Iran’s Political Crisis and the Nuclear Issue
Hussein Moussavi (Wikimedia)
Back before the Iranian elections, when it suddenly began to appear that Ahmadenijad might lose, hawkish Israel groups started circulating oppo information on Hussein Moussavi and the right more generally was preparing to build an argument about how there’s really no difference between the two of them. Then came the apparent fraud, and the politics switched to criticizing the Obama administration for not intervening more forcefully on Moussavi’s behalf. But Eric Trager, working off the older talking points, published a brief article Tuesday titled “Who Is Mir Hossein Mousavil Really?” arguing that he’s no good.
I think he winds up badly overstating the case, but I do think it’s worth underscoring that on the key foreign policy issues between the United States and Iran it’s really not clear how relevant Iranian domestic politics are. As Joe Klein reports:
In truth, the reformers I spoke with seemed as unyielding as Ahmadinejad, if more politely so, when it came to discussing what Iran would be willing to concede in negotiations with the U.S. They were adamant on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which is permitted for peaceful purposes under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. None of them, except Mousavi, was willing to acknowledge that weaponization of uranium might be in the works and therefore be a subject for negotiation. (Mousavi told me that if such a program existed, it would be negotiable, but he didn’t say, and may not know, that it actually exists.) The reformers were unanimous in the belief that Barack Obama’s conciliatory words were not enough, that the U.S. had to take palpable actions before talks would be possible. I asked each of them what steps Iran was prepared to make for peace. The answer was always the same. “It’s natural that the first step should be taken by the Americans,” said Karroubi, the most progressive of the four presidential candidates. “We didn’t stage a coup against your elected government,” he said, referring to the CIA’s participation in the 1953 overthrow of the Mohammed Mossadegh government. “We have not frozen your assets. We don’t have sanctions against you.”
Recall that there are two issues here. One has to do with the construction of nuclear weapons. Iran is not permitted to do this under the NPT, Iran denies that they are working on this, Iranian opposition politicians mostly deny weaponization is a possibility, and Mousavi says that he would bargain about weaponization.
The other issue has to do with enrichment. The United States and Israel have been pushing the idea that Iran should eschew the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium. The Iranian position, which I believe is legally correct, is that they have the right to such enrichment under the NPT. Uranians will point out that Germany, Japan, and others have fully mastered the fuel cycle without having the United States bomb them or the international community sanction them.
I think the realistic hope for a diplomatic deal has been that the Iranians will be allowed to enrich, but that inspectors will be in place to provide confidence that weaponization is not happening. If you think about the possibility of political change in Iran, I think that makes a deal more likely in one sense and less likely in another sense. On the “more likely” side of the ledger, a more liberal Iran is less likely to just decide it doesn’t care what anyone thinks and wants to build a nuclear weapon, never mind the consequences. But on the “less likely” side of the ledger, I think that the more political change you see in Iran, the less likely it is that Iran will agree to onerous inspections to monitor their nuclear activities. If Iran becomes a democracy just like Germany and Japan and South Korea, it seems plausible to think that they’ll insist on being treated the same as those countries and basically just trusted not to break the rules.
57 Responses to “Iran’s Political Crisis and the Nuclear Issue”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The Iranians are not going to forget the Iran-Iraq war, and Saddam’s chemical weapons, any time soon. They will NEVER give up the ability to create a deterrent on short notice. If they had a genuinely popularly elected government and it tried to do so, it would be thrown out on its ass by the voters at their earliest opportunity.
US foreign policy, even now in the Obama / Clinton era, is crippled by a catastrophic inability to see the world from any point of view but our own.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Uranians?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“Uranians.” That’s a classic!
June 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Is this “people from the planet Uranus”, or is Matthew referring to an antiquated and slightly more obscure usage of “Uranian” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranian)?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Uranians?
“[Gay men] will point out that Germany, Japan, and others have fully mastered the fuel cycle without having the United States bomb them or the international community sanction them.”
?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“Uranians” may be the best Yglesiasm yet. But what will the Neptunians think?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I say we call them “Uranians” permanently and always. How fantastic.
I think he winds up badly overstating the case
But you’re not going to tell us why?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“US foreign policy, even now in the Obama / Clinton era, is crippled by a catastrophic inability to see the world from any point of view but our own.” (S. LaBonne)
For accuracy Israel must be substituited for “but our own”.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Uranian
June 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I maintain that Uranians are people made out of uranium.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
W made the same “uranian” slip in a speech once. I think all the talk of uranium and Iranians makes it inevitable for those prone to slips in the verbal and/or written word.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Seems to me Iran is at least as democratic as Japan, which is basically a single-party system. Well, and also unlike Japan, which is basically a quasi-colony of the US, Iran is an independent country, and this is, of course, where the problem lies.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
The United States and Israel have been pushing the idea that Iran should eschew the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium. The Iranian position, which I believe is legally correct, is that they have the right to such enrichment under the NPT.
I know nothing about the NPT, but I don’t think Germany nor france use weapons grade Uranium. Fuel grade is much, much less concentrated than weapons grade.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium” rel=”nofollow”> Wiki:
June 18th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
The Uranians can just point to India. Of course after the Uranians get nukes Saudi Arabia and Egypt will too which will be awesome.
I am constantly amazed that South Africa gave up its nukes. That gave the lie to Cheney who said the ANC were terrorists and to Reagan who thought we should have a “realist” attitude to apartheid South Africa and that we shouldn’t meddle in their internal affairs and we could do little to effect them anyway.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“Well, and also unlike Japan, which is basically a quasi-colony of the US, Iran is an independent country, and this is, of course, where the problem lies.”
Ah, I see, you’re crazy.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“Uranians” is the best Yglsism of all time, and works on so many levels.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“Uranians?”
“Forget it, he’s rolling…”
June 18th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
They prefer to be call Uranusians.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I doubt they have interplanetary ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads against us.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Uranians? Bah, I’m just waiting for the moment the Plutonians receive the message that we’ve declared them a rogue planet.
Then the shit’s hitting the fan.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
For your information, Reagan’s view, and one which was enacted, was that we should aid the South African apartheid government — including running two unpopular terrorist wars against the populations of Angola and Mozambique. Thankfully the Cubans helped defeat the South African army and its proxies at Cuito Cuanavale.
Jeebus fucking cripes, but you need to get off this stupid kick of the bullshit Hitchens game where you try to badly analogize whatever intervention you want to support with something you’ll think will puzzle the leftists. God.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Seems like you’re easily annoyed El Cid. Good. Reagan was against sanctions b/c he didn’t want to meddle.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/26/opinion/l-reagan-forced-south-africa-sanctions-issue-213551.html
To the Editor:
In “South Africa Sanctions Didn’t Undo Apartheid” (letter, May 15), Herman W. Nickel, Reagan Administration Ambassador to South Africa, gets one point exactly right: the credit for South Africa’s remarkable political change belongs “overwhelmingly” to Nelson Mandela, F. W. de Klerk, and millions of their South African supporters.
Mr. Nickel errs seriously, however, in deprecating the contribution of Congress to ending apartheid when it voted in 1986 to override President Reagan’s veto of economic sanctions against South Africa. True, these sanctions had only marginal economic impact; their real impact was political, and that was vital.
In the first six years of the Reagan Administration, State Department attempts to engage South Africa in serious negotiations over regional and internal issues were undercut by irregular contacts with South African officials, hints of support and back-channel leaks by right-wing Republican stalwarts like Pat Buchanan, William Casey and Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Whatever their motives, they in effect conveyed to South African civilian and military leaders the impression that whatever might be said in public, when the chips were down, Ronald Reagan’s America would stand by white South Africa. This impression was reinforced by Mr. Reagan, whose approach to South Africa’s racial issues can most charitably be termed “insensitive,” the word used by Chester A. Crocker, Mr. Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, in his memoirs.
By voting to impose economic sanctions over Mr. Reagan’s veto, Congress succeeded in getting the message through to all but the most obtuse South African officials that the American people really did abhor apartheid and that no international power was going to stand up for white South Africa.
It was the Reagan Administration’s own lack of scruples and discipline that made sanctions politically necessary. Congress, by its vote, sent a powerful message that forced new thinking in South African Government and opposition circles. It helped set the stage on which South Africans of good will could work out the transition to a more democratic and just political order. WILLIAM J. FOLTZ H.J. Heinz Professor of African Studies and Political Science, Yale U. New Haven, May 16, 1994
——
Congress “meddled”. Pat Bucanan, the antiwar crowd’s favorite non-interventionist of course was against imposing our values on South Africa.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
El Cid why does it piss you off that post-apartheid democratic Africa gave up nukes?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Cut it out. If you want to play games, play it with someone else.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Well 15, Okinawa is definitely a colony, you are not going to seriously dispute that, are you?
The US has probably something like 30 or 40 military bases all over Japan, at least a half-dozen of them right in freakin Tokyo. Japan pays for all of that, a few billion dollars/year.
If that doesn’t spell ‘colony’, then I don’t know what does.
But yeah, if this makes me crazy, then you go ahead, be the smart one here.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
What did I say earlier? You want to create bad analogies to justify whatever policies interest you.
Have at it. Iran is really apartheid South Africa, and Mousavi is Nelson Mandela. Now all we need to do is cut back on our support of our previously allied Iranian regime, and this will help the liberation forces.
Those advocating some degree of rationality and a careful argument about what is done by citizens and by the U.S. state are the apartheid-loving Pat Buchannan, and those advocating no clear policy but a rhetoric of some sort of intervention and action are those Congress members who have been pushed by a U.S. citizens movement to impose sanctions on the intricate economic ties between many U.S. businesses and government deals and the apartheid South African state. Mousavi’s forces are exactly like that of the South African freedom movement and are similarly recognized around the world.
No actual arguments ever need to be made, ever. Not about Iran, not about Iraq, not about any place.
We’ll just forever create shitty analogies and insist that whatever policy that someone is screaming about remain undefined but is exactly like some previous and honored struggle, how dare you question its name.
You can pull this Hitchens bullshit with somebody else. It’s a great way to avoid any actual argument because (a) it’s highly appealing to those of a self-righteous mindset, and (b) an analogical purity argument sounds like an argument, but isn’t quite as much work.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
A country has self-determination, a colony doesn’t. We’ve got bases in Germany and South Korea, too.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Japan has limited self-determination. Most colonies are like that, to one degree or another.
We’ve got bases in Germany and South Korea, too.
Exactly. And that’s how they are different from Iran.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I think the people of India or Congo, circa 1910, would be kind of amazed to hear you equate their situation with that of three countries with their own governments, their own armed forces, and their own control of their domestic and foreign policies. It’s hard to imagine a colony telling their “colonizers” (in 2003, say) that they aren’t going to fight a war for them. But anything to make a facile point, I suppose.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Who is the REAL Mir Hussein Moussavi?
Or, should I say, Mir HUSSEIN Moussavi?!?
Inshallah, he will release his birth certificate.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Have at it. Iran is really apartheid South Africa, and Mousavi is Nelson Mandela. Now all we need to do is cut back on our support of our previously allied Iranian regime, and this will help the liberation forces.
I brought up South Africa b/c it’s interesting they actually gave up nukes.
Unlike Iran, they didn’t have an Israel menacing them with military strikes.
Unlike India, who has Pakistan as an age old enemy next door.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
We’ll just forever create shitty analogies and insist that whatever policy that someone is screaming about remain undefined but is exactly like some previous and honored struggle, how dare you question its name.
“Spanish Civil War!”
Dear me.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Facile? Yeah, it sure is.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
If the only difference you’re willing to acknowledge between the governments of South Korea, Japan and Germany on the one hand, and Iran on the other, is the presence of US military bases, you’ve lost your way.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
That’s a pretty big error there, Matt. The NPT doesn’t allow uranium enrichment to weapons grade by nuclear virgins.
The negotiating position is that Iran should give up enrichment in general, in exchange for other considerations. Iran does not want to do that. Possibly, because they don’t value any of the hypothetical considerations enough, or because they want at least the option of building a bomb.
It should be noted, Iran is not actually meeting the IAEA requirements. They are coming so close to compliance that no one wants to make an issue out of it.
Due to the massive nature of their enrichment facilities, Iran could reconfigure their cetrifuges and be well on their way to having enough material for a bomb before the next inspection. The IAEA wants cameras pointed at the centrifuges which would provide a feed to them at all times to make sure the centrifuges are not being reconfigured. Iran has refused so far. Iran also denied the most recent IAEA request for an unannounced inspection.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
If the current protest movements don’t end up altering the election results and state power formally, and if Mousavi doesn’t have to just leave or face other harassment or worse, I wonder if he can use his image as a relative moderate on discussing matters relating to more militarily useful nuclear programs for some political purpose?
June 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
There are plenty of differences, of course, but only this one is relevant to the so-called “Nuclear Issue”.
What is it with you fellas? It’s hard to imagine anything more obvious than this. You react almost exactly like wingnuts.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
On the subject of “is South Korea a colony”: South Korea was a de jure military protectorate of the USA from 1945-8, and was a de facto military protectorate from 1948-1987 – which is to say, the country was ruled by people who had been selected by the US army (The first president Syngman Rhee of Hawaii is exhibit A, General Park and General Chun are less certain because the archives have not yet been oppened, but it is pretty clear that they has US backing from the beginning – certainly, the US army showed no great objection to their preparations for coup). Post-1987 South Korea is more complicated – of course, various people could gain office without being directly vetted by the US. On the other hand, if a South Korea student between 1987-1997 shouted “US ARMY OUT” in front of a US base he would most likely be arrested (by the South Korean police) and imprisoned under the National Security Law. Despite an almost complete lack of enthusiasm for the Iraq War (I think 5% were in favour, 15% didn’t care, and the rest were very much opposed), South Korea sent soldiers to the Iraq War.
So, abb1 is certainly right for the period before 1987 for SOuth Korea, and may or may not be correct for the period after. At most, SOuth Korea is recently post-colonial.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I must say, Japan really sucks at being a colony.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
While we’re on the topic of Uranians…
I see a lot of signs in English in the street protests in Iran. I’m used to this, and wrote them off as for the benefit of western media. Then I saw that the Iranian riot cops have “POLICE” written on their backs. What gives? Did someone decide, “When our riot police are out beating people, they may be filmed by western media. We should put “POLICE” on their backs, in English, so that westerners know that they are police, and not gangs randomly beating people.”
June 18th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
What is it with you fellas?
We draw distinction between liberal democracies and autocratic tyrannies.
What is wrong with you?
June 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I wondered the same thing, Njorl. Did the Iranians outfit their security agents at an Army-Navy store?
I saw footage of the marchers – the pro-Moussavi marchers – yesterday. One of them was carrying a homemade sign that read, in English, “Down with Britain.”
Down with Britain?
June 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Britian has a nice history of messing around in Iranian affairs too. They’re second on the list of things to shout “Death to X” at.
If Mousevi wants to keep on enriching away under the terms of the NPT, there’s not much of a leg for complainers to stand on as long as he also allows for the inspections that are requred under the NPT. Especially if he rachets down the anti-Israel/anti-America rhetoric.
That’s the thing with the NPT unfortunately, there’s such a minor hurdle between enrichment for reactors and enrichment for weapons that any country that was fully exercising its rights under the treaty could probably slap together a crappy a-bomb in about a month if they really wanted to.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Sure, DaveNYC, but why would a pro-Moussavi protester carry that sign, now?
It it like the anti-Iraq War protests, also know as the anti-Iraq War, anti-IMF, anti-meat-eating, anti-sexism, anti-biotech, anti-global warming protests?
June 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I guess we can expect that apology for invading our embassy any day now.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I think if he’d just won the election in the usual way, and taken the office as it has been in Iran — highly constrained — I expect a Mousavi administration from this and perhaps even other foreign policy perspectives might not have been as different from Ahmedinejad as we’d hope or like.
But if he takes power under these circumstances I think the situation will be entirely different. Iran has radically changed, almost overnight, as the people reclaim their sovereignty. The regime, even if it persists in its current form on paper, will be radically changed in substance. And I think Mousavi will be — is already — a changed man.
If Ahmedinejad and Khameini fall, I expect we’ll see substantial movement on this as well as other issues such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Whoa whoa whoa. Easy.
I think he’s a politician. An establishment politician. These protests are a big deal, but let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Matt actually gets this pretty right. I know, I know, that’s a rare situation with him, but when he’s right, he’s right.
I’ve been Twittering Joseph Circincione, who’s been arguing the opposite – that the Iranian political issues may force Khamenei to be deposed and then Iran will have to come begging to the US for a compromise on the nuclear issue.
I view this as complete horseshit. As Klein reports, almost everybody in Iran supports the nuclear energy program. And Iran has said it would be perfectly happy to sign the Additional Protocol under the NPT and submit to intrusive inspections, provided it was no longer under sanctions simply because it wishes to enrich uranium as is its legal right. Iran operated “as if” they were under the Additional Protocol for over two years a while back, until they were stabbed in the back by the IAEA – under US pressure – referring their case (illegally) to the UN Security Council.
The statement that Iran is blocking the installation cameras is also not entirely correct. See this article:
Iran’s main nuclear plant expanding rapidly, says IAEA
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5478732/Irans-main-nuclear-plant-expanding-rapidly-says-IAEA.html
In short, most of the centrifuges are under camera surveillance, if not remote monitoring. And no doubt Iran would allow further camera installation and monitoring IF the IAEA would stop bowing to the US pressure to constantly badger Iran about issues that are none of its purview.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:17 am
I was going to say “Because he couldn’t find his ‘Free Mumia’ one”, but you beat me to it in your second paragraph.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am
We draw distinction between liberal democracies and autocratic tyrannies.
No you don’t. You believe that some countries are ‘good’ and others ‘bad’, because that’s what you are told. The good ones are called “liberal democracies”, the bad ones “autocratic tyrannies”.
It doesn’t have anything to do with reality. Tomorrow they might tell you that Germany and Japan are “autocratic tyrannies” and you’ll accept it without a moment of reflection. You guys are typical Outer Party members from 1984.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Sigh.
Yes, Abb1, the only difference between Iran on the one hand, and Germany/South Korea/Japan on the other, is what I’ve been told. There aren’t really any differences in how those countries are governed; it’s just a political line I’ve been fed.
This must be true, because if it wasn’t, it would be inconvenient for your political line.
You’d make a good global warming denier, or perhaps a libertarian.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
You guys are typical Outer Party members from 1984.
I think it’s pretty clear who’s making himself believe the party line here.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I think it’s pretty clear who’s making himself believe the party line here
Yes, it certainly is.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I find it hilarious that a year ago, everyone here was defending Obama’s moderate stance on Iran by saying “After all, Ahmadinejad doesn’t matter, it’s the Supreme Leader who really calls all the shots,” and now that Mousavi is all the rage the new line has it that replacing Ahmadinejad will change absolutely everything in Iran, ever. I don’t understand how you people don’t give yourselves whiplash.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Joe from Lowell,
Re: Yes, Abb1, the only difference between Iran on the one hand, and Germany/South Korea/Japan on the other, is what I’ve been told. There aren’t really any differences in how those countries are governed; it’s just a political line I’ve been fed.
Yes, the difference is that Iran isn’t a thoroughly p*ssified country governed by hipster twitterers, unlike those other countries.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Yglesiasm? Rowr.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Nice strawman. I’ll bet he falls down right on cue.
Back in the real world, everyone is well aware that Moussavi is a clerical establishment politician, and that the post of President has limited powers. The importance of these protests isn’t based on the personality of Moussavi, or the belief that his presidency would effect a revolutionary change in Iran. These protests are important because they are an effort to make Iran’s government accountable to the the will of the people. The fact that the people are demanding something short of wholesale revolution doesn’t change that.