The media is playing a very dangerous game in their continued softball handling and spoon feeding of John Kerry on foreign policy issues. This partisan setup question on Iran lobbed to John Kerry by Tom Brokaw is so condesending that it makes my hair hurt.
Brokaw: …in moving through that part of the world. There's strong evidence that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon at some stage. There's also strong evidence that it's now meddling in Iraq. So was President Bush wrong to characterize it as part of the Axis of Evil? Iran?Kerry: I think that the term Axis of Evil is a misapplied term, frankly. Historically and in terms of the president. Iran is a problem. Iran in fact was a greater problem than Iraq at the time that the president started the war in Iraq. North Korea was a greater problem than Iraq at that time the president started the war in Iraq.
I believe this administration has ignored some of the things we could have done with respect to Iran. Look at what the British, French and Germans did with respect to their initiative. The United States should be leading that initiative, Tom.
The United States of America should have long ago offered the following deal. If Iran is serious about not pursuing nuclear weapons, we'll supply you with the nuclear power and we'll contain the nuclear material that's created as a result. And therefore you get your power if it's really only for peaceful purposes. We also could have pursued a far more aggressive and thoughtful counter-proliferation effort on nuclear and chemical and biological weapons internationally than this administration has.
So I believe the president took the license given him in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida. And frankly has ignored some of the most critical challenges to the security of our country. I will provide a greater security — to the United States by pursuing more aggressively those opportunities than this administration has.
Iran sits atop one ofthe world's largest reserves of gas and oil, it has no need for nuclear power to generate electricty. Why Kerry would parrot such a useless meme is puzzling and insulting to informed voters. One also wonders how Kerry will get France on board given that Clinton had little success in 1997 as France inked a deal with Iran on behalf of Total.
"French Scoff at U.S. Protest Over Gas Deal With Iran"The French government warned the United States on Monday not to
retaliate, but the Clinton administration vowed to "take whatever action
is appropriate under the law."A spokesman for the European Union in Brussels said any American
retaliation would be "illegal and unacceptable."The exchanges underscored the marked divergence between Europe
and the United States over how to approach Iran. They also revealed
the recurrent French irritation -- intermittently shared by other
European nations -- at what is sometimes seen as an American attempt
to impose its policies in the post-Cold-War world.Defending the contract signed with the National Iranian Oil Company,
Jacques Rummelhardt, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Monday
that it was "compatible with our policy toward Iran." He described the
French policy as based on frank political exchange and the conviction
that "it is counterproductive to impose restrictions on the development
of commerce with Iran."
In April of 1998 Lee Hamilton opined:
Second, the policy of "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq is not working, and is not sustainable. Seven years after the Gulf War, friends and allies have little enthusiasm for open-ended U.N. sanctions against Iraq. At least with Iraq, the international community agreed to impose those sanctions. On Iran, there is no such basis for agreement, and no prospect that we can persuade our allies to accept broad-based sanctions. No country in the world has followed the U.S. lead in sanctioning Iran.Our efforts to isolate and contain Iran have not only been unsuccessful, they have been counterproductive. They have caused great strains with our allies in Europe, and our Arab friends in the Gulf.
Key Arab states boycotted the U.S.-backed economic summit in Qatar, but all Arab states attended the Islamic summit in Iran. The Saudis sent no one to the Qatar meeting, but they just hosted former President Rafsanjani for two weeks in the Kingdom. Our policy is not isolating Iran--it is isolating the United States.
Third, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act is harmful to U.S. interests. Given the politics of an election year, it was easy in the summer of 1996 for the Congress to vote to impose sanctions on foreign companies that invest in the energy sectors of Iran and Libya. ILSA passed the House on a unanimous, recorded vote--including mine. I supported the bill with many reservations, which I explained at the time, and I now believe that my vote was a mistake. The administration also had strong reservations about this sanctions bill. It secured some improvements, but the bill was still bad. In a political season, the president signed the bill into law. Now he is struggling mightily to avoid applying it.
Because of last September's announced investment in Iran's South Pars gas field--involving the French firm Total, the Russian firm Gazprom, and the Malaysian firm Petronas--the president now confronts a series of unacceptable choices. If he decides to impose sanctions on these firms, he takes an enormous gamble. A decision to sanction will:
- Create a huge fight with our European allies;
- Undermine the already difficult effort to maintain international support for U.S. policy toward Iraq;
- Weaken international support for efforts to contain Iran;
- Harm our efforts to draw Iran's democratically elected president into a dialogue;
- Jeopardize our ongoing efforts to persuade Russia to shut down missile cooperation with Iran;
- Make it more difficult to gain access to Caspian oil;
- Force the European Union to take disputes on ILSA and Helms-Burton back to the World Trade Organization, threatening the integrity of that vital organization; and
- Provoke retaliation against U.S. exports and investment--costing U.S. jobs.
But, if the U.S. decides to impose and waive sanctions, the costs are also high:
Right now, the administration is carrying out the most rational policy: to study the question, and to do nothing. But the job of the president is to carry out the law, and ILSA puts him--and keeps him--in a terrible box. In our effort to isolate and sanction Iran, we are harming a wide range of other U.S. interests. Our current policy toward Iran is deeply flawed.
- The president would face a firestorm of public criticism, especially from the Congress;
- Even if waived, the impact of sanctions on U.S. relations with the EU and Iran would be almost as harmful;
- An improvement in policy toward Iran would be even more difficult than it is; and
- U.S. energy firms would complain bitterly. Foreign competitors would be allowed to go forward with investments in Iran, while U.S. firms could not.
Deeply flawed indeed, Albright's waiver of the ILSA signaled that the US was not serious in containing Iran and gained us little in the way of support from our European allies, as France continues to run interference for Iran's Atomic Ayatollahs.
Kerry voted to extend the toothless ILSA in July 2001, but will he enact real sanctions against Iran and it's client states such as France?
Kerry's vague response is not satisfactory in the dangerous waters we find ourselves treading since 9/11. Kerry cannot finesse foreign policy issues, such as Iran and North Korea with airy-fairy sound bites. In this election voters must have a clear understanding of his policy and intended implementation. Kerry must hit the ground running, as the 9/11 commission report proves, we can no longer gamble on a President-elect's learning curve or a false start.
(Cross posted to The Command Post Op-Ed page)