Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright describes the current international stand-off between the US and Iran as a "battle of ideas." And on the evidence of recent weeks, it is a battle the administration of US President George W. Bush is losing. It needs urgently to raise its game or risk being out-maneuvered by Tehran.
Albright made her comment after a White House meeting of former US secretaries of state and defense, convened by Bush in order to tap their collective wisdom on issues such as Iran and Iraq. She advised that a senior administration figure, possibly Bush himself, should make a speech clarifying US policy objectives concerning Iran, and not just those related to its nuclear activities.
Like a growing number of prominent Democrats and Republicans in Washington, Albright believes the US should hold its nose and talk directly to Tehran about all issues of mutual concern. As long as it refuses to do so, these pragmatists argue, it will find it all but impossible to convince other countries to back US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's proposed "coalition of the willing."
US political luminaries such as Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, and John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, have also publicly questioned the Bush administration's tactics. They suggest that international opinion will simply not understand a continuing US refusal to engage in face-to-face diplomacy when the stakes are so high.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan drove home this point at the weekend, suggesting that Washington's refusal to get involved in EU-Iran negotiations conducted by Britain, France and Germany was actually undermining international efforts to persuade Iran to comply with UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands.
"I have stated very clearly both in private in my contacts with the American administration and publicly that I think it is important that the US comes to the table and that it should join the European countries and Iran to find a solution," Annan said.
While the US frets over tactics and ponders its next move, Iran has been busily exploiting its advantage. Its first success came, in absentia, in the Security Council, when it became clear that Russia and China were ready to block a new resolution threatening sanctions against Iran on the nuclear issue.
US and British diplomats had been suggesting that Moscow, in particular, would come on board when push came to shove -- or would be content to abstain in any vote. That proved not to be the case, and so the resolution has been shelved pending preparation of a revamped incentives package for Iran by the EU-Three (subject of course to US approval).
The latest plan, borrowed from Marlon Brando's "Godfather" character, is to make Tehran an offer it can't refuse. What officials are calling a "very attractive package" could include political and economic carrots such as help with nuclear power station construction. The bottom line remains Iran's abandonment of its potentially bomb-related uranium enrichment activities.
But even this could be fudged if Tehran agreed, for example, to confine enrichment activities to research programs conducted under strict IAEA scrutiny and safeguards. This outcome has been privately floated by Mohammad ElBaradei, the IAEA chief. The package was expected to be finalized at a meeting of the Security Council permanent five members plus Germany in London at the end of last week.
Strike two for Iran came with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's internationally publicized letter to Bush. It was true, as the Americans were quick to point out, that the letter contained no substantive proposals on the nuclear or any other issues. But what Washington missed, in its initial, dismissive reaction, was the symbolic importance of this first public missive from Tehran since the 1979 revolution and subsequent rupture with the US.
The letter made Ahmadinejad, who was demonized by Western governments following his anti-Israeli statements and apparent attempts to deny the Holocaust, look like a more human figure who was seeking, however clumsily, to avoid a confrontation. The letter's flat rejection made Washington look like an aggressor, thereby undermining sympathy for its cause.
That impression was only reinforced in the course of Tehran's third public relations success in a week -- Ahmadinejad's visit to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, for a summit meeting of the D-8 (as opposed to the G8) -- a group of principally Islamic countries espousing joint development goals. The group backed Iran's right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and called on the US and its allies to more forcefully pursue a diplomatic solution.
Ahmadinejad told the summit Iran was ready to talk to anybody (except Israel); and would do so unconditionally, but not under the threat of force.
"We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world," he said.
During his Indonesian visit, the Iranian leader was greeted as a sort of modern-day Muslim hero and cheered by admiring crowds. It was reminiscent of the sort of reception once accorded to the late chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat.
And it bodes ill for the US and Western public diplomacy efforts in the Islamic sphere.
Ahmadinejad has made many mistakes since becoming president last year. But he is showing signs of learning. And as Albright suggested, Iran appears to be winning the battle of ideas.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS