This morning Emanuele Ottolenghi discussed Ray Takeyh’s suggestion, in yesterday’s Washington Post, to accept Iran’s program to enrich uranium. Ottolenghi identifies the critical problem with this proposal: it rewards Tehran’s past violations of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations. Let’s look at another drawback with Takeyh’s suggestion: it simply will not work.
Takeyh first (correctly) argues that Tehran will not peacefully give up its nuclear program-there is a broad consensus to continue it among regime leaders. The Council on Foreign Relations scholar then suggests “it is time to discard the formula of ‘suspension for incentives’ for one that trades ‘enrichment for transparency.’ ”
Takeyh, in other words, believes we should try to put an especially rigorous verification system in place to prevent the mullahs from using their new expertise to build bombs. He also thinks we should attempt to get Iran to limit its stockpile of fissile material. And should the Iranians fail to accept these measures, he hopes Russia and China will drop their support for Iran.
Takeyh’s suggestions have the advantage of putting Tehran–as well as Moscow and Beijing–to the test. Iran’s rejection of them–or Russian and Chinese continued support for Iranian nuclear efforts–would make it easier for the West to come together to stop the theocracy. On a theoretical level, this sounds great.
So why are Takeyh’s proposals misconceived? Let’s think how Tehran’s leaders will respond. If I were a mullah, the first thing I would do, to appear conciliatory, is agree to limit my declared stockpile of enriched uranium as Takeyh suggests. Then I would refuse to permit the intrusive measures that Takeyh has in mind, such as constant surveillance, continual environmental sampling, and no-notice inspections. Without these safeguards, I know I could run a parallel bomb program in secret. It does not take too much imagination to see how I could create intense pressure on Washington to keep the peace and accept a system of inadequate supervision. After all, as a mullah I know that the Great Satan’s State Department always caves in at critical moments.
Well, I’m not a mullah, and I am against dangerous compromises. The Iranian regime has already shown itself to be an untrustworthy custodian of nuclear technology. The regime, after all, hid whole facilities from U.N. inspectors for almost two decades in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the outing of secret facilities in 2002 by a dissident group, Iranian officials have stalled inspectors, lied to them, and changed their story when it became clear they had fibbed. They have told the truth only when there has been no alternative. Now, they are enriching uranium in defiance of a Security Council resolution and three sets of U.N. sanctions-as well as building missiles suitable only for nuclear warheads.
Takeyh is right that the Iranians cannot be persuaded to give up their enrichment program. Yet he is most certainly wrong when he writes this: “It is impossible to turn back the clock.” The United States, should it so choose, can reverse time, at least as far as Iran’s possession of enrichment technology is concerned. In the end we may decide not to use force, but the option does indeed exist.
Ah yes, the press is starting to grumble. Reminds me of Commentary’s election coverage, when some imaginery storm clouds were always forming on Obama’s horizon, some building problem that would soon engulf him.
Look, unless you have a way to ensure that the media is peopled with high-school dropouts who attand church at least once a week, Republicans have little chance of gaining control of the press. Journalism requires some curiousity about the world, a natural inclination to question authority, regard for facts and truth and typically the ability to write. Those just aren’t conservative skill sets.
Obama has long shown contempt for the media that fawns on him. Remember this letter of complaint from six news media to David Plouffe and Robert Gibbs during the campaign:
“Last night, the press corps traveling with Senator Obama was misled, and was also flown to Chicago without the Senator. The Washington bureau chiefs of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News, and the Associated Press strongly protest the events of last night.
To review, the press corps was told the Senator would be in the motorcade from Bristol to the airport. He was not. Then, the press corps was told the Senator would actually join them at the airport. He did not. When pressed repeatedly, Robert Gibbs and other press aides insisted the Senator was on his way to the airport. He was not. When the campaign plane took off without the candidate, there were loud protests from the press corps because we were not given the option of staying in Washington. We do not commit to fly on charters to fly with press aides; we make that commitment to fly with the candidate. Each of our organizations is reviewing whether we will reimburse the campaign for last night’s flight.
The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one. We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth. ”
Guess that is another hope Obama will not be fulfilling.
—”There’s an old fable—”
Old,boring and false. The scorpion always has his lifeboat nearby.
Trev, a man who can’t spell “curiosity,” is a bit too eager to condemn Republicans as ignorant.
The “press” is such a large industry of so many outlets that of course there will always be those who feel slighted in some way. We heard the same crap when Bush was prez and how the press access was limited, etc…
The bottom line is that in this modern society, with so many sources for information – all of us have the opportunities to stay constantly informed with factual information and partisan viewpoints from all perspectives. There is no credible story here regarding “grumblings by the MSM”, at least from my perspective simply because I don’t believe that there is any information that the public is entitled to know that it doesn’t have access to know about. The MSM is doing a great job and serves this democracy well. If one doesn’t like a particular outlet of “MSM”, then simply change the channel or website. The information that one desires in whatever particular format that is desired is widely and readily available – regardless of crybaby journalists.
Why should there even be a press room in the White House? Let them submit questions by email or fax and the answers can be sent out as press releases. The Helen Thomas carnival is a joke.
“We heard the same crap when Bush was prez and how the press access was limited, etc…”
The difference is the press did not go out of their way to find and print favorable stories about Bush as they mooned and swayed over Laura’s strengths and sense of fashion and the news network journalists didn’t admit to getting thrills up their legs when thinking about him during the campaign. They didn’t cry when he won either election. The press was not favorable to Bush throughout the campaign, nor the ensuing 8 years, the majority of newspapers publicly endorsed the other guy both times, and somehow the fact that Bush didn’t offer them unfettered access to him is comparable?
As some of the regulars here know, I am skeptical when I hear of the press growing disenchanted with Obama. They are rather frustrated with Obama’s handlers, and perhaps a tad frustrated with Obama, because they love Obama and want access to him. With Bush, the press wanted access so that they could be critical. With Obama, the press wants access so they can fawn over him, bask in his presence, feel the tingle running up their legs, enjoying calling him “Mr President” and generally wet themselves in their excitement.
So consider my doubtful. Sounds more like the inferior in the romantic relationship complaining that the powerful one doesn’t spend enough time with him/her.
I agree with Ahithophel. The relationship will have to get a lot more abusive before the press seeks a divorce. Love is like that.
#9 is spot on…and, besides, several members of the white house press corps look simply smashing in their golden kneepads…
OOOOOH, the brilliant backadafoot (5)! What society is not “modern” during the time of its existence? This seems to be precisely the kind of attribute that tref considers typical of the blind lemmings of the American “media.” (Related, of course, to mediocre, though that’s too kind.)
White House press conference appearances were big career builders for Sam Donaldson and David Gregory.
Hey #11 Alexander A-Hole –
Back at ya puto senorito! It’s always the greatest pleasure to receive your rediculous neg criticism. Now if only your wife, neighbors or anyone else that has to listen to you could only take you seriously…. Perhaps you can blame your pathetic existence on the MSM as well.
People often have said that troulbe and pressure do not form character, they reveal it. On the contrary, good times and power reveal what is truly underneath the political election facade. Many of us suspected that President Obama’s comfort in operating within the ugly and corrupt 19th century Chicago power-is-all-there-is machine was a harbinger of what would obtain once the niceties had been disposed of.
What we are seeing is a bit of unnecessary pettiness and testy impatience in Remaking the World, slapping hands that reach out.
In short, Mr. Obama is a bit of a smooth, on-the-surface-appealing….. jerk. His press spokesperson, Gibbs, almost perfectly reflects the boss’s attitude.
Prepare yourselves for 4 years of “I won” as he tries to rub everyone’s face in the manure pile if we don’t adopt the proper obsequious tone to the federal takeover of nearly everything and Chicago-style patronage government jobs crowding out the private economy.
I hope that David Brooks and Chris Buckley enjoy every minute.
For accuracy’s sake, no such thing as EbonyJet magazine. There’s an Ebony magazine and a JET magazine.
He needs a spokesman he trusts, to interface with the media. Maybe Ayers.
“I don’t believe that there is any information that the public is entitled to know that it doesn’t have access to know about. The MSM is doing a great job and serves this democracy well.”
What astonishing ignorance. Even an adversarial press glimpses perhaps 10 per cent of what goes on in government, as an insider told me once. (He helped put Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer into office). What percentage of information do you think a fawning press will deliver about the Obama White House ?
If the MSM are the frog in this scenario, the folk song “Froggie went a-courtin’” is hilariously apposite.
The lyrics are here:
http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/froggie-went-courtin
A Kill-Lease Heal,
your own worthless comments make you look worse than anybody else could ever hope to. You’re also an unintentionally excellent spokesperson for left-wing ideology.
Keep up the good work.