The Washington Post Editorial
DEFENSE SECRETARY Robert M. Gates was the focus of one of those curious Washington kerfuffles over the weekend in which a senior official makes headlines by saying what everyone knows to be true. According to the New York Times, Mr. Gates dispatched a secret memo to the White House in January pointing out that the Obama administration does not have a well-prepared strategy in place for the likely eventuality that Iran will continue to pursue a nuclear weapon and will not be diverted by negotiations or sanctions. Mr. Gates quickly denied that his memo was intended as a "wake-up call," as one unnamed official quoted by the Times called it. And that's probably true: It is evident to any observer that the administration lacks a clear backup plan.
President Obama's official position is that "all options are on the table," including the use of force. But senior officials regularly talk down the military option in public -- thereby undermining its utility even as an instrument of intimidation. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered more reassurance to Iran on Sunday, saying in a forum at Columbia University that "I worry . . . about striking Iran. I've been very public about that because of the unintended consequences."
Adm. Mullen appeared to equate those consequences with those of Iran obtaining a weapon. "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome," he was quoted as saying. Yet Israel and other countries in the region would hardly regard those "outcomes" as similar.
We are not advocating strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. But the public signs of the administration's squishiness about military options are worrisome because of the lack of progress on its two-track strategy of offering negotiations and threatening sanctions. A year-long attempt at engagement failed; now the push for sanctions is proceeding at a snail's pace. Though administration officials say they have made progress in overcoming resistance from Russia and China, it appears a new U.N. sanctions resolution might require months more of dickering. Even then it might only be a shell intended to pave the way for ad hoc actions by the United States and European Union, which would require further diplomacy.
And what would sanctions accomplish? Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Financial Times last week that "maybe . . . that would lead to the kind of good-faith negotiations that President Obama called for 15 months ago." Yet the notion that the hard-line Iranian clique now in power would ever negotiate in good faith is far-fetched. More likely -- and desirable -- would be a victory by the opposition Green movement in Iran's ongoing domestic power struggle. But the administration has so far shrunk from supporting sanctions, such as a gasoline embargo. that might heighten popular anger against the regime.
All this probably explains why Mr. Gates, in his own words, "presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process."
"There should be no confusion by our allies and adversaries," he added, "that the United States is . . . prepared to act across a broad range of contingencies in support of our interests." If allies and adversaries are presently confused, that would be understandable.
20.4.10
4.4.10
Baghdad suicide blasts target embassies; 32 dead
Suicide attackers detonated car bombs near three embassies in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 32 people and wounding more than 100, authorities said.
The attacks outside the German, Egyptian and Iranian embassies deepened fears that insurgents will seize on the political turmoil after last month's parliamentary elections to sow further instability.
The blasts went off within minutes of each other, said Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, a spokesman for the city's operations command center.
It was not immediately clear whether anyone from the embassies was among the dead or wounded.
"These explosions targeted diplomatic missions," al-Moussawi told The Associated Press. "It's a terrorist act. We expect the death toll to rise." He said all three explosions were set off by suicide attackers in explosives-laden cars.
Multiple, coordinated bombings in the capital have become a hallmark of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Police officials said at least 18 people were killed outside the Iranian Embassy, where AP Television News footage showed civilians loading casualties into police vehicles and ambulances. Stunned victims, many in blood-spattered clothes, were fleeing the scene as smoke rose in the background.
One man was cradling a small girl wearing a white dress in his arms.
"They cannot frighten us," another man defiantly yelled as he was being helped along by police, his robe soaked in blood.
The police officials said many of the victims were employees at a nearby state-run bank. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release details to the media.
At least 14 were killed in the other explosions, police officials said. Al-Moussawi said at least 140 people were wounded in all three attacks. Other police officials put the total number of injuries at 185.
The explosion near the Iranian Embassy demolished cars and overturned a minibus outside the embassy wall.
"The explosion happened at the embassy gate, targeting visitors and Iraqi police," said Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hasan Kazemi Qomi. "There was some damage to the embassy building but no employees were harmed inside."
Calls to the other embassies rang unanswered.
The force of the blasts shook buildings and rattled windows in the center of the capital.
Al-Moussawi said police arrested a man who was suspected of planning to detonate a car bomb near the former German Embassy, which is now a bank. The man was arrested inside a car loaded with explosives, al-Moussawi said.
Sunday's explosions came two days after an execution-style attack killed at least 24 Sunnis in a village south of Baghdad. The slayings reignited fears of the sectarian fighting in 2006 and 2007.
There have been increasing concerns that insurgents will take advantage of the postelection period to further destabilize the country. The March 7 parliamentary elections failed to give any candidate a decisive win.
Many fear a drawn-out political debate could spill over into violence and complicate American efforts to speed up troop withdrawals in the coming months.
Sunday's explosions, which occurred shortly before 11:30 a.m., came after a number of far smaller blasts overnight and early Sunday. One of those earlier blasts, believed to be caused by a bomb underneath a parked car killed one civilian and injured nine others, according to police.
Associated Press Writers Saad Abdul-Kadir, Hamid Ahmed, Sinan Salaheddin and Elizabeth A. Kennedy contributed to this report.
Gül lets the cat out of the bag on Iran
SEMİH İDİZ
Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review.
President Abdullah Gül may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag on Iran’s nuclear program. He was quoted recently by Forbes commentator Claudia Rosett uttering remarks that have not been heard before from any Islamic leader.
The fact that the Presidency issued a statement later denying that President Gül had given an interview to anyone from Forbes magazine showed just how riled the president was upon reading Rosett’s piece. It was nevertheless interesting that the Presidency’s statement did not deny the remarks attributed to Gül, but merely said that he had not given an interview to Forbes.
One can assume, as most people are doing, that Gül actually uttered the remarks attributed to him, but failed to tell the group of visiting Americans that included Rosett that he was speaking off the record. From Rosett’s point of view, and indeed the point of view of any journalist, if it is not said that something is off the record, it is on the record.
Therefore, there is no point in criticizing her, unless what she wrote is being denied, and this does not appear to be the case. Carrying the title “Turkey tilts toward Iran,” Rosett’s article reflects clear annoyance at the change in direction in Ankara’s foreign policy, especially on issues of great importance to Washington.
No doubt it was because of this that she characterized the recent talk her group had with Gül at the Presidential Palace in Ankara as “disturbing.” The basic argument in Rosett’s article is that Ankara is not toeing the U.S. line on Iran. It is instead pursuing a “zero problems with neighbors” policy, but has no concrete formula for convincing Tehran by diplomatic means to give up on its nuclear-weapons program.
For us, neither Rosett’s displeasure here nor Gül’s pushing for the diplomatic track, as opposed to sanctions or a military strike against Iran, is surprising. The former is highly predictable and the later contains nothing new. It has become Ankara’s standard position.
What does matter, however, are other remarks attributed to President Gül by Rosett.
According to her, Gül said he has no doubts that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. “This is an Iranian aspiration dating back to the previous regime, [to] the days of the Shah,” Gül is reported as saying. As for the current regime in Iran, the Turkish president apparently believes its final aspiration is also “to have a nuclear weapon in the end.”
This claim, which many Turkish diplomats and military planners also believe to be true, is, of course, in stark contrast with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s approach to the whole issue. Acting as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s advocate, Erdoğan has said in the past that suspicions that Tehran is after a nuclear weapon are just “gossip.”
Erdoğan has also established a link between Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s nuclear arsenal, suggesting in so many words that instead of putting pressure on Tehran, the West should first force Israel to get rid of its own arsenal. Many in the Islamic world have read Erdoğan’s approach as a suggestion that as long as Israel has these weapons, then Iran can have them too.
But the real “nuclear remark” said to have been uttered by Gül was not the claim that Iran is after nuclear weapons. He apparently also said that if Iran gets the bomb, it will not use it. At first appearance, this may appear a naïve remark, but what the president was quoted as saying after this puts the whole issue in a stone-cold realistic perspective.
The following is straight from Rosett’s piece:
“Gül says Israel need not worry. However irrational Iran’s leaders might become, he is sure they will remain rational enough to refrain from devastating Israel – lest, by doing so, they should harm the Palestinians or the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (which he says would then create problems for Iran ‘with all the Muslims of the Gulf and the surrounding regions’).”
These words no doubt had a devastating effect on Iranian officials who are closely following Turkey’s position on their country’s nuclear program. Gül’s remarks must have confirmed to them that not everyone in Ankara is as pro-Iranian as Prime Minister Erdoğan on the issue of nuclear weapons.
But much more devastatingly, Gül’s remarks show that Iran is not in a position to use nuclear weapons against Israel unless it wants to run the risk of destroying and contaminating lands and edifices considered sacred by Muslims. Put another way, unless Tehran gains a highly selective “first strike” capability, as well as finely tuned air-interception abilities for counter defense, its nuclear-weapons program is useless against Israel.
That leaves Tehran with the need to establish new targets for its nuclear weapons. No doubt those will be in the West, but how Iranian capabilities will be able to acquire first-strike and counter-defense abilities in that case is again a wide-open question.
In this sense, it is clear that President Gül, in remarks attributed to him but not denied by him, has indeed let the cat out of the bag, putting forward a proposition that all Muslims will have to think about seriously.
But Israel is also put in a spot by virtue of the same token as a result of President Gül’s remarks. If there is little chance that any Islamic country in the region can use nuclear weapons against Israel, for the reasons cited by Gül, then what is the point in Israel’s having a nuclear arsenal, which merely fuels a pointless arms race in the region?
We should therefore be happy that President Gül has let this cat out of the bag, even if he may not be too happy about it himself. The remarks attributed by Rosett to Gül show there is a need for more rational thinking on this score, and less politicking according to one’s own national interests.
Nuclear weapons are no joke and should not be used in this way, unless one is prepared to court disaster.
Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review.
President Abdullah Gül may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag on Iran’s nuclear program. He was quoted recently by Forbes commentator Claudia Rosett uttering remarks that have not been heard before from any Islamic leader.
The fact that the Presidency issued a statement later denying that President Gül had given an interview to anyone from Forbes magazine showed just how riled the president was upon reading Rosett’s piece. It was nevertheless interesting that the Presidency’s statement did not deny the remarks attributed to Gül, but merely said that he had not given an interview to Forbes.
One can assume, as most people are doing, that Gül actually uttered the remarks attributed to him, but failed to tell the group of visiting Americans that included Rosett that he was speaking off the record. From Rosett’s point of view, and indeed the point of view of any journalist, if it is not said that something is off the record, it is on the record.
Therefore, there is no point in criticizing her, unless what she wrote is being denied, and this does not appear to be the case. Carrying the title “Turkey tilts toward Iran,” Rosett’s article reflects clear annoyance at the change in direction in Ankara’s foreign policy, especially on issues of great importance to Washington.
No doubt it was because of this that she characterized the recent talk her group had with Gül at the Presidential Palace in Ankara as “disturbing.” The basic argument in Rosett’s article is that Ankara is not toeing the U.S. line on Iran. It is instead pursuing a “zero problems with neighbors” policy, but has no concrete formula for convincing Tehran by diplomatic means to give up on its nuclear-weapons program.
For us, neither Rosett’s displeasure here nor Gül’s pushing for the diplomatic track, as opposed to sanctions or a military strike against Iran, is surprising. The former is highly predictable and the later contains nothing new. It has become Ankara’s standard position.
What does matter, however, are other remarks attributed to President Gül by Rosett.
According to her, Gül said he has no doubts that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. “This is an Iranian aspiration dating back to the previous regime, [to] the days of the Shah,” Gül is reported as saying. As for the current regime in Iran, the Turkish president apparently believes its final aspiration is also “to have a nuclear weapon in the end.”
This claim, which many Turkish diplomats and military planners also believe to be true, is, of course, in stark contrast with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s approach to the whole issue. Acting as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s advocate, Erdoğan has said in the past that suspicions that Tehran is after a nuclear weapon are just “gossip.”
Erdoğan has also established a link between Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s nuclear arsenal, suggesting in so many words that instead of putting pressure on Tehran, the West should first force Israel to get rid of its own arsenal. Many in the Islamic world have read Erdoğan’s approach as a suggestion that as long as Israel has these weapons, then Iran can have them too.
But the real “nuclear remark” said to have been uttered by Gül was not the claim that Iran is after nuclear weapons. He apparently also said that if Iran gets the bomb, it will not use it. At first appearance, this may appear a naïve remark, but what the president was quoted as saying after this puts the whole issue in a stone-cold realistic perspective.
The following is straight from Rosett’s piece:
“Gül says Israel need not worry. However irrational Iran’s leaders might become, he is sure they will remain rational enough to refrain from devastating Israel – lest, by doing so, they should harm the Palestinians or the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (which he says would then create problems for Iran ‘with all the Muslims of the Gulf and the surrounding regions’).”
These words no doubt had a devastating effect on Iranian officials who are closely following Turkey’s position on their country’s nuclear program. Gül’s remarks must have confirmed to them that not everyone in Ankara is as pro-Iranian as Prime Minister Erdoğan on the issue of nuclear weapons.
But much more devastatingly, Gül’s remarks show that Iran is not in a position to use nuclear weapons against Israel unless it wants to run the risk of destroying and contaminating lands and edifices considered sacred by Muslims. Put another way, unless Tehran gains a highly selective “first strike” capability, as well as finely tuned air-interception abilities for counter defense, its nuclear-weapons program is useless against Israel.
That leaves Tehran with the need to establish new targets for its nuclear weapons. No doubt those will be in the West, but how Iranian capabilities will be able to acquire first-strike and counter-defense abilities in that case is again a wide-open question.
In this sense, it is clear that President Gül, in remarks attributed to him but not denied by him, has indeed let the cat out of the bag, putting forward a proposition that all Muslims will have to think about seriously.
But Israel is also put in a spot by virtue of the same token as a result of President Gül’s remarks. If there is little chance that any Islamic country in the region can use nuclear weapons against Israel, for the reasons cited by Gül, then what is the point in Israel’s having a nuclear arsenal, which merely fuels a pointless arms race in the region?
We should therefore be happy that President Gül has let this cat out of the bag, even if he may not be too happy about it himself. The remarks attributed by Rosett to Gül show there is a need for more rational thinking on this score, and less politicking according to one’s own national interests.
Nuclear weapons are no joke and should not be used in this way, unless one is prepared to court disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)