Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
So today in rainy Istanbul ("cats and dogs doesn't begin to describe it" says my colleague @fgeerdink), traffic is no doubt snarled because US. and Iranian officials are facing off here to negotiate the future of Iran's nuclear program. So far, so sort-of good. Iran’s chief negotiator Jalili arrived in Turkey with a new title: 'Personal representative of the Supreme Leader.'” Diplomats have been giving the tone of the meeting glowing reviews:
The atmosphere at the opening session of Saturday's nuclear talks between six world powers and Iran was "completely different" from that of previous meetings, a diplomat said, describing it as "a good morning".
The diplomat, who spoke during the lunch break about the first meeting between Iran and the world powers in 15 months, said Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili had not stated the kind of preconditions that he had done in the last meeting in early 2011, when the two sides failed to agree even an agenda.
"He seems to have come with an objective to get into a process which is a serious process, which is about what we want to talk about," said the envoy, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I would say it has been a useful morning's work."
The diplomat suggested the Iranian side had signalled a readiness to enter a serious engagement on the dispute over its nuclear programme and that this could pave the way for a second meeting.
The EU spokesperson described a "surprisingly warm" atmosphere after Ashton & Jalili shared a three-hour dinner, accourding to Wall Street Journal correspondent Joe Parkinson.
The Russians seemed to like them, too:
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who is leading Moscow's delegation at nuclear talks between six world powers and Iran on Saturday, said the atmosphere between the two sides was constructive and that things were "going well".
"The atmosphere is constructive, the conversation is business-like. As of the moment, things are going well," Interfax quoted Ryabkov as saying in Istanbul, where the talks were being held.
Reuters reported that Jalili had accepted the US envoy's request for bilateral meeting; then Iran's Fars News Agency quoted "informed source" as denying this.
Meanwhile, Iran is escalating tension in the gulf, shutting off oil tanker tracker devices to cloak supply routes, and getting caught sending arms into Syria.
Well, we'll see.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Sir Winston, as any sane person would, believed that talking was better than precipitating an unnecessary war. Like so many others of his era, WWI loomed large for him (and it may have been the most unnecessary war in history). But he also believed there came a time (we'd call it a "tipping point") when "jaw-jaw" merely makes the inevitable "war-war" all the worse.
I have no idea whether we're at a tipping point with Iran. All I know is that as each day passes and they stay on course to build a bomb, we're one day closer to "war-war." It simply will happen.
Edited on April 14, 2012 at 5:38pmNov '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Re: Jaw Jaw Is Better Than War-War
Sometimes, but not always.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: . . . Diplomats have been giving the tone of the meeting glowing reviews . . . .
The EU spokesperson described a "surprisingly warm" atmosphere after Ashton & Jalili shared a three-hour dinner . . . .
* * *
Meanwhile, Iran is escalating tension in the gulf, shutting off oil tanker tracker device to cloak supply routes, and getting caught sending arms into Syria.
The Israelis rightly are concerned mostly about the "tone" and "atmosphere" that would be created, and what would be left "glowing," by a nuclear device detonated in or above Tel Aviv or in Haifa Bay.
These talks concern only tone and atmosphere and will change nothing of substance in Iran or Israel. Unless the US acts first, which seems increasingly unlikely, Israel will act before the US elections.
The only real question is, "What happens after?"
May '10
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Jaw Jaw to kick the can past 11/6/12 then devil take the hindmost.
What possible reason can there be to believe Iran will actually defer work on its bomb-building program?
We're living in a period analogous to March 1861, July 1914, August 1939, and September 10, 2001.
The Normalcy Bias is in full flower this spring.
Mar '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Nick Stuart: Jaw Jaw to kick the can past 11/6/12 then devil take the hindmost.
What possible reason can there be to believe Iran will actually defer work on its bomb-building program?
We're living in a period analogous to March 1861, July 1914, August 1939, and September 10, 2001.
The Normalcy Bias is in full flower this spring. · 3 minutes ago
Q: What is it when you do the same thing over and over expecting the results to change?
A: Diplomacy.
That might not be the case this time. Has anything happened that would change Iran's intentions, motivations, or means?
If so, then there may be progress. If not, Charlie Brown won't be kicking the football this time either, no matter what Lucy promises.
Oct '10
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Call me ignorant and naive, but may I ask why the US is negotiating with Iran? Were we asked or delegated to do so, or are we just being the sucker who passes by and meddles in that which he has no business?
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Percival
That might not be the case this time. Has anything happened that would change Iran's intentions, motivations, or means?
Yes. Crippling sanctions and the threat of military action.
Jan '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
I'll simply repeat the most common lessons of game theory. Strategically, being willing to negotiate (with anyone, at any time) is necessary. Unless you have that option available, you give an opponent only one path - - to war. So, unless you're casual about wasting human life, you always leave the door open.
But, you always have to couple that with the willingness to go to war if necessary. What matters is credibility. Will you reward cooperation, and most importantly, will you punish non-cooperation? From a mere strategy point of view, the rest of the world has been quick to reward cooperation, but extremely slow to punish non-cooperation.
When you focus exclusively on reward, and avoid punishment, you unwittingly drive up the price of their cooperation.
I hope they're going to the negotiating table with this attitude: look, Iran, this is your last chance. Either you work out a deal now, or the Israelis are going to wipe the floor with you, and we won't stop them. (That's why the Israelis should appear as aggressive as possible now.) And then, in a good cop way, we tell Iran - last chance ...
Mar '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Is this Iran's Supreme Leader, or the US's? - I get so confused.
The Iranian negotiators are masters of deception (Taquia). The only person who can match 'em is our own Supreme Leader.
Nov '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
I don't see the logic of this. Someone with whom one refuses to negotiate retains the option of not going to war, e.g., the option of altering his conduct in some way that does not involve war.
Anyone with children should know that sometimes it's best not to negotiate, but simply to state the terms one requires.
Sometimes war can best be avoided by not negotiating, because a willingness to negotiate can be mistakenly (or accurately) interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Edited on April 14, 2012 at 9:28pmJul '10
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Well then, glad that's all settled. We'll have to see if there is potential for engagement which is a substantive engagement, regarding that which we regard important.
I'd be as happy as anyone if a diplomatic solution is reached, and I suppose the fact that the Big Kahuna's rep isn't openly intransigent from the get-go is a relatively positive sign. But I'm not anticipating any breakthroughs.
Jan '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
We've done that. Hasn't worked, has it?
They've already called our bluff. We already laid down the law, and did little to enforce it. We're already past that point. They haven't stopped, despite our threats.
We're at the point where, if we really want them to stop developing nuclear weaponry, the only way to stop them is through an act of war. Iran won't change on its own.
Of course, strategically you always leave the door open for a negotiated settlement, but they've shown no sign of stopping. When you say " the option of altering its conduct in some way that does not involve war," they've had plenty of opportunity to do that - and haven't.
May '10
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Percival
That might not be the case this time. Has anything happened that would change Iran's intentions, motivations, or means?
Yes. Crippling sanctions and the threat of military action. · 2 hours ago
Seems to me that Iran's play is to buy another couple of years by agreeing to whatever they're asked to agree to, then continuing to do whatever they want to do.
As soon as the deal is inked, Obama will return his full attention to campaigning, the United States and its allies will supinely repose themselves, the initiative behind sanctions will evaporate, and does anyone seriously believe anyone other than the Israelies would undertake military action? This will simply allow them to play us for chumps for another couple years.
Mar '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
I know that the sanctions are supposed to be crippling. How does one judge how effective such things are? Saddam Hussein was under crippling sanctions too, but it turned out that the Food for Oil program was as rife with fraud as a Chicago election.
Well, ok...maybe not that bad, but pretty bad nonetheless.
For almost ten years, we've heard that the Iranians are responding to the pressure and are more willing than ever to deal. For the same period, we've heard that they are not far from completing their nuclear weapons program successfully.
Maybe you are right and they can get something settled this time, but there would have to be proof, not Hillary waving a fluttering piece of paper while prattling on about "peace in our time."
Nov '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
KC Mulville
We've done that. Hasn't worked, has it?
They've already called our bluff. We already laid down the law, and did little to enforce it. We're already past that point.
My point, a general one, was that your logic was faulty when you stated, " Strategically, being willing to negotiate (with anyone, at any time) is necessary. Unless you have that option available, you give an opponent only one path - - to war."
That's faulty logic, because, as I said, "Someone with whom one refuses to negotiate retains the option . . . of altering his conduct in some way that does not involve war."
But I am not contending that you are wrong in your description of how specific events have evolved in the past, or are likely to unfold in the future, precisely because we have demonstrated a lack of resolve.
Our lack of resolve, past and present, propels us toward war. You (and I) are right that it's too late now.
If we do not act, Israel must act before the election.
Nov '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Nick Stuart
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Percival
That might not be the case this time. Has anything happened that would change Iran's intentions, motivations, or means?
Yes. Crippling sanctions and the threat of military action. · 2 hours ago
Seems to me that Iran's play is to buy another couple of years by agreeing to whatever they're asked to agree to, then continuing to do whatever they want to do.
As soon as the deal is inked, Obama will return his full attention to campaigning, the United States and its allies will supinely repose themselves, the initiative behind sanctions will evaporate . . . This will simply allow them to play us for chumps for another couple years. ·
Exactly.
This all reminds too much of the Carter/Clinton 1994 Agreed Framework. The North Koreans continue to endure "crippling sanctions."
Obama might very well rush into a deal with the Iranians, not so much because of a mistaken belief that Iran would abide by the agreement (even Obama is not that stupid), but more as a pretext to make it more difficult for Israel to act. One cannot underestimate the extent to which Obama's regional policy aims primarily to hamper Israel.
Edited on April 15, 2012 at 12:16amJan '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
Astonishing Our lack of resolve, past and present, propels us toward war. You (and I) are right that it's too late now.
If we do not act, Israelmust act before the election.
I certainly agree there.
We disagree on the logic of how to approach and relate to an adversary, and what we should rationally expect from them. (I don't think it's a huge disagreement, but nevertheless ... ) I'd argue that it's important to note that the adversary may not launch war himself, but unless Iran stops developing nuclear weaponry, it will provoke us to commit an act of war. (Or letting the Israeli do it.) War will come either way.
But you might be right. Let's hope we don't find out the hard way.
Sep '11
Re: Jaw Jaw is Better Than War-War
So Cathy Ashton was charmed by a suave Iranian? Cathy Ashton would be charmed by a chipmunk in a tuxedo.