Persia

[bboyle]

Pfffft.

[Seminole]

Pfffft.

That sums up China's response to more sanctions, eh?

February 9 2010
China has overtaken the European Union to become Iran's largest trading partner, according to a new analysis of the commercial ties between the two countries.

...

In the past, China has allowed the passage of three UN resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran. But the country's ambassador emphasised the need for talks.

"Our approach is that dialogue and negotiations always produce better results," said Xie Xiaoyan, the Chinese ambassador to Tehran. "Sanctions will not produce the results set up [by the west], no matter how crippling."

[Dirtweasle]

I thoght Bboyle stated his guys had that licked a few months ago.   

[bboyle]

Foreign policy is a marathon, not a sprint.

[Dirtweasle]

You could maybe make that arguement if slowing the game was having an aprreciable effect.   

Since we know they are moving forward with their program to build weapons as quicks as they can, our not matching their pace is problematic.

[bboyle]

No...they are making claims that alot of experts think are unlikely. I'm quite satisfied that our government doesn't ask 'how high?' every time Ahmedinijad says 'jump!'.

[Scott_B]

Since we know they are moving forward with their program to build weapons as quicks as they can, our not matching their pace is problematic.

No, they're not.  The speed goes up or down depending on how much opposition their actions generate.  The speed at which they're moving forward is an indicator of how seriously they take our efforts to stop them.  Which is: not very.

The idea that we're going to stop them from going nuclear is bogus.  We might slow them down a bit but we're not going to stop them without a herculean effort that it's pretty clear we're not willing to expend.  If we do get some kind of coalition together, all they have to do is slow down or back off a bit.  It doesn't change the ending, just how soon we get there.

They may not end up going nuclear, but I don't think it'll be because of us, directly.

[MilhachVlhandsandwich]

I'm sure there must be a smarter way for the Merkns to do diplomacy than 'Hulk SMASH'. 

[Scott_B]

I'm sure there must be a smarter way for the Merkns to do diplomacy than 'Hulk SMASH'. 

Well, sure.  The current consensus seems to be that we try to use diplomacy to slow them down and hope that maybe the regime will collapse and the next one will be nicer, or that if it doesn't collapse then a nuclear Iran can still be managed.  This differs from the previous consensus (which didn't have the regime collapse part) only due to events that have been out of our control.

We've already made our decision.  If it comes down to it we will allow Iran to go nuclear rather than invade to stop them.  I don't think almost anyone disagrees when it's put in those terms - the main disagreement is on how much we want to deceive ourselves into thinking we have the ability to affect the situation through diplomacy.

[bboyle]

As you put it above, not very much. What we can strongly influence with diplomacy is how it affects our interests and those of our friends in the region.

[Scott_B]

As you put it above, not very much. What we can strongly influence with diplomacy is how it affects our interests and those of our friends in the region.

Yes.  Mitigation and management are still quite feasible.  I think it's important to make a point of "extending our hand" to the Iranians just to make them smack it away, but the likelihood that direct interaction is going to take place, let alone have an effect, is very low.  Vali Nasr has made this point repeatedly: the first Iranian leader to get caught actually attempting to strike a deal with the Great Satan will be taking an enormous political hit, so whatever they do jump for would have to be hugely to their benefit.  Way too much of their regime still has an anti-American posture embedded in their conception of what the Iranian state is supposed to be about.

We can use diplomacy to convince, say, the Saudis that they can rely on our protection and don't need to go nuclear in response to the Iranians.  It's doubtful that we can get the Chinese or Indians to run with a stricter sanctions regime, though more recently it looks like the Russians may flip (and this is just me being very optimistic).  But in terms of shaping the Iranian regime, it's pretty much going to be about everything but direct diplomacy.

[Dirtweasle]

No, they're not. 

I read news at least several times a week that reports various advances they've made in their different aspects of their weapons programs, and other news reports documenting their ongoing beligerancy.   I've posted many of them here.   Not sure how I can square that circle.  Care to explain?

The idea that we're going to stop them from going nuclear is bogus.

 

I can agree with that.  Especially on the course we're plotting now, though I did hear yesterday that the we're going to get  tougher.   The President apparently realizing his out-streched hand was getting chilled in the breeze.

It doesn't change the ending, just how soon we get there.

I don't think they take us serious for a variety of reasons.   Starting with the fact we let them to poke us with sticks and we don't do damned a thing about it.   IF they took us seriously they'd not be pushing ahead for a nuclear weapons to threaten the region and beyond with.

[Scott_B]

No, they're not. 

I read news at least several times a week that reports various advances they've made in their different aspects of their weapons programs, and other news reports documenting their ongoing beligerancy.   I've posted many of them here.   Not sure how I can square that circle.  Care to explain?

Sorry, should have been more clear: no, they're not going as fast as they can.  They're going fairly quickly but it's calibrated to how much resistance they generate with their actions.  They can adjust based on how effective we are, but the end result will pretty much be the same.

[Dirtweasle]

Did you read Taheri's post at NRO today Scott?

For 30 years, the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution has been an occasion for Iran’s Khomeinist rulers to demonstrate their power with a mixture of military parades and mass gatherings in the capital (Tehran) and other major cities. The highlight of the show has always been the appearance of the “Supreme Guide,” flanked by the regime’s grandees, at Tehran’s largest square to deliver a sermon in a ceremony called “renewal of bonds.”

This year, however, the Khomeinist rulers are nervous. ...

[Dirtweasle]

Revolutionizing the Iran Revolution

Today is the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran - the original one in 1979 which  overthrew the Shah and ushered in the era of theological "vilayat-e-faqih" rule by the Ayatollah.  ...