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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS