What part of “yes” don’t you understand?

As the US government and media continues to ratchet up the rhetoric about “crippling sanctions” and the “military option” concerning the Iranian nuclear enrichment program (See here), one can only wonder if anyone in power in the west is listening to what is going on in Iran.

Following the brief dialogue between US and Iranian officials last year, the Iranian regime agreed to a swap of Iranian produced low enriched uranium (LEU) for more highly enriched fuel rods to be used in the medical Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). This action by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was attacked by both the political left and right in Iran for giving up Iran’s rights to enrich uranium and getting nothing in return.

Since this discussion took place during a period of political unrest in Iran, Ahmadinejad did not feel politically secure enough to move forward and backed away from the proposal. It now appears that, having been able to control the opposition movement, he is more confident.

This week Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu confirmed the Iranian position as outlined by Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization in previous statements.

“If we had 116 kilograms [of finished fuel for the TRR] today, I assure you that tomorrow I will get you 1,200 [kilograms of LEU] from Iran”.

“The mere fact that we’ve offered not to enrich uranium to 20 percent, this was a big message sent to the West.  But unfortunately they did not receive the message.  I remember in many interviews I said, ‘Please.  Please listen.  This is a big offer…We keep our promise of [only enriching up to] 5 percent, although it is our right to enrich to whatever level we want.  But we keep our promise to 5 percent.  And please enrich for us the 20 percent.’  But they didn’t.  They started putting conditions after conditions after conditions.  And then we had to start 20 percent enrichment.  And now I am saying we are ready if they—today—say ‘OK, we will supply you the fuel’, we will stop the 20 percent enrichment process.  What else do you want?”

“the only difference between us is that the swap has to be made in Iran.  And they say, ‘No, first you have to deliver your uranium to us, and then wait another one year to receive your 20 percent enriched uranium.’  But there is lack of confidence, unfortunately.”

It seems to me that if your adversary says “yes” to your proposal, you should take them up on it rather than continually threatening conflict and attacks.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Middle East,Iran Nucear Program

Playing Games in Washington

All of the threats, counter threats and other rhetorical bombast that have characterized US/Israeli relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran over the past few months have led to a number of war games or simulations of a conflict between US/Israel and Iran. These exercises have been conducted both within and outside of government circles. While these are only artificial simulations which attempt to replicate real world events, they can be useful in understanding the potential dynamics of an actual conflict.

One of the more interesting of these is a simulation of an Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear program conducted by The Brookings Institution in Washington. (A summary of the full report is here.)

The organizers began the simulation with a successful Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities without telling the US. While the US and Israeli teams initially complained that this was unlikely, they soon reached the conclusion that such an event is very probable. The US team was very angry at Israel for the unilateral attack, but they would have been even angrier if they had told the Israelis not to attack and they had done so anyway.

Another interesting dynamic was that the Israeli team felt that they had created an opportunity for the US to change the Middle East political landscape. To the contrary, the US told the Israelis “that they had made a mess and should go sit in the corner and not do anything else while the United States cleaned it up”. The US called for restraint by all parties and unsuccessfully attempted to open dialogue with Iran.

The Iran team interpreted the US restraint as a sign of weakness and having already lost their nuclear facilities had little to lose by escalating their response and testing the limits of US resolve. While the Iran team demonstrated some restraint, they responded with ballistic missile attacks on Israel and asked Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel with missiles and suicide bombings. These attacks caused few casualties, but brought the Israeli economy to its knees. “A third of our population is living in shelters 24/7.”

The Israeli team pleaded with the US team for permission to retaliate against Lebanon and Gaza and, eventually, the US relented. When Iran stepped over the US redline by mining the Straits of Hormuz and attacking Saudi oil facilities, the US began a massive military buildup in the region. It was clear by the end of the simulation that the US and Iran were headed for a major military conflict.

Such war games have their limitations. In this case one major limitation is a general lack of understanding of the opaque decision making process of the Iranian regime. Their response in the real world could be more or less aggressive. What is clear is that once Pandora’s Box is open, it is very difficult to shut it again.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Israel,Iran War