The Mideast Channel
A Partnership of the NAF Middle East Task Force and the Project on Middle East Political Science Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

Posted By Joseph Cirincione Share

The trumpeted U.S.-Iran showdown at the United Nations was over moments after it began. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad strutted and fretted his almost-hour on the stage of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference on May 3. Then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered her smack down. If it were a boxing match, the refs would have ended it. 

Jeers, not cheers

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become the new Muammar al-Qaddafi. He dropped into the United Nations from an alternate reality with talk of Iran's "longtime acceptance" of the proposed nuclear fuel deal and how Iran has always "called for love, compassion, and peace for mankind." This would be news to the negotiators from the six countries that Ahmadinejad stiffed last October, first accepting, then rejecting the fuel deal, and the green movement protesters shot in the streets of Tehran and jailed and tortured in the regime's prisons. 

Ahmadinejad's speech did have its moments for some countries, particularly his denunciation of the hypocrisy of states with huge nuclear arsenals and faux disarmament. Just because "he's a fraudulently elected megalomaniac heading an autocratic regime," writes Reza Aslan, "that doesn't mean he's not occasionally right."

But the scattered applause could not hide Iran's increased isolation. It was not just the walkouts during the speech by the United States, France, Britain, Hungary, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and other allies.

Before Ahmadinejad spoke, U.N. Secretary-General General Ban Ki-moon exited for another meeting. Unusual in itself, but nothing compared with his singling out of Iran by name, insisting it clarify its intentions during his opening remarks to the conference. For those not steeped in diplomatic ritual, this is a highly unusual put-down of a member state. 

Then, as Newsweek's Katie Paul reported, IAEA Director Yukiya Amano "called Iran out for failing to provide the 'necessary cooperation' to allow him to verify that the country's nuclear program is peaceful." Such statements are quite rare, particularly when the president of the country in question is sitting a few rows away.

Iran's own actions and the new U.S. strategy are losing it friends and support.

Shift toward American positions

At the last conference, five years ago, Iran's complaints of Western nuclear discrimination struck a powerful chord among member states and helped wreck the gathering (helped by U.S. indifference and Egyptian posturing). This year, bellwether states like Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, and Egypt (the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement this year) are tipping the other way. As Paul notes, "they remain the most disgruntled about the power imbalances written into the NPT," but there is a "clear move away from Iranian intransigence" and a "change in tone between the last conference and the current one."

Indonesia announced on May 4 that it would ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty now, rather than wait for the United States to do so before it acted. This is in line with U.S. priorities and a significant move from the world's largest Muslim country. U.S. President Barack Obama welcomed the news as "another signal that nations are joining a renewed effort to reinforce global nonproliferation."

Egypt, rather than blocking NPT deliberations, is negotiating with the United States and Russia a mechanism for moving toward a conference on the stated goal of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. Egypt has long championed this cause (officially, the policy of both the United States and Israel), but is frustrated by neglect of the issue since it was endorsed at the 1995 NPT conference. Progress now would undercut Iran's pose as the champion of the Muslim world on nuclear matters -- which is one reason why its rival, Egypt, might be pushing it.

"The matter of a Middle East zone is becoming a higher priority," reports the Global Security Newswire, "as nations in the region acquire nuclear power technology and consider their response to Iran's disputed atomic activities." The five NPT nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China) endorsed the concept in their joint statement on May 5

Clinton said in her speech that the United States was "prepared to support practical measures" toward establishing the zone. "We're not there yet, but we are talking," one Arab diplomat told Global Security Newswire. "A conference should look at whatever steps are necessary to move forward," another Arab diplomat said. "But we expect it would be one which would launch negotiations on a zone and not just be a talk shop."

Iran's waning influence in conference halls mirrors global attitudes. A recent BBC World Service survey found global attitudes toward Iran are the most critical of all countries included in the poll. Twenty-five out of 28 countries polled believe Iran's influence on the world is mainly negative. By contrast, global views of the United States' influence have improved sharply. For the first time since 2005, the world sees U.S. influence as more positive than negative.

U.S. strategy working

The shift in U.S. strategy from regime change (which resulted in an acceleration of Iran's nuclear program and strengthening of the regime) to a strategy of engagement and containment has put Iran on the defensive. By not overtly threatening Iran, the United States has enlarged the political space for internal Iranian protests and weakened the desire of other states to defend Iran from Western pressure.

Simultaneously, the United States has shifted to fulfill its own NPT obligations, negotiating new arms reductions with Russia, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in its force posture, and uniting dozens of countries in a drive to prevent nuclear terrorism. This increases U.S. leverage to get other states to step up the enforcement of treaty constraints on proliferators. As Clinton said, "As we work to uphold our end of the basic bargain of the NPT, we are asking all signatories to do the same."

The bottom line? Ahmadinejad's diplomatic offensive flopped. The regime is, as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says, more isolated domestically, regionally, and internationally than it has ever been.

There is no complete solution yet in sight, and several key countries, such as Turkey, are hedging their bets, but as the NPT conference has shown the trends are moving favorably for American strategy.

Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund and appears in the new film, Countdown to Zero.

 

Sign up here to receive the Middle East Channel's twice-weekly brief in your inbox, and follow the Middle East Channel on Twitter.

Getty Images

 

ZATHRAS

11:00 AM ET

May 6, 2010

A Persian Gaddafi

This is a good analogy, applied to the current Iranian government. The Iranian nation, far more important than Libya, is another story.

 

SMCI60652

11:26 AM ET

May 6, 2010

Thank God for Ahmedinejad!

Could you imagine Sec. Clinton having to follow a speech by Mir Hossein Mousavi at the UN?

He would likely have said 90% of what Ahmedinejad DID say. And definitely tow the regime line on nuclear development.

The truth of the matter comes out when you realize that for all the phony bologne 'sympathy' our government and media stooges lavished on the Green movement, our guys at the UN would have walked out on Mousavi just the same.

We're just lucky that the face of the Iranian Nuclear Program is this little monster.

It makes our bullshit stance much more easier to swallow.

 

WIGWAG

11:58 AM ET

May 6, 2010

This Post Misses the Mark

Generally I think very highly of Joe Cirincione and I believe that the founder of the organization he now runs (the Ploughshares Fund), Sally Lilienthal was heroic; but this post completely misses the mark.

The level of political support that Iran enjoys is irrelevant; and it doesn't matter whether Ahmadinejad himself is personally popular inside or outside of Iran.

Iran wants nuclear weapons because it understands that whatever political support it may temporarily enjoy in its neighborhood (or outside its neighborhood) is fleeting at best.

Iran is surrounded by historical enemies; it practices a form of Islam that is not only in the minority in the Islamic World but is detested by fundamentalist Sunni Muslims who are now in the ascendency in many Muslim nations. The enmity between Persians and Arabs is both longstanding and strong and Iran has made a bitter enemy of the world's only superpower, the United States.

The region's only military superpower, Israel, correctly views Iran as a potential existential threat and it enjoys a significant second strike capability afforded to it by its sophisticated airforce and submarines recently provided by the Germans.

The Mullahs are not worried about their political popularity amongst the nations of the world, they are worried about the survival of their regime which may or may not be legitimate but is surely reviled by a significant portion of its own population.

In light of all of this, it would be more illogical for Iran not to have nuclear aspirations than for it to harbor them.

The idea that military strikes against Iran won't work is fatuous; so is the idea that these strikes would inspire upheaval in the region. A sustained bombing campaign similar to what President Clinton launched against Serbia in the 1990s would wear down Iran in short order and motivate them to be far more flexible on their search for a nuclear capability.

The whole point is that the power centers in Iran, espeially the clerical establishment and the Revolutionary Guards want to survive; that's why they want nuclear weapons in the first place.

As soon as it becomes apparent to the regime that its hunger for nuclear weapons poses greater survival risks than the protection for the regime those weapons provide, the Iranians will relent.

What Turkey, Brazil or any other country thinks about all of this is just a sideshow.

Surely Joe Cirincione is smart enough to know that.

 

ZORRO

2:37 PM ET

May 7, 2010

The Wider Picture

Taken in isolation I agree with you, but considering the circumstances I don't think your proposal is workable.
1. The second the US moved any forces against Iran the price of oil would double and stock markets would consequently races for the bottom. This might not be insurmountable if the global economy were doing well, but it is not.
2. Iran is as I understand it a major source of oil for the Chinese, and China is also a major supplier of loans for the US deficit economy. I suspect the Chinese could and would effectively veto an attack on Iran.
3. The chances of Afghanistan and Iraq (two places the US desperately want to get out of) might go up in flames is not insignificant.

 

MGHULOUM

11:59 AM ET

May 6, 2010

nuclear-free Middle East

You say: "Egypt, rather than blocking NPT deliberations, is negotiating with the United States and Russia a mechanism for moving toward a conference on the stated goal of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. Egypt has long championed this cause (officially, the policy of both the United States and Israel), "

Are you serious? Do you think your readers fools? The policy of "both the United States and Israel"? Israel has been fighting tooth and nail not to have publicly disclose all the nuclear warheads everybody knows she has...... They may be forced now through the inisistence of the pesky Ahmadinejad to deal with both the Israeli (and Iranian) nuclear programs....

 

EW66

1:49 PM ET

May 6, 2010

Regime Change? When?

I don't think it's accurate to say the US shifted its policy from regime change. Was this really our policy? I think not. Many in our administration probably hoped for regime change, but how was it policy? Why would Obama wait so long to endorse (or even tacitly support/speak up for) the Green movement? He was very careful not to speak outright for the Green movement and only released a statement of support weeks later (which could hardly be called a strong stance). He followed up by legitimizing the regime by "reaching out" to the Islamic Republic of Iran several times and sending Khameini a personal letter. I'm not saying the policies were wrong, but regime change was our policy?

 

The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.

Read More

Enter your email address to get twice-weekly updates from the Mideast Channel:

Delivered by Constant Contact