Iran: The Genius of Washington's "Strategic Leaking" on Nukes & Sanctions

Gary Sick has offered the following reading of latest US policy, with private manoeuvres and public "spin", on Iran's nuclear programme and sanctions.

My own reaction is that this is "too clever by half", not on the part of the author but as attributed to Washington. As I wrote Sick, "Could it be that there there are two factions still battling within the Administraton? One faction, probably coming out of the State Department, is not as keen on aggressive sanctions. Linked to this is a wish to move the debate to the human rights rather than nuclear focus. The other faction, probably in the National Security Council and Department of Defense, is keener on a sanctions-first, nuclear-first focus. So they use New York Times as the ventriloquist's dummy for their line. I'm not sure Obama is a central player in this battle."

Sick's concise response: "One of the great benefits of strategic leaking is that it conceals the real intentions of the leakers, thereby leaving interpretation up to the observer."

Pretend for a moment that you are the president of the United States and you have gotten yourself into a bit of a hole with your Iran policy.

The Latest from Iran (4 January): Watching and Debating

First you offered to negotiate with Iran over nuclear (and potentially other) issues without the Bush preconditions. But there were powerful political forces that felt this was an example of your inexperience and even appeasement tendencies. So you unwisely accepted a six month deadline for the negotiations to show that you meant business. You tried to soften that by saying you would take another look at the issue at the end of the year, but everyone ignored that and let you know that January 1 was the drop-dead date to solve all the negotiating problems with Iran.

In the meantime, the most serious internal revolt in 30 years exploded in Iran. It was not clear how this would affect the behavior of the regime on international issues. Some said the regime was weakened and vulnerable and so would more readily yield to pressure; others thought Iran’s rulers would become more belligerent internationally to compensate for their internal weakness.

You had a couple of rounds of meetings with the Iranians and jointly came up with a fiendishly clever ploy. Iran would ship out quite a lot of its low enriched uranium (LEU), thereby reducing its stockpile that might be turned into a bomb, and Russia and France would provide them with more highly enriched fuel to be used in their research reactor that makes medical isotopes. Everybody wins. But when the Iranians took this home, they were savaged by their own political opposition for buying a pig in a poke. In disarray, they backtracked and started looking for a face-saving alternative, specifically to conduct the swap on Iranian soil or, later, in Turkey.

This situation was complicated by the discovery (or Iranian announcement, we’re not quite sure) of a previously unannounced uranium enrichment site, which was immediately inspected by the IAEA. Some think that this was Iran’s Plan B, to have a separate enrichment capability if the primary site at Natanz was bombed by Israel or the US; others think the site was intended as a covert production line to produce a bomb. The punditocracy decides that it was a covert bomb production line.

Moreover, the punditocracy, which had already decided on the deadline of January 1, now decides that the Iranians negotiated in bad faith and the negotiations were at a total dead end. The congress, which had reluctantly stayed quiet on the subject, now returned to its usual political game of looking tough by bashing Iran. Sanctions bills threatening interdiction of gasoline shipments to Iran were passed overwhelmingly in the House and were due to pass with equal margins when the Senate returned in January.

Your critics (who wanted merely token negotiations followed by crippling sanctions and, if possible, war) rubbed their hands in anticipation. A leading neoconservative gleefully remarked that everything was proceeding according to script. AIPAC issued a triumphant declaration as gasoline sanctions rolled through the Congress.

So, Mr. President, here you are on January 1. The “deadline” is upon you. Your allies and your opponents in congress are ready to hit you with a dilemma — either impose crippling sanctions or look like an appeaser. Yet you know that gasoline sanctions are perhaps the worst idea to come out of the congress since they opposed the purchase of Alaska. The sanctions would enrich and empower the Revolutionary Guards, undercut the Green opposition, identify the US as the enemy of the ordinary citizen in Iran, and possibly start us down the slippery slope to another disastrous war in the Middle East. But it looks great on a bumper sticker, and Glenn Beck [of Fox Television] will savage anyone who dares oppose it.

So what to do?

Well, Mr. President, you have some cards of your own up your sleeve. You know that Israel is not really going to attack Iran. They can’t do anything significant without US help, and George Bush already told them not to expect that. But they have invested so much in their campaign to convince the Israeli population and the entire world that Israel’s survival as a nation is imminently in peril that they can’t be seen to back down. They might welcome some help to get them off their own sticky wicket.

You also know that the Iranian nuclear program is nowhere near a bomb and has actually made little progress in that direction for years, regardless of the punditocracy consensus to the contrary in defiance of the facts. There is plenty of time if you can just calm the domestic political furor.

It’s time for some strategic leaking.

First, give an exclusive interview to The Washington Post just before the New Year’s “deadline” that makes two major points: (1) The administration’s policy of engagement has succeeded in creating turmoil and fractures within Iran’s leadership, i.e. the policy has been a success, not a failure; and (2) the administration is planning for highly targeted sanctions that will hit the Revolutionary Guards rather than the average Iranian citizen. That sends a clear signal to the congress that its infatuation with petroleum sanctions is not replicated in the White House, for all the reasons listed above, and to the uber hawks that there will be no rush to war with Iran in the new year. At the same time, launch a major rhetorical campaign by the president in support of the civil and political rights of the Iranian opposition.

It works. The increasingly hawkish Washington Post editorial board commends the president for his “shift” on human rights (though piously calling for more) and ignores the sanctions game in congress.

Of course, having fed the Washington Post, the New York Times is jealous and needs its own exclusive. Provide that over the New Year holiday by letting as many as six top administration officials meet privately and anonymously with two NYT reporters to let them in on some more secrets: (1) In another cunning success, the administration has outed the covert Iran bomb production facility at Qom thereby rendering it useless; (2) hint that the administration may be responsible for sabotaging Iran’s centrifuges, which accounts for the fact (completely unacknowledged until now, despite being reported for the past two years by the IAEA) that Iran is not actually using about half of its installed centrifuges; (3) reiterate that the coming sanctions are to be aimed at the Revolutionary Guards, not the average Iranian citizen, and are likely to succeed because the regime is so weakened internally; and (4) declare unequivocally that the Iranian “breakout capability,” i.e. its ability to shift from nuclear energy to actually building a bomb, is now years away.

This also works. The two NYT reporters, though apparently a bit confused about this U-turn in threat assessment from only three months ago, dutifully report what they have been told. The administration is credited with several successes, and the reporters seem convinced that the White House is showing toughness and skill in derailing the Iranian nuclear rush to the bomb. In the meantime, the reporters scarcely note that the administration is not declaring the negotiations dead after all and is pursuing the Turkish option of a uranium swap. No mention of a deadline.

Finally, the NYT reports that the Israelis have been persuaded that the targeted sanctions now being discussed are worth trying “at least for a few months.” That was attributed to a senior Israeli official on the basis of back channel talks, but it had actually been announced by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the Knesset a week earlier in a speech that received almost no attention in the U.S. No more talk of deadlines, crippling sanctions or air strikes.

In short, Mr. President, you have taken what appeared to be a losing hand and, with a few well-placed leaks, transformed it into a victory over Iran. You have converted a lose-lose proposition of crippling sanctions vs appeasement into an Iranian nuclear collapse. The imminent threat of Iran has become an indefinite delay of its breakout capability. The huffing and puffing of the congress has been rendered irrelevant even before it hits your desk. A deadline has become a new beginning of negotiations. And you brought the Israelis along with you, without a peep of complaint. As for the punditocracy, so far so good.

Not bad for a beginner, Mr. President!

Comments

[Observer]

"I’m not sure Obama is a central player in this battle.”

Me either!

[Pic]

Scott,

With all due respect, focusing on the US is a distraction. The future of the regime is being played in Tehran and the only thing we need from Washington is to maintain the high road "universal rights" discourse but do nothing that gives ammunition to Khameneinejad. For once we have a movement in Iran that's propulsed by requests for civil and human rights rather than centered on a personality ( Mossadegh, Khomeini, etc.). The regime is even more discredited now than the Shah's in 2008 and while it has the institutional brute force power to cling in place for a while, sooner rather than later it will be swept away.

[Barry]

PIC

"With all due respect, focusing on the US is a distraction. "

I agree. This article achieves nothing - except to show us what a wonderful wordsmith the writer is. Reminds me of some jazz players that just love to dazzle you with their abilities with their instrument - but does not advance the history of music one bit.

Just another "talking head" !

Barry

[Scott Lucas]

Pic,

I appreciate the point --- my own interest in the analysis is in its reading of US foreign policy and the workings within the Administration, rather than in it as a marker of US influence in the Iranian situation.

S.

[whereismyvote]

One question. Iranian people have tried to no avail to target the Pasdaran economic / social and military muscle. They are so entrenched in all levels with their ownership of companies, cross contracts to others and ownership of many many industrial / social and economical assets, I wonder what these targeted sanctions are? They worry many in Iran, for they will inevitably hurt the wrong person.

[Barry]

Whereismyvote

"They worry many in Iran, for they will inevitably hurt the wrong person."

It is my thinking that perhaps this is exactly what is needed in Iran.

It seems to me (have said this before) that the "masses" of the Iranian people have NOT come out against the Regime at this time. I say this in spite of the numbers seen just after the election. Although these numbers were large, they were not a sufficiently large "critical mass" to turn the tide against the Regime. In many respects the situation is now at an impasse.

Fear causes people to work out what the outcome of an equation is for them personally - what will hurt me the most? Going outside my house or staying inside my house? At the moment, it is less painful for them to stay inside.

Although it is obvious that there is quite a lot of turmoil inside the Regime, they are not going to walk away just yet. There needs to be something which brings the people onto the streets in bigger numbers that what we have seen so far - until this happens, the Regime will stay around.

Barry

[Barry]

These financial sanctions http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/changing-tehran-no-pain-no-gain.html

Barry

[Mike]

You need to stop labeling your titles with "Iran". You should just tag it with "Helping Obama Succeed for Another Term". Just when I think this is going to be a well written and most importantly, a well informed article, it just slides away into spin and dribble.

Your comment:

"First, give an exclusive interview to The Washington Post just before the New Year’s “deadline” that makes two major points: (1) The administration’s policy of engagement has succeeded in creating turmoil and fractures within Iran’s leadership, i.e. the policy has been a success, not a failure;"

Why would you promote spin that takes away all the credit for the Green Movement who happens to be 100% responsible for the fracture and the termoil in the regime right now. The people who have all their chips in the pot is by no means the result of this administration's adroit political maneuvering. What you suggest is an insult the freedom movement just proves that you are intrinsically apathetic to everything outside of your agenda and this is the type stuff keeps America wrangling about our self centered issues. What has happened so far is that this Titanic like administrating doesn't know what to do, and it's taken some hard line proposals and resolutions to shake it out of its dazed and confused state. Unfortunately it will take a lot of this kind of spin to get back on track.

"and (2) the administration is planning for highly targeted sanctions that will hit the Revolutionary Guards rather than the average Iranian citizen."

The Revolutionary Guards control almost every thing in Iran. So where is Obama going to hit them when he talks about sanctions? They control construction, public transportation, telephone, internet, the Bazaar and much more. To me it sounds like Obama's making campaign promises again, he's trying to sound friendlier by singling out heathens who murder their own people on YouTube clips sent from Iran. Any sanction is going to hurt the regime and the people too, what he needs to do is be a leader and enforce them. Saddam survived years of sanctions because European countries, Russia and China couldn't adhere to them, France opposed any invasion to protect multi-billion dollar reactor deals.
Let's hit the regime where it hurts, declare them an illegal and repressive government and freeze all assets that the leadership have stolen from the people of Iran. This will require a lot real politics to get other countries to agree to and then enforce it with diplomacy.

Think about it, for thirty years Iranians have watched their economy tank and many are unemployed. The situation is bad with out of control drug addictions due to poverty, and inflation is through the roof. All of this and the fear of being arrested in the night by secret police!? I think the Iranians can survive, it's regime that has to hold on to power.

I hope that it pans out for Iran in the end but we as Americans have reach deep inside and admit that it was accomplished without any decisive and aggressive policy that would have supported them. I hope this new year will be one we can be proud off, and not ashamed that we let so many suffer and die for the chance to live with the freedoms that we live with and don't appreciate.

[Mike Dunn]

Mike, it should probably be pointed out that the parts you're taking issue with here are Gary Sick's analysis rather than Scott Lucas' (see the first three paragraphs, in italics).