Sunday, October 28, 2007

The Geek Is Getting Rankled!

Previous posts show that the Geek is no cheerleader for the mullahocracy in Tehran. They have also demonstrated that the Geek is no war lover even though he accepts that war has its place in the spectrum of foreign policy.

Most of all, the sum of the Geek's posts underscore his utter contempt for policy decisions that are rooted (if that word is relevant in this context) in the gonads and viscera. Policies decisions that ignore historical trajectories. Policy choices that emerge from a vile combination of hopes or fears and domestic political calculations.

This brings the Geek to Iran. More particularly it brings the Geek to the subject of the Republicans vs the Mullahs.

At the often ignored center of the current confrontation between the Commander Guy on the one side and the Orator-in-Chief on the other is the International Atomic Energy Agency and its present director, Mohammed ElBaradei. The IAEA is charged with the responsibility of assuring member nations abide by the provisions of the treaties governing the peaceful use of atomic energy and nuclear weapon non-proliferation.

Get a grip on this.

The IAEA exists because the United States called it into existence.

"What!" You say.

That's right. Fifty years ago this year, President Dwight Eisenhower, in what many both at the time and later considered his finest speech, called upon the United Nations to create an agency dedicated to bringing atomic energy's potentials for benefit to all the nations of the world. He pledged not only complete American cooperation but even the provision of nuclear knowledge, technology, and materials for use under the agency's supervision.

Ike needed to use massive political arm twisting here at home to force changes in the extremely restrictive American laws governing nuclear matters. He did it. The laws were changed. The IAEA came into existence.

When asked about the IAEA years later, Ike reportedly looked out the window of his Gettysburg home, mused for a moment and answered with his famous smile, "It's working better than I hoped."

Taken as a whole, the IAEA has worked remarkably well over its fifty year life so far. It seems to be working rather well even with the obvious Iranian intransigence right now. Arguably, it would work even better if the current administration let it do its job.

It is reported that Mohammed ElBaradei sees no evidence of the Iranians being anywhere near the possession of an atomic bomb. In a companion remark, the IAEA head shows an appropriate degree of skepticism, "We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks." (Quote from The International Herald Tribune on-line http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php.)

The skeptical view is well taken. Iran has been playing games from hell over their self-proclaimed peaceful project to produce electricity. Given their record of obfuscation, tergiversation, and flat out lying, anything less would be foolhardy. (Now comes the big, BUT.)

Skepticism is not what the current administration has been exhibiting in recent months and weeks. Instead, the current administration has been acting as if it had proof-positive that the Iranians were not only seeking to obtain nuclear weapons but were on the very verge of doing so.

Unless one wishes to posit that the chest-thumping, crotch-pulling stridency coming from the mouths of the Commander Guy, the Veep, and assorted presidential wannabes is simply a successful attempt to boost oil company profits by driving the spot-market price of crude to record highs, the only explanation for their behavior is cognitive deficiency.

Kind of a "don't bother me with wimpy little facts, I wanna kick some ass" attitude. This sort of orientation might make both the utterer of threats and many of the audience feel good, but it is not the sort of approach that has shown positive results historically.

Get a grip on this--

Outside pressure consolidates the cohesion and political will of the target government and its citizens, (Think about how you make a snowball.)

Yeah, bucko, that's right. Pick up a handful of loose snow. Press it. Press it long enough and hard enough, the flakes become a solid mass. Press on it long enough and hard enough and what happens?

That's right. The snowball becomes an ice ball.

Repeat after the Geek, "Pressure consolidates long before it fractures."

Did that? Good. Now you have a major, basic fact of foreign policy which has totally eluded the current administration.

Our ill-considered approach has had the following negative effects. It has liberated the mullahocracy from much of the domestic unrest which would have been making its life miserable given the current economic condition of Iran and the demographics of the Iranian population. It has given the mullahocracy reason to be even more intransigent than would otherwise have been the case. It has forced the mullahocracy to invest the totality of national prestige and regime legitimacy in the nuclear issue and closely related matters.

Now, get a grip on this.

Our approach to the Iranians has helped two countries hostile to the US: the Peoples' Republic of China and Russia. Apparently the current administration hasn't gotten the word. Anything that diverts the US into unproductive, expensive, and influence draining side tracks hurts the US and helps these two adversaries.

Make no mistake about it. Regardless of the hopes of some Americans such as the "gobalism-will-solve-all" crowd, Walmart, and other business interests, China shares few, if any, national interests with the United States. Again, regardless of the hopes (or fears) of some Americans, Russia has not shed its fundamentally authoritarian inclination nor its historic feeling of inferiority compared to the West. Russians have been asking that most troublesome of all questions, the question which produced European Fascism, the question which underlies Islamism.

The Question?

"We were once great; now we are so small. Why?"

The policies of the current administration have encouraged the Russians to ask the Question. The policies of the current administration regarding Iran are encouraging both Moscow and Beijing to take actions which are best described as a form of diplomatic proxy war.

The new sanctions announced by the current administration are a justified gambit, particularly if the Europeans (perhaps convinced by a re-awakened "Crazy American Hypothesis") prove willing to join them despite economic losses to European businesses.

If so, then the emotional diatribes and not-so-veiled threats coming from the current administration can be rationalised, if not fully justified. Yet, the time for red meat rhetoric has passed. The time has come for some silence from the White House (and the campaign trail.)

If the Republicans (or at least the neocon ninnie component of that party) cannot remember Dwight Eisenhower who both created the IAEA and warned against the creation of a garrison state in pursing the chimera of complete security, they sure ought to remember Theodore Roosevelt. That was the hairy chested president who counseled speaking softly while holding a big stick.

The Geek is no admirer of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He's got to give the senator his due. Levin is right when he said it was time to stop the "hot rhetoric."

ElBaradei was even more on target. "My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire."

Bang on!, Mr ElBaradei.

There's always time enough for war. We can wait--at least for awhile.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who would have thunk that the IAEA was a Republican idea! Guess you have to be a history geek to get into that. I thought from the way Dubya and company have been acting the agency was the spawn of liberal Democrats and similar bleeding heart progressives.

ElBaradei might be too optimistic though. His agency's rear end is exposed if the Iranians don't get a little more convincingly cooperative. What do you think?

If there is more stonewalling out of Tehran, is there a viable alternative to military action? If not the US, who? The Israelis? They have the most to lose if the Iranians ever get the bomb--and a way to deliver it. Right?

Anonymous said...

You may trust the UN. I'll put my money on a bunch of bunker busters. The Israelis have shown us how to do it and what needs to be done. Dick Cheney understands this even if you don't.

Anonymous said...

Nicely argued. Not sure I agree with it all though. Perhaps you were closer when you suggested a Russian connection. That could go along with the IAEA I suppose.