Posted on 03/09/2006 10:32:21 AM PST by Dark Skies
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Grudgingly admired in the past by the West for its negotiating skills, Iran may have misjudged its recent confrontational tactics in the nuclear standoff.
Miscalculating both its own bargaining strength and world resolve on the nuclear issue has weakened Iran's familiar blend of brinkmanship and conciliation, diplomats and analysts say.
But despite its apparently uncompromising stance, Iran is risk-averse and will probably redouble efforts to defuse the dispute in the coming weeks, they add.
"The regime is ultimately cautious and tends to prefer a controlled crisis as opposed to full confrontation," said a senior European Union diplomat in Tehran.
"The problem is, they've been so explicit about their red lines and what they won't concede on that they have made it very hard for themselves to reach any kind of compromise. In that sense, perhaps, they've mishandled things lately."
Experienced diplomats say that while the tactics employed by Iran's nuclear negotiators have changed little, their style has been transformed compared with the team in place before hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in August.
"With (former top negotiator Hassan) Rohani there was more of a dialogue. He was very keen to know how we would react if Iran did this or that," said another senior Western diplomat.
"With the new team it's more of a monologue. We just shout our prepared statements at each other and leave," he said.
THREATS BACKFIRE
Explicit threats issued by Iran on Wednesday to inflict "harm and pain" on Washington and possibly to curb oil exports, do more harm than good, analysts said.
"Everyone knows what Iran can do to harm Western interests if it chooses, but by saying these things they will only goad the Americans into tougher action," said one Iranian political analyst, who asked not to be named.
President Ahmadinejad's threats to "wipe Israel off the map" and comments doubting the scale of the Holocaust have solidified Western views, closing differences Iran had earlier exploited.
And, as the failed attempts to strike a last-minute deal with Russia over uranium enrichment showed, even sympathetic nations have grown skeptical about Iran's ploys, diplomats said.
"People have become more cynical about Iran's tactics because we've seen them employ the same methods time and time again," said the EU diplomat.
Thus, where Iran's efforts to strike a new deal with the EU and Russia might have prospered in the past, "now we can see that they were just trying to get away with the appearance of compromise in order to avoid the Security Council without really giving up anything," the diplomat added.
Diplomats expect Iran to resume very shortly efforts to strike an enrichment deal with Russia and the EU, but strong voices within the leadership are believed to oppose compromise.
"They base their argument on the theory that the U.S. is determined to confront Iran over its nuclear case at some stage and it's better to confront them now from a position of strength," said a strategic consultant in Tehran.
OVERCONFIDENT?
High oil prices and relentless instability in Iraq, combined with Iran's ability to stir up trouble in Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, do weigh on Western policymakers' minds when contemplating tougher action against Tehran.
Iran can also draw comfort from the anti-sanctions posture of veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China, but by pursuing its confrontational stance it may overplay its hand.
"They do have cards to play but they may be overestimating how far they can push this. It's a high-stakes situation now," said the Western diplomat.
Frustrated European diplomats had openly expressed admiration in the past of Iran's negotiating ploys, which for almost three years kept it out of serious trouble despite mounting evidence of an 18-year cover-up of its nuclear work.
"They're seriously good. It's like they're playing chess and can see all the moves ahead," a diplomat at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said in 2004.
So far, internal dissent about the choice of negotiating tactics has been muted, with influential moderates such as former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani merely reiterating Iran's determination to seek atomic technology for peaceful use.
Public opinion also remains broadly supportive, spurred on by a compliant local media that focuses on the West's perceived unfair treatment of Iran's nuclear case.
But, analysts say, dissenting voices may emerge if sanctions are imposed or military strikes appear more likely.
Naaahhh..
The US has no ability to engage in military enforcement of its policy. The Democrat party has seen to that.
The UN has no ability to enforce sanctions... Oil-for-food has demonstrated that.
Israel can't stop them because their planes can't reach Iran and they can not pre-emptively use missles with any effect.
Iran is on their way and there is no way to stop them. They know it. Once they get get the nukes, they will use them because suicide is an OK thing in their religion.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
Yada, yada, yada. "They're seriously good" says an official of the European based yada yada. "experienced diplomats say" yada yada. Rooters says yada yada.
The long and the short of it is that this will end in a nuclear catastrophe unless the U.S. acts, against the protests of its own Fifth Column.
It doesn't take a genius to keep European diplomats talking, talking, talking.
Iran is on their way and there is no way to stop them. They know it. Once they get get the nukes, they will use them because suicide is an OK thing in their religion.
I think you're probably on the money with that theory. We will find out soon enough.
I'm continually amazed at the lack of serious geopolitical analysis by MSM writers, especially when such analysis would lead the writer to a negative view of Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or European nations. The MSM is now filled with self-destructive kids who only want to attack and tear down their own country. MSM articles about Iran look like something written by teenagers that you would read in a high school newspaper.
Unfortunately you are both correct. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are at risk and likely will perish in one or more attacks on US soil. That will prompt a massive retaliation by a coalition of mostly English speaking countries with a few European allies, against a number of Islamic entities in the middle-east and possibly Asia. The only question is when?
Instant sunshine, anyone???
Serious geopolitical analysis requires a profound understanding of history, geography, economics, psychology, comparative politics, and perhaps, game theory, the leisure to reflect on an existing situation and the ability to synthesize knowledge and provide probablistic assessments of the likely behavior of others. And, of course, the MSM writers fail on every point. And you're surpised they don't do better?
I think you are correct that the US will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons, but if the Iranians use either nuclear or chemical/biological weapons, we will not hesitate to reply with nuclear weapons. The problem will come if Iran announces it has a nuclear weapon, but doesn't use it. We will probably only attack conventionally in that case, although if we knew the location of a nuclear weapon, I don't think I'd rule out our using a tactical nuke to take it out, but I think we'd rather be able to have evidence of the enemy weapon.
For once in my life, I can actually say I understand the merits of "Political Appointees" in getting the job done right!
A little history never hurts...
http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
Parkinson had it right.
LOL!!!! Well, no. They were no more admired for their negotiating skills than was Hitler. Their gambling skills are somewhat admirable, as they (like Hitler) seemed to have an excellent grasp of the limits of their opponents' aversion to violence.
Like Hitler, however, they got (are getting...) too cocky.
Hell, the writer (and apparently his "experienced diplomat" sources) don't even recognize the game Iran's playing, much less how to win it.
This isn't, and has never been, a "diplomatic" issue; it's always been about Iran pushing its threats "just far enough" to get what they want without crossing the line into inviting a military response.
The "diplomacy" around the issue of the Sudetenland in 1938 is rather disturbing in its similarities to what's been happening in Iran.
(Frustrated European diplomats had openly expressed admiration in the past of Iran's negotiating ploys, which for almost three years kept it out of serious trouble despite mounting evidence of an 18-year cover-up of its nuclear work.
"They're seriously good. It's like they're playing chess and can see all the moves ahead," a diplomat at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said in 2004.)
Are these Europeans that stupid, or do they play stupid on TV? I'd say 90% of Freepers from the beginning knew the European negotiations with Iran would just buy time for Iran. And for being used like a b*tch, they in turn express admiration! How pathetic can they get?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.