Why We Are Going to Go to War, Part III

"Diplomacy takes a while when you are dealing with different nations like those that sat around the table with Condi Rice the other night."

That's George Bush, speaking about the Iranian nuclear issue in Florida on Wednesday. Europeans are easy to deal with, well, because they're sophisticated, civilized, and diplomatic (at least in the sense we like them to be). Or perhaps they're just easily intimidated by the United States. The Russians and Chinese, on the other hand (and Mr. Bush was no doubt referring to the Russians and the Chinese), seemingly like Iran (which was not at the table with Condi), are none of the above. So diplomacy takes a while with these kinds of people, and what's more, might not even work. That's why we have to have "all options on the table".

No Mr. President, diplomacy doesn't have to take a while, unless what you meant was that exhausting diplomacy takes a while. Your diplomats' efforts; Condoleezza Rice's and John Bolton's and Nicholas Burns', is merely to make a list of demands of the Iranians that have no basis in law, international or otherwise, and that by even the definition of Mohammad ElBaradei, IAEA chief, are unreasonable. The U.S. has unilaterally decided that Iran, despite what is unambiguously allowed it under the NPT, should not avail itself of its rights. And since Mr. Bush and his administration know full well that the Iranians will not give up their rights merely because the U.S. has demanded that they do so, we are not talking about diplomacy here, we're talking about exhausting diplomacy. Exhausting diplomacy (and our diplomats) as quickly as we can so that we can get on with the real work on Iran which is regime-change, or in other words, war.

"It looks like it did not answer the main question that the world is asking and that is, 'When will you get rid of your nuclear program?'"

President Bush's response to the letter to him from President Ahmadinejad of Iran. It reminds one of the questions Mr. Bush asked Iraq before the war. Saddam Hussein didn't know how to answer since he had already disarmed, had no nuclear program, and U.N. inspectors were on the ground in Iraq verifying that when Mr. Bush told them to leave lest an American bomb falls on their heads. Mr. Ahmadinejad has already answered Mr. Bush's "main question". A nuclear program is not in violation of the U.N. Charter, is not in violation of the NPT, and is an internationally agreed upon right of nations to pursue. If Mr. Bush was referring to a weapons program, then the Iranians are, like Saddam, being put in a position whereby they have to prove a negative (to the U.S.), or get whacked.

Nicholas Burns on Thursday categorically ruled out direct talks with Iran. This refusal to engage Iran is tantamount to sabotaging any potential diplomatic resolution to the so-called crisis, for the Iranians have made it clear, time and again and most recently with Ahmadinejad's direct communication to Mr. Bush (outrageous or even bizarre though it may seem (at least in translation)), that they are not interested in making a deal with messengers. It seems they would prefer to engage in diplomacy with the ultimate "decider".

So there may be delays of a few weeks here, a few weeks there, but the end result will be, unless real diplomacy takes place, a failure of what is being called diplomacy. The U.S. has also made it clear that the end game is a U.N. resolution under Chapter 7, providing for sanctions or even military action if Iran does not comply with its demands. There is still no indication that the Russians or the Chinese will ever go along with such a resolution, even with Iran's refusal of the next "carrots and sticks" offer, because it has been hard for them to be convinced that, as a Chapter 7 resolution would require, Iran is a threat to international peace and stability.

Coalition of the Willing, anyone?