And We Keep Goin' Round And Round, Again And Again

Does anyone really, the Geek means really, rationally think that the Iranians are either: (a) not working on nuclear weapons, or (b) are willing to negotiate an end to the current impasse?

If anyone has so concluded after sober analysis of all the relevant factors, they are in desperate need of getting a grip on the unpleasant beast called reality.

The Iranian regime has been convinced that only the possession of a demonstrable nuclear capacity will both provide a high measure of security against a future existential threat equalling or surpassing that presented by Iraq during the war of the Eighties and give Tehran necessary diplomatic leverage in its desire to be a global player on behalf of militant Islam.

While the options of chemical and biological weapons have been pursued since at least the mid-Eighties, neither of these has the pure appeal of a nuclear capability. The mullahocracy would have been convinced of this by the example of Pakistan. Pakistan without nuclear weapons would have been a relatively negligible factor in global politics.

With nuclear weapons Pakistan has been taken seriously by the United States and other major powers. The proof of this contention is no further away than a glance at the military aid provided by the US to Pakistan under the rubric of mutual counter-terrorism interest. By any other name a bribe remains a bribe.

The Iranian rulership must have made the collective conclusion that if it had a demonstrated nuclear capacity including delivery systems as well as payloads, it could speak quite loudly in the councils of the Muslim states. Louder than Pakistan has because, unlike Pakistan, Iran possesses an ongoing religious revolutionary fervor.

Without nuclear weapons Iran might not be a negligible quantity given its capacity and will to support groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, but it would be covered with the metaphorical fleas from these canine bedmates. In short, by simply sponsoring groups with a known will and ability to use terror tactics, Iran would become a larger and more obnoxious form of Taliban dominated Afghanistan begging to be the object of regime change.

With nuclear systems Iran has a chance of effectively deterring any future Israeli action. The loud shouts from Tehran cover the sound of knees that quake and shake when contemplating the potential of an Israeli air strike either with or without US direct support.

At the very least a nuclear capacity makes Iran a regional power, safe from immediate Israeli (or any other country's) attack. Without the nuke at the hip, Iran could become one more has-been revolutionary power.

Beyond those considerations, take a dekko at the vast political capital the mullahocracy has staked on keeping their uranium enrichment program going. In a very real sense the enrichment activity along with its collaterals have become the bedrock of the government's claim to legitimacy as well as the primary source of national identity.

What government would be willing to toss aside both sets of considerations--future power and present existence-for a mess of diplomatic pottage?

The second guess doesn't count.

Now think about the essential nature of negotiations.

Negotiations work when both sides conclude that the probable results of such talks will be less-worse than the probable results of not talking. That necessary requirement is joined by some others including a willingness to compromise and the ability to bargain in good faith without reserving some demands as "non-negotiable."

To add some punch to these fundamentals, it is useful to recall that no substantial negotiations were possible between the European powers in the late summer of 1939 because one country's government--Germany--had no desire for them, no belief that the probable outcome of not negotiating--war--would be worse than the probable outcome of talking.

The only difference between Iran today and Germany sixty-nine years ago is that Iran sees a great virtue in talking. That's talking. Not negotiations. Tehran isn't at all interested in good faith bargaining leading to a compromise conclusion.

Tehran is interested in one thing and one thing only.

Tehran is interested, highly interested in buying time. Time is the most precious commodity imaginable in the collective minds of the mullahocracy.

Tehran believes, perhaps quite accurately, that time is on their side. The mullahs and their talking-heads in government don't even need much time. A few months, say nine or so, will be enough.

The Iranians have put their money on a bet which, from the perspective of recent history, seems a sure winner. The mullahocracy is wagering that We the American People are so totally sick of war after the long uphill slog in Iraq and the still ambiguous yomp in Afghanistan that there is zero political will for another armed adventure even one without a ground intervention.

The mullahs are also betting that the Democratic Party, the loudly anti-war party, will gain power in November not only winning the Presidency but overwhelming control of Congress. This victory would make Iran more secure in pursuit of its nuclear and other agendas.

The European Union is not a factor in the current Iranian thinking as the assorted countries of the EU have already shown themselves to be quite accommodating of Iranian needs regardless of words and sanctions. Germany, Italy and France have been important and on-going sources of assistance to the badly overstretched and sanction-weakened Iranian economy.

Tehran knows it has a pair of powerful albeit commitment limited supporters in Russia and the Peoples Republic of China. While the Russians can blow either for or against Iran depending on their own national interests, China needs oil. And, the PRC will take risks to assure a full flow of it since so much rides on the availability of plentiful, cheap energy in that country.

Given that the current US administration has gone above and beyond the bounds of rationality in treating Russia as a-less-than--great power, it will take the next administration serious effort to wean Moscow from its current less-than-fully-cooperative global stance.

It's not as if Tehran is hiding its strategy. Consider how the Iranian state-controlled press have praised the Russians for any (presumed) plan to base nuclear capable bombers in Latin America. Consider how mildly the same press criticised Senator Obama for his pledge of unqualified support for Israel. Consider how the Iranian noise machine responds to every presumed "threat" emanating from Washington.

Of course the Mighty Wurlitzer of Tehran plays primarily for the benefit of the Iranian people. It gives those folks, laboring under very high inflation, rolling blackouts, shortages and deferred paychecks a focus for their discontent. It gives a sizable percentage of the public, the young, the alienated, the zealous, an object to hate.

Tehran is playing the same tune and even the same lyrics as did Baghdad during the long years of sanctions following the Gulf War. With more success.

Talk, talk and more talk. The refrain for the outside world is tedious and mendacious. The Iranians blew off the last P5+1 offer. Even after the current administration unbent enough to send a high level representative to the talks last weekend.

The two page officially unofficial response to the P5+1 proposal filled with misspellings and very ambiguous wording calls for more talks with Javier Solana to be followed by a series of meetings at the ForMin level. As the Geek looks at the calender, the proposed conflabs would eat up the rest of this year.

Importantly, in quite unambiguous language, the Iranian side ruled out of consideration any subject upon which the parties disagreed as such might stall the conversations.

Let's see. We all can talk about whatever is so unimportant that we won't really, really disagree. That doesn't leave much room for negotiation, does it?

But as long as the talk goes on, the Iranians reckon, there is no possibility of attack. Their position is based upon the Western faith in talking solves problems and talking is better than shooting.

The Geek agrees. Talking is better than shooting. Talking between nations is better than bombing. But--and this is the big but--saving the present is not worth risking the future.

The Iranians are, in essence, of the view that the West, particularly the US, is so deeply, so desperately, so totally involved in the present that none give thought to the future.

Maybe that's true. The Geek remembers the dictum of the Foreign Minister of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the years just before the outbreak of World War I. Alois Aehrenthal said, "My policy is for the present. Let the future take care of itself."

Words to remember. More words to die by.