and rationality. That in a democracy, believing alone isn’t enough. In the end as with all arguments, political success requires presenting a case, persuading voters and pursuing change.

The alternative is what we’ve seen today. A gleeful Democratic party, a preaching President and a Republican brand that’s bobbing in the sewer.

Please watch video below for my thoughts on broader issues involved.

Syria - a pivotal week for America

From my perspective, this week is likely to be the most pivotal of Obama's Presidency. As I feared it would be, his decision to go to Congress has been an unmitigated disaster.

Over the next few days, we're likely to see Intense lobbying from the White House (probably joined by further leaks designed to bolster the case for intervention), passionate debates on Capitol Hill and new threats from America's enemies. 

Obama's rhetorical skills are about to receive their ultimate test. Whatever happens, the consequences will be profound. 

For a start, if Congress fails to support his force request, the President will suffer a catastrophic political defeat. His credibility in Congress will plummet and his global standing will sink into an abyss of doubt.

More awful... Assad's slaughter will almost certainly grow in ferocity (probably with his continued use of WMDs).

Most terrible... for friend and foe alike, President Kennedy's enduring pledge will be erased from our American identity.* In immediate terms, the Iranian theocrats will regard our collapse as a defining victory - and an inspiration for their nuclear blackmail. 

The other moral miscreants of the world will smell American blood in the water.

Nevertheless, there's still hope. Congress may yet decide to fill the void of our vacant Commander in Chief. 

If you click on the map below (produced by Foreign Policy magazine), you can hear my related radio discussion from a week ago. My other relevant clips are linked here.

* At least for a time. Ultimately, America always comes back.

Talking Syria/Executive power/Congress with Al Jazeera America

Video below - also, please see my related writings on the Middle East

Here's the link to my piece on Obama and Congress.

Don't Ask Don't Tell / Israel

NYTimes carries a great article today on Military recruiting in the aftermath of DADT's repeal. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/us/marine-recruiters-visit-gay-center-in-oklahoma.html

Interesting piece on tensions between WH and Congress over Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/world/middleeast/house-gop-finds-a-growing-bond-with-netanyahu.html

1) Hillary Clinton was right to visit Pakistan. Whatever the problems in the US relationship with Pakistan, the US needs Pakistani support for a stable Afghanistan. While the ISI will continue to try and protect their own interests (marginalizing the influence of the US/getting US aid/hostile policy towards India), there are others in the Pakistani govt/military that have a more balanced outlook. It is true that they might not win out over anti-US elements, but it is also true that without US support the chances of their political defeat are substantially higher.

2) Now that Mladic has been captured we will have another opportunity to view the dysfunction of the Hague 'justice' system. His incarceration will be characterized by comparative luxury, his trial by extreme length and his punishment if (convicted) by terrible insufficiency.

3) The Senate was right to re-authorize the Patriot Act sunset provisions. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent abuse (important oversight is critical though). The capabilities that these provisions provide are also critical to national security. European investigative tools are far more intrusive and without similar safeguards. For example, the UK domestic Security Service - MI5, only requires the signature of the Home Secretary to authorize wiretaps. Political authority not judicial.

4) Could not agree more with Andrew Exum on Libya. Especially the PS note....

5) Instead of using Obama's speech as a reach out to Arab and Israeli moderates, we have allowed Hizballah to spin our reaction in their favor. Nasarallah is now openly supporting Assad as part of the righteous bulwark against the Israeli-US conspiracy. The hypocrisy of Hizballah's Assad support is stunning (supporting a dictator while painting themselves as revolutionary emancipators)  but its acceptance by Arab moderates is only possible through our own stupidity in playing into their traditional talking points. We should be embarrassed. Congress should read some books on the Middle East rather than reading polling data.

6) FIFA is in a state of meltdown. Sepp Blatter is an ass hole but it appears he may also be corrupt. Sadly their appears to be no one respectable available to replace him.

7) The Red Sox are on fire. A nice change from the early season.

8) The Champions League Final tomorrow should be a great game. Man Utd must follow the motto of the SAS.