Fred Kaplan Sure Does Like John Kerry

Fred Kaplan won't let Kerry's absurdities diminsh his ardor. Mr. Kaplan appraises the debaters and pens this comedy classic in Slate:

Iran: This was an odd one. Kerry said that the United States should have provided nuclear fuel to Iran to test its true intentions, to see if Iran used the fuel for energy or bombs. If they made bombs, then we should apply sanctions. Bush said we did apply sanctions. Kerry came back that the United States applied the sanctions unilaterally instead of operating with France, Germany, and Britain. Bush replied that it wasn't his administration that applied those sanctions.

All in all, a remarkably confusing exchange in which both candidates uttered several contradictions and non sequiturs. Kerry's position, I'd thought, was to offer Iran the nuclear technology while denying them the fuel. Giving them fuel makes no sense.

Still, give the point—slightly—to Kerry, because, as he pointed out, the Bush administration's policy on Iran, to date, is to do nothing.

"Giving them fuel makes no sense". Tell John Kerry. Tell John Edwards.

Meanwhile, the Bush policy seems to be to work with our European allies, the IAEA, and the UN. I guess I will have to accept Mr. Kaplan's characterization of this as a policy to "do nothing".

Comments

[Harry in Atlanta]

Kaplan must confuse easily. Confusion is sometimes a lie that comforts denial.

[abb1]

Kaplan has no clue. May I suggest you to read this:

The Financial Times: EU urges Bush to adopt Kerry line on Iran

..."Kerry and the European positions are close in a number of ways," said Robert Einhorn, a proliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has been involved in the discussions over Iran.

The European proposal would offer Iran guaranteed and closely monitored supplies of nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors in exchange for an end to Iran's development of the full fuel cycle - specifically the enrichment of uranium that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

[abb1]

See, the thing of it is - they have a right to have nuclear powerplants, no one denies it. Either they will cook their own nuclear (that's what you guys know as 'nucular') fuel or we'll provide fuel for them.

In the later case we get to monitor how it's used, otherwise they get to develop or buy technology for themselves.

The trade-off seems quite simple.

Yeah, I know, of course it can't beat your favorite policy of just refusing to talk to the bad guys. That's the best policy there is: bully them 'til they ask for mercy. Sure, why not gamble, sounds like a sure thing. Or does it?...

[Brian]

I don't think he actually plans to carelessly give them nuclear material. It seems to be part of plan to get them to reveal their intentions:

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

This seems to in the vein of saying to someone, "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind letting me search your bag."

And in his next few paragraphs, he talks about stopping proposals to build more nuclear facilities that do not meet certain standards and working with our allies.

[Cecil Turner]

Iran has been the State Department's "most active terror sponsor" every year since 1996 (with the single exception of 1998, when no country was designated "most active"--"Patterns of Global Terrorism"):

"Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Their country floats on a sea of oil and natural gas. Their energy needs don't demand nuclear power, they don't have a right to "cook their own nuclear fuel," and there's absolutely no need to "call their bluff." They have one, obvious, use for the full nuclear cycle, and the evidence is overwhelming that they're already working on it.

There's a time and a place for bullying . . . and this is it. We've got armies on their borders now. This is not the time to give them nuclear fuel in exchange for a piece of paper we can hold overhead and declare "peace in our time"--and only the historically challenged would float such a proposal.

[Lurking Observer]

abb1:

If Iran has the right to nuclear power plants, then why the effort to get them not to do it? By this logic, if they're interested in developing nuclear power, why is there such concern?

More to the point, does every state have the right to develop nuclear weapons? Again, if so, why the concern, then, of the Iranians going down the path of nuclear weapons development? Is not self-defense a sovereign right?

No, it would seem that, for all the sanctimony surrounding your comment that Iran has the "right" to develop nuclear power (and nuclear weapons), the reality is that this is a bad thing that needs to be stopped. In which case, one has to wonder what the most effective method of preventing that is.

To your mind, it would seem to be negotiations. But, the sad American experience w/ Iran (Iran-contra, 444 days of hostage-holding) would suggest that one negotiates w/ the mullahs at one's own peril. And given the recent poor experience of European negotiations in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, where the absence of a forceful option led to more, not less, death and destruction, one has to wonder whether this is simple obstinacy, or mental derangement (defined as repeating the same mistake over and over, in the belief that this time it will work).

[Brian]

Cecil,

Did you read what I wrote? Did you go to Kerry's site?

[Cecil Turner]

"Did you read what I wrote? Did you go to Kerry's site?"

Yes. And as far as I can tell, you're somewhere between "give them nuclear fuel," a "grand bargain," "I don't think he actually plans to carelessly give them nuclear material" and "sanctions." (And again, clarity is an issue.)

Unfortunately, that falls far short of the correct answer, which is somewhere between "sanctions+containment," "Security Council resolutions+enforcement," and "regime change."

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"See, the thing of it is - they have a right to have nuclear powerplants, no one denies it."

That's what Saddam Hussein thought about twenty years ago. Israel had a different opinion.

[Brian]

Cecil,

If you go to Kerry's site, he's pretty clear that he doesn't plan to give them fuel and never look back. That negates this entire debate.

[Slartibartfast]

They literally denied it.

So, to recap:

All Iran wants is nuclear power for peaceful reasons. They're utterly disinterested in developing nuclear weapons.

All North Korea wants is nuclear power for peaceful reasons. They're utterly disinterested in developing nuclear weapons.

All A. Q. Khan's clients are simply interested in nuclear fuel for peacetime power-generation reasons. They're utterly disinterested in developing nuclear weapons.

Polyanna, anyone?

[Brian]

Slart,

Are you giving us a shorter version of abb1?

[Slartibartfast]

Take it however you want to, Brian. Because, you know, you will anyway.

[Cecil Turner]

"If you go to Kerry's site, he's pretty clear that he doesn't plan to give them fuel and never look back. "

I'd say he's pretty unclear. But regardless, his ultimate plan is to dick around for a year or so and then: "If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action." Unfortunately for that bold plan, the process has already failed. Colin Powell, in a statement last month said: "I think it's appropriate that it (the Iran case) be referred to the Security Council." We'll probably see the Security Council "action" quite soon . . . at which point the Candidate can try to come up with an actual position on the issue.

[TC]

Brilliant idea. Trust them to do the right thing. It worked for the Magnificent Clinton and North Korea...oops.

And the "do nothing" policy on Iran has that little axis of evil lodged between two American military strongholds about to realize democratic elections and a lot of dead Iranians in Najaf...and you wonder why they are speeding up to get the bomb as fast as possible.

[Michael Levy]

Even doing nothing would be better than giving them fuel!

[Denis]

If this Kaplan guy and Kerry think that working with the U.N. is doing nothing, what's their thinking with the criticisms of Bush not working with the U.N. enough prior of invading Iraq???

Are they saying that Bush didn't do nothing then? How can one make this arguement?

[Tim]

abb1 sings the old siren song of the left that appeasing evil will buy us peace. They'll never learn. Not even has the knife blade slices their throats.

[Reid]

Man, what an utterly fatuous position. Reveal their intentions? Call their bluff???? Ohmigodohmigodhowcanpeoplebesostupid.

We're talking a nation with oil and natural gas reserves out the wazoo. We're talking a country where the leadership has specifically stated their desire for nukes to achieve parity with Israel. WHAT THE HELL MORE DO YOU MORONS NEED? A notarized statement signed in radioactive ink from Khameini himself stating his desire for nuclear weapons?

[Eric Sivula]

Ok, Brian, so we give Iran nuclear fuel rods for their peaceful plants. Then in 3-6 years, when signifigant amounts of the fuel rods have become PLUTONIUM through beta decay, and the Iranians throw the IAEA oversight team out, if they didn't do it sooner, then what?

John Kerry, and you apparently, need to understand that NO nuclear reactor is PEACEFUL. All of the designs, execpt the ones fed on HIGHLY enriched Uranium, do produce plutonium while in use. Breeder plants are just better at it. The US produced its first batches of plutonium for atomic weapons in reactors that are not considered breeder reactors today. I am sure that Nagasaki was glad to know that no breeder reactors were used in the creation of Fat Man.

Or is John Kerry planning on giving Iran Highly Enriched Uranium for fast neutron reactors? Then a couple trips through the centrifuge and Insta-Nuke.

[abb1]

If Iran has the right to nuclear power plants, then why the effort to get them not to do it?

I am not aware of such an effort. Could you clarify, please?

Every country on Earth has a right to have nuclear power plants.

[Reid]

"Every country on Earth has a right to have nuclear power plants. "

The hallmark of a complete abdication of thought.

[SaveFarris]

"Every country on Earth has a right to have nuclear power plants."

Amazing! The same party that thinks every tin-horn despot in the world has the right to a nuclear reactor says that law-abiding folks can't own anything that even resembles an assault weapon.

Are these guys bat-sh*t or what?!?

[abb1]

LOL, this is what I love wingnuttery for: impeccable logic and rational no-nonsense common sense approach.

Keep 'em comming, fellas.

[Doug]

To test their true intentions?

Russia has an agreement to provide the fuel but we
(UN, EU, US) want the spent material to be returned to Russia for reprocessing.

Iran wants to have the full fuel cycle. Iran has been caught cheating on non-poliferation already. They had hidden programs.

Iran could already have what Kerry is suggesting via Russia. Iran wouldn't have to make an investment in reprocessing or enrichment.

It is pretty clear what Iran intends and they have already failed Kerry's test.

[Cosmo]

Brian writes: "If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear."

They'll take the offer, knowing that wishful thinkers in the West will draw precisely that conclusion, then procede to do exactly as they wish, all the while stonewalling various diplomats who wave pieces of paper under their noses -- just as they do now.

Their motivations are already abundantly clear.

[Brian]

"I'd say he's pretty unclear."

I don't think so. It's part of plan to call North Korea's bluff. You can disagree with that, of course, but he's not being very unclear.

"But regardless, his ultimate plan is to dick around for a year or so and then: 'If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.'"

Oh, come on, you don't really believe that, do you?

[Brian]

*M. Levy,*

"Even doing nothing would be better than giving them fuel!"

Do you not understand that this is merely calling Iran's bluff?

*Reid,*

"We're talking a nation with oil and natural gas reserves out the wazoo. We're talking a country where the leadership has specifically stated their desire for nukes to achieve parity with Israel. WHAT THE HELL MORE DO YOU MORONS NEED? A notarized statement signed in radioactive ink from Khameini himself stating his desire for nuclear weapons?"

That's just it: Kerry realizes that Iran does not want to use this stuff for power plants. He's not under that delusion.

[Brian]

Eric Sivula,

I'll ask the same question: do you not understand that he doesn't plan to carelessly give Iran this stuff and never look back? I'm not really sure how many more times I have to say it.

[Brian]

Doug,

Elaborate.

Cosmo,

"Their motivations are already abundantly clear."

Kerry knows this. He's just calling their bluff, to use a tired phrase.

[Cecil Turner]

"It's part of plan to call North Korea's bluff. You can disagree with that, of course, but he's not being very unclear."

Right. In the first place I think we were talking about Iran. In the second, maybe you can tell me what he's going to do now that the matter is being referred to the Security Council--because it seems to me that's where his position ended?

"Oh, come on, you don't really believe that, do you?"

Well, I don't really believe any part of his plan, so I guess not.

[abb1]

Their motivations are clear.

The post-WWII international law and collective security model has been destroyed as the US demonstrated that it can attack any country on earth under flimsiest pretext and considers it its prerogative.

Now every country in the world understands that the choice is: either you obtain a nuclear deterrent or you may be the next prey, unless you're willing to surrender your sovereignty. Thus almost every world leader will be trying to obtain The Deterrent, that's just logical.

Now is a very good time from their POV as the US is bogged down in Iraq and can't do much about it.

The only solution I see is to kick the crazies out of the WH and to try to restore the World Order - rule of law and collective security.

And that is not going to be easy, folks.

[Brian]

"In the first place I think we were talking about Iran."

Yes, we are. I'm sorry for that error.

"the second, maybe you can tell me what he's going to do now that the matter is being referred to the Security Council--because it seems to me that's where his position ended?"

That's what it seems like?

"Well, I don't really believe any part of his plan, so I guess not."

That didn't answer my question.

[Cecil Turner]

"That's what it seems like?"

It seems like you've developed a penchant for contentless posts. You can play that game without my help. Have fun.

[Cecil Turner]

"The post-WWII international law and collective security model has been destroyed as the US demonstrated that it can attack any country on earth under flimsiest pretext and considers it its prerogative."

Ah yes, I'd forgotten you were a devoted Chomskyite. Of course the breakdown in collective security must be blamed on the US. It couldn't have anything to do with multiple attacks on Americans by Islamist terrorists over the last decade, their state sponsors, and the utterly feckless response from the UN.

The UN's first purpose is:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace . . .

The failure to deliver on that contract was the proximate cause of the UN's irrelevance, not the US's belated enforcement of 17 UNSC resolutions. And until permanent Security Council members base their votes on something other than oil money bribes or a desire to counterbalance the US "hyperpuissance," it'll continue to be irrelevant.

"Thus almost every world leader will be trying to obtain The Deterrent, that's just logical."

These nuclear programs all sprang up in 2001? They haven't been ongoing since the '80's? And of course we must respect their sovereignty, preferably while providing them nuclear fuel, right? Incredible.

[Brian]

"It seems like you've developed a penchant for contentless posts. You can play that game without my help. Have fun."

I don't see how you reached the conclusion that you reached above. I don't see why it's bad to ask you to explain.

[abb1]

These nuclear programs all sprang up in 2001?

No, rather in 2002, when it became clear that the inmates are running the asylum in the US.

Reaganate-conservative Jude Wanniski writes:

Mr. Bush himself acknowledges that before he became President, it was the policy of the United States to have bilateral talks with North Korea, but he STOPPED that policy because he learned that North Korea was violating the 1994 Accord that provided for bilateral talks.

Now I am absolutely sure the President believes what he says, but in fact the North Koreans never violated any agreement with us. They have lived up to the letter and spirit of all their agreements with us, as far as I can tell. Kim Jong Il will happily agree to return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Safeguards Agreement, which would permit the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect any site in North Korea that seemed suspiciously to be part of a nuclear weapons program. But Kim is being most reasonable when he points out that Saddam Hussein made those same commitments and did in fact allow inspectors to snoop in every noon and cranny -- and it made no difference to President Bush. The President still decided to go to war with Iraq! It wasn't enough that Saddam was ready to agree to perpetual, intrusive inspections. If I were Kim Jong Il, I wouldn't trust Mr. Bush any further than I could throw him. Why would any serious political leader of a nation state?

http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3870

The Bushies are madder than March Hare. They beat Kim in "I am crazier than you" game. You need to wake up and smell the coffee, people - if you want to survive in this world.

[Cecil Turner]

Started in 2002, eh? Here's another report that says otherwise (hey, no problem, I got a zillion of 'em):

According to a June 2002 CIA report, described by Seymour Hersh in the January 27 New Yorker, in 1997 Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed centrifuges and how-to data on building and testing a uranium-triggered nuclear weapon. (Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are based on a Chinese implosion design that uses a core of highly enriched uranium.) In return, North Korea gave Pakistan missile technology and parts.

[MaDr]

Wanniski

Did a quick Google to see who he really is. Stopped after a few entries. This man may be a Supply Sider, but he's no Reaganite. He thinks among others: Saddam didn't gas his own people, Louis Farrakhan is a good guy, and Israel was wrong in taking out Iraqs nuclear reactor. I think he also communicates with and disseminates info for anti-US voices in the Arab world.

[abb1]

JUDE WANNISKI

As an associate editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1972 to 1978, Jude Wanniski repopularized the classical theories of supply-side economics. His book, The Way The World Works, became a foundation of the global economic transformation launched by the Reagan Administration.

Mr. Wanniski founded Polyconomics in 1978 to interpret the impact of political events on financial markets, keeping institutional investors informed on U.S. and world events that bear on their decisions. His network of long-standing relationships with members of the Executive and Congressional branches, the Federal Reserve Board and leading opinion makers augments Polyconomics` analysis. Mr. Wanniski, and Polyconomics, Inc., have achieved recognition worldwide for the efficacy of the supply-side political-economic model.

Mr. Wanniski holds a B.A. in Political Science and an M.S. in Journalism from the University of California, Los Angeles.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/bios/cbwanniski.html

That his views are different from MaDr's does not make Mr. Wanniski anti-US. Perhaps it makes MaDr anti-US?

[Eric Sivula]

Brian, HOW is Kerry going to watch the Iranians? Armed US Inspectors? IAEA personnel? Volunteers from a German centrifuge manufacturer? Until details are presented this plan is pipe dreams wrapped in faerie dust.

Telling me John Kerry is going to watch the Iranians is almost as reassuring telling me that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are going to end North Korean nuclear ambitions.

How well did that work out anyway?

[Brian]

Eric,

You can find outsome basic stuff at johnkerry.com.