A delicate dance: France responds to the NSA

Following their earlier reporting, Le Monde is now claiming that the NSA targeted French diplomats at the UN and at the French Embassy in Washington (the BBC has a de-emotionalized summary).

Are we supposed to be shocked?

Look, I get that the French Government is angry. As a result of Snowden's leaks, President Hollande is being forced to navigate a tripartite political minefield - expressing dissatisfaction to sate populist anger, but doing so in a way that averts damage to the US relationship and avoids undesired attention from flowing towards DGSE SIGINT programs. This last point is of critical importance. French Intelligence doesn't simply collect on security/foreign policy related targets, they attempt to siphon data from US Intelligence platforms and they aggressively target private companies - engaging in industrial espionage of the type that characterized the KGB. They also monitor French citizens with zealous alacrity. In short, their behavior is far from sanctified.

But let's be clear, the NSA related accusations are far from surprising. Informational awareness is a cornerstone of international diplomacy. It makes sense and it's nothing new. As Susan Rice (apparently) put it, ''[NSA activities at the UN] helped me know... the truth, and reveal other [countries'] positions on sanctions, allowing us to keep one step ahead in the negotiations.'' As I've noted before, the US has understandable reasons to spy on European allies - interests align at certain junctures and separate at others.

All of this speaks to a broader point. No alliance is perfect. The US-Israeli intelligence relationship provides one such example of this truth. Ultimately, deep trust is contingent upon a long term, proven relationship. Like that of the 'five eyes' community (and specifically the US-UK intelligence alliance). Even then, complications are still present.

In the end however, defining interests define a relationship. As was the case with Brazil, this minor scandal will die down. Its perpetuation serves neither France nor the United States.

Obama-Rouhani phone call

Regarding President Obama's phone call with President Rouhani, please also peruse my recent posts on Iran (as provided below). 

I'm concerned.

I'm worried that this call will reinforce Iranian perceptions of the US as weak - and that those perceptions will drive a negative Iranian negotiating strategy. 

Let's be clear; on paper, a phone call makes sense - it offers a reinforcement of trust and it broadcasts a mutual willingness to move beyond previous hostilities. As I said, good on paper. Unfortunately however, flowing alongside the ongoing US debacle over Syria, I fear that the message of this call will be heard differently in Tehran and Washington. That the theocrats will increasingly believe that the US lacks the willpower to prevent their nuclear ascendancy.

If the Iranians believe that the US is buffing over the threat of military force, they'll call that bluff.

2 Presidents and 3 diplomatic delusions regarding Iran (Blog)

4 Takeaways from the Filkins study of Qassem Suleimani (Blog)

Is the US-Russia deal on Syria the right move? (The Guardian)

Iran, the US and the UN - A skeptical take (Blog) 

Iran plans retaliation if US strikes Assad (Blog)

President Rouhani and the continuing risk of conflict (Blog)

The geo-strategic impact of Iran attaining a nuclear weapons capability (The Commentator)

How domestic politics influences Iranian, US and Israeli foreign policy (Blog)

How Iran will use brinkmanship to protect its nuclear program (The Guardian)

Israel could attack Iran without causing a major war in the region (The Guardian)

Iran and Diplomacy (Blog)

Strategic interplay in the Near/Middle East (The Daily Caller)

Netanyahu at the UN (Blog)

Netanyahu's strategy on Iran (The Daily Caller)

Iran plots against US and How US should have responded (Blog)

Syria/UN: Resolution Without Resolve

''.... but the text will not threaten the use of force for a failure to comply, officials said.''

''The final draft also does not ascribe specific blame for the Aug. 21 attack that asphyxiated hundreds of Syrians.''

This ludicrous Security Council resolution is a waste of paper- it's logically and ecologically unsound.

This is the international relations equivalent of a situation in which, after murdering an entire family, the killer is caught red handed. Then however, instead of punishing the culprit - in this case a gangbanger, the Judge simply makes him promise never to repeat his crime. 
           The Judge issues a concluding warning to the murderer- should he re-offend, the convict's co-conspirator will decide an appropriate punishment. In making his ruling, the Judge proudly claims that he has served justice, whilst simultaneously also deterring the gangster's compatriots.

As I said, this resolution is ludicrous; it belongs in the UN restroom.

This is our acquiescence in the face of slaughter. President Obama might have preserved the pretense of his credibility (and even then, only in Europe), but this deal will cost America dearly. Russia has consolidated an already obvious global victory. The rules of international order have been trashed. Peace will pay the price.

I see four direct consequences.

1) Assad will view our weakness as an explicit approval to ignore his responsibilities under the UN disarmament framework.

2) Russia will be unleashed to further dominate the conduct (retrogression?) of international affairs. Putin is laughing.

3) North Korea will be emboldened to up their nuclear ante.

4) Iran will be encouraged to re-double their support for Assad and renew their long cultivated game of false, time-buying nuclear negotiations.

On this last point, please see my post from yesterday concerning the three diplomatic delusions of the Obama Administration in their interactions with Iran.

My other related writings.

2 Presidents and 3 diplomatic delusions regarding Iran

Few agendas are as necessary or as noble as the advancement of global peace. After all, a just peace represents the merging of morality and unified political interest.

But peace isn’t easy.

For a start, it requires the honest appraisal of realities in the moment, not the appraisal of realities as we would wish them to be. The distinction is important – diplomatic delusion feeds political dysfunction. History is littered with bloody testimony to the dear costs of wishful thinking.

Regrettably, regarding Iran, I fear that US delusion is back in town.

1)      Delusions regarding the Iranian leadership

It’s no secret that President Rouhani lacks ultimate power over his country’s policies - that authority flows from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Nonetheless, western excitement over Rouhani’s supposed détente has encouraged the belief that a nuclear deal is near. The new implication – Rouhani wants peace, Obama wants peace and thus peace will become reality.

There’s a problem here.

Not only does Rouhani lack decisive power in Iran’s political system, his power is inherently limited by the governing essence of the Iranian theocracy. In Iran, the underpinning of political authority has a central source - the ‘Guardianship of the Jurist.’ Conveniently codified by the Ayatollah Khomeini, this doctrine enshrines absolute power in Iran’s Supreme Leader. Absolute is the operative word here. In comparative terms, this guardianship is Iran’s opposite to the European royalist ‘divine right of kings’ – one leader proffering the ordained will of God on Earth.

In other words, Khamenei is the key.

So follows the question- does the Supreme Leader want a deal?

Some say yes. David Ignatius (a top analyst plugged into the US Intelligence Community) suggests that Khamenei's willing to give serious peace a go.

 I'm not so sure.

Political rule 101 - always review the historical record in preference to the campaign speech. At a basic level, Khamenei is no friend of peace – his power resides upon the bodies of the Iranian people. The Supreme Leader cannot be trusted. Moreover, studying Khamenei's statements and those of the men who sit close to his throne, it’s abundantly clear that America isn't regarded as a prospective partner (an understanding on which a successful nuclear deal would depend). Consider the words of the Chairman of Iran’s powerful Guardian Council, Ayatollah Jannati:

‘’At the end of the day, we are an anti-American regime. America is our enemy, and we are the enemies of America. The hostility between us is not a personal matter. It is a matter of principle. We are in disagreement over the very principles that underlie our revolution and our Islam.’’

Men like Khamenei, Jannati and their ideological spawn (think Qassem Soleimani) are principled enemies of the United States. They don’t want our friendship. They want us gone from the region. It’s crucial that we grapple with this reality. At best, Rouhani is a well-intentioned Secretary of State style figure. But divorced from real power, his words are words alone.

2)      Delusions regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions

Iran’s leaders like to claim that their nuclear pursuit is peaceful – as Rouhani argued at the UN: it’s all about societal advancement (an assertion that would be more believable if the regime weren't so desperate to control information flows). Yet, this isn’t about society. It’s about power. And not the energy supply kind. Rather, Iran’s leaders believe that the day they come into possession of a nuclear weapon, will be the moment that they guarantee the survival of their regional revolutionary project (this judgment having been reinforced by perceptions of Assad's WMD enabled survival). As a corollary, when we pretend otherwise; that somehow Iran’s nuclear ambitions are on the bargaining table of standard diplomacy, we guarantee one of two outcomes. Either an Israeli strike against Iran, or eventually, a nuclear armed Iran.

Instead, if we’re to avoid a nuclear Iran, we must first take stock of the importance that the theocrats place in their nuclear endeavor. Normal diplomacy just isn’t going to cut it. We’re going to need to up the ante; offering Iran a peaceful low-enrichment program with one hand and tougher sanctions/the credible threat of military force with the other.

Put simply, Khamenei must come to realize that the price of nuclear weapons will be too heavy to bear.

3)      Delusions regarding US-Iranian ‘mutual interests'

In his speech to the UN, President Obama stated the following:

 ‘’I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight – the suspicion runs too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road toward a different relationship – one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.­­­’’

I’d love to know what ‘mutual interests’ the President is talking about.

Apart from what’s now effectively an indirect alliance in Syria, across the world, US and Iranian interests stand in starkest opposition. Just a few examples…

The US supports Lebanese democracy; Iran supports a Hizballah hegemony.

The US operates a robust network of alliances with the Sunni Arab kingdoms; Iran regards those governments with an overt and active hatred. (Admittedly the Arab monarchies aren't huge fans of Iran.)

The US opposes North Korean nuclear proliferation; Iran stands in alliance with the Stalinist kingdom.

The US seeks an Iraqi government independent of malevolent influence; Iran supports militias in furtherance of its agenda in both Iraq and Syria.

The US pursues a semi-stable democracy in Afghanistan; Iran supplies the Taliban.

The US confronts those who slaughter civilians; Iran embraces terrorism with zeal.

These are the facts. We ignore this reality at our peril.

                     Don’t get me wrong. These three delusions are not to say that diplomacy with Iran is pointless. In fact, because of the scale of these problems, effective diplomacy is of pivotal importance.

That's my point - our diplomacy must be level headed.

Preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon will require far more than wishful thinking and a sprinkling of pleasant words - that path is plainly redundant. If Iran is to change course, it won’t be because of Obama's outreach (new centrifuges indicate that they’re quite happy with their current road to Damascus), it will be because their nuclear road is blocked by American resolve.

The appropriate US strategy is a simple one – to empower our East River dialogue with New York bluntness – speaking to Khamenei in terms he will easily understand. America must offer the Ayatollah two choices- peace by verified disarmament, or tougher sanctions backed up by the certain threat of US military power.

To those who call me a warmonger for this post - that Rouhani deserves our easy trust and flexibility, I have a simple rebuttal. In his speech yesterday, President Rouhani claimed that Iran defends ''.... peace based on democracy and the ballot box everywhere.. and believe[s] that there are no violent solutions to world crises.''

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Links to my other related writings

Iran, the US and the UN - A skeptical take

It appears that President Obama is to meet with President Rouhani of Iran. The reason for the meeting is simple - the White House believes that Rouhani's election offers a renewed prospect for peace.

As Obama put it,

''I think this new president [Rouhani] is not going to suddenly make it easy. But, you know, my view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact, you can strike a deal."

I believe that the President is overly optimistic.

First, post-Syria, US credibility regarding the potential use of military force has been evaporated. Second, Iran's Supreme Leader, Khamenei, holds the cards when it comes to the nuclear game. Third, see below... a re-post of my piece from a month back on Iran's diplomatic strategy.

         ‘’We should deal with the issue through a realistic approach."

           Hassan Rouhani, August 6^th 2013

The Obama Administration should take those words literally. After years of diplomatic failure, only a realistic approach can improve US-Iranian relations.

Yes, Rouhani is likely to be an improvement on his inauspicious predecessor (a clownish narcissist now locked in a desperate struggle for relevance). Iran’s new President has promised to improve women’s rights and seek better relations with the west. If nothing else, his tone is more conciliatory. These developments are, even if only prospective, good.

Nevertheless, enamored by the potential for change, many western commentators have reacted with unrestrained elation. Rouhani’s election has made ‘’imaginable what for years has been unimaginable.’’ said Stephen Kinzer in The Guardian.  In response, ‘’The Obama Administration should signal a shift in style, substance and strategy’’ declared Ali Vaez in the Christian Science Monitor.  Some went even further. In a particularly odd commentary for Al Jazeera, the academics, Flynt and Hillary Leverett found that Iran now offers a ‘’concrete expression’’ of Muslim democratic emancipation.

I think not.

Rouhani might not be Ahmadinejad, but that certainly doesn’t make him an Iranian Jefferson. After all, his existing human rights record isn’t exactly stellar. During the student protests of July 1999, Rouhani embraced a gleeful brutality - "From today’’ he warned, ‘’our people shall witness how… we deal with these opportunists and riotous elements, if they simply dare to show their faces."  He wasn’t joking. The students were crushed. It’s also been alleged that Rouhani played a key role in the use of terrorism against Iranian dissidents living abroad. (UPDATE_ He also apparently believes that the Holocaust is a myth). 

More concerning in the present however; the new President is a proud supporter both of Iran’s nuclear program and of continued assistance to the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad.

These facts should lead us to a cautious conclusion – a pleasant tone means nothing without substance.

Nowhere is this more true than with regards to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

While some analysts believe that Iran's present condition of international isolation and inflation make a nuclear deal likely, I'm not so sure. To me, that argument resides upon an intrinsically western conception of state interests; secular, populist and relative to the moment. Yes, Iran’s leaders obviously care about economics. Unfortunately, they care far more about joining the nuclear club. As I've argued before, the theocrats view nuclear power as the existential guarantor for their ongoing revolutionary project. This understanding explains why we’ve seen repeated nuclear negotiations rise in hope and then collapse in failure. Put simply, for the Ayatollahs, compared to the prospective feast of a nuclear dominion, western concessions are nothing. We think we have cake, but we only have crumbs.

Playing to our delusion, Iran adopts the foreign policy brother to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme- a negotiating strategy that uses trickery to buy time for nuclear advancement. The scam? Offer flirtations of peace, blame western intransigence for a negotiating failure, then, a few months later, start all over again. By allowing emotion to dominate our logic, we buy it every time.

Rouhani’s arrival allows Iran to play the same game with a fresh face.

It needn’t be this way. For all their bluster, Iran’s leaders understand that a military conflict with the United States would be a disaster for their interests. If we grasped this – we could, alongside stronger sanctions, perhaps deter them into ending their nuclear program. Unfortunately, emboldened by western impotence in Syria and Obama’s stuttering threats, American warnings bear little weight. For deterrence to be real it must first be believed.

There’s another political component at stake here- Israeli patience with diplomacy is nearly exhausted.

Following Rouhani’s election, Netanyahu again pressured the Obama Administration for tougher sanctions. I suspect that Israel’s Prime Minister fears Iran will use Rouhani the reformist to evade future sanctions. Nearly a year after Netanyahu’s ‘red line’ speech, it’s obvious that time is running out. In addition, though it's pure speculation on my part, Netanyahu's restoration of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process could indicate his desire to get President Obama 'on side' prior to an Israeli military attack on Iran.

Regardless, it's a dangerous wager to assume that Netanyahu’s warnings are a bluff. Israel’s security strategy resides upon Israel's regional supremacy of power. Where some cannot look beyond the risks of military conflict, Israelis (and the Sunni Arab monarchies) see a nuclear Iran as an intolerable threat.

In this sense, if Rouhani's style is divorced from substance, his arrival will provide little aid to the cause of peace.

My other clips on Iran are below.

Syria repercussions (The Guardian)

Iran plans retaliation if US strikes Assad (Blog)

The geo-strategic impact of Iran attaining a nuclear weapons capability (The Commentator)

How domestic politics influences Iranian, US and Israeli foreign policy (Blog)

How Iran will use brinkmanship to protect its nuclear program (The Guardian)

Israel could attack Iran without causing a major war in the region (The Guardian)

Iran and Diplomacy (Blog)

Strategic interplay in the Near/Middle East (The Daily Caller)

Netanyahu at the UN (Blog)

Netanyahu's strategy on Iran (The Daily Caller)

Iran plots against US and How US should have responded (Blog)

The American Retreat

“I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.”

President Obama, September 10th 2013

George Washington once said that ''to be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.''

President Obama evidently believes otherwise.

Under this Commander in Chief, American foreign policy is adrift. The currents of others now control our course. The mafia regime of President Putin has become the arbiter of a corrupted international justice.

Children die while the world spins.

Watching his speech last night, it was clear that President Obama regards his strategy as the modern partner to Teddy Roosevelt's diplomatic mantra- ''Speak softly, and carry a big stick.''

Sadly however, if the stick is made of Jell-O, the metaphorical carrot is also rotten. 

Obama's diplomacy is negotiation without an anchor and the threat of force without a threat. It isn't real, it's just delusional. In fact, it's absurd.

Now, in a looming conference in Geneva, we await the 21st century successor to Munich. A hopeless endeavor in pursuit of an impossible cause. A pretense of peace in service of brutality.

I say pretense, because the cause of peace is only rational when it's real. Devoid of rationality; without the prospect of beneficial realization, peace is injustice cloaked in false morality. Towards Assad, it's a rhetorical abstraction purchased with suffocating children.

Yes, the President might have been passionate in arguing why our intervention is important - how, as he put it, ''Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria.'' But as much as this sounds credible in America, our domestic perception is ultimately irrelevant. In the end, what matters is what our adversaries think. And what our friends think. 

They think we're weak. No longer can America be trusted.

This is a strategic disaster of epic proportions - a collapse of resolve and influence not seen since Saigon. A superpower humbled, uncertain and fearful. Global adversaries emboldened and unconstrained. A peace process full of holes. This is the change Obama has wrought. Its bitter taste will linger for a long, long time.

Twelve years ago today, facing our own Ghouta, President Bush framed the horror with an enduring call to American purpose.

''None of us will ever forget this day,'' he said, ''yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.''

Today, twelve years on, the retreat has sounded.