Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi)

Washington Post ^ | June 25, 2006 | Richard Perle

[West Coast Conservative]

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran knows what he wants: nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; suppression of freedom at home and the spread of terrorism abroad; and the "shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

President Bush, too, knows what he wants: an irreversible end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the "expansion of freedom in all the world" and victory in the war on terrorism.

The State Department and its European counterparts know what they want: negotiations.

For more than five years, the administration has dithered. Bush gave soaring speeches, the Iranians issued extravagant threats and, in 2003, the State Department handed the keys to the impasse to the British, French and Germans (the "E.U.-3"), who offered diplomatic valet parking to an administration befuddled by contradiction and indecision. And now, on May 31, the administration offered to join talks with Iran on its nuclear program.

How is it that Bush, who vowed that on his watch "the worst weapons will not fall into the worst hands," has chosen to beat such an ignominious retreat?

Proximity is critical in politics and policy. And the geography of this administration has changed. Condoleezza Rice has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice's influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of -- and increasingly represents -- a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries.

[glorgau]

He didn't blink, he tossed the ball in Euros court. They have shown their effectiveness and are now beginning to re-learn their place.

[pacpam]

I'm beginning to have a different opinion of Richard Perle and it isn't toward the good side.

[Arizona Carolyn]

He was one of the attendees at Bilderberg a week ago -- along with Hillary and others...

[Publius]

For a while it appeared that Iran was next on our dance card. However, North Korea and Venezuela have barged to the head of the line and demanded our attention.

We'll dance with Iran next year.

[jveritas]

He did not blink, he is just playing chess with the Iranians but the stupid people cannot tell this. Iran will not have nuclear weapons under the Presidency of George W Bush, period.

[txrangerette]

They might as well ask why (or when) did he stopped beating his wife...

[Aria]

I'm not so sure the Iranians are stupid...wrong...but not so stupid. Not good.

[massadvj]

This is premature on Perle's part. At the end of the day, if Iran's weapons are to be taken out, it would be best to have the support of the entire NATO alliance, even the French. That will be likely if Bush is seen to have done everything diplomatically possible to solve the problem.

Iran's nukes are a greater threat to Europe than to the US. Letting the Europeans take the lead and ultimately conclude that this is more than just a ploy by the Iranians to strongarm the west into concessions is an important step in the runup to war.

Personally, I have more confidence in Condi Rice than Richard Perle.

[DannyTN]

"North Korea and Venezuela have barged to the head of the line"

If you remember North Korea acted up right before the Iraq war in an effort to distract the focus of the administration.

I think this is no different.

[jveritas]

The Iranians are stupid to think they can build a nuclear bomb and think that President Bush will not stop them with any mean. President Bush will not allow them to have nuclear weapons or the means to build it.

Regarding"stupid people" in my post I was more referring to the people here in the US who still do not understand President Bush.

[The Westerner]

Perle is entirely right. I read this with great interest because he was in the know. Rice was never as strong a player as people on FR seemed to think. She smiled and giggled when interviewed about the E-3 incident. She has nothing to contribute to world peace except the same stale ideology of appeasement. Bush will be remembered in history as one of the worst Presidents..because he did not stand up to the true source of terror in this world: Iran, when he had all the resources and all the moral fervor of his countrymen to do so after 9-11. And it looks like he never will and the MidEast is headed toward a conflagration.

[penelopesire]

"I'm beginning to have a different opinion of Richard Perle and it isn't toward the good side."

Welcome aboard. Perle and others hawked the war in Iraq..now on the turn of a dime..they want us to take out Iran without a blink while we are still trying to secure Iraq!!
They (Krystal included) sound like spoiled little children that did not get their blinky! What do they do? They start to undermine our President at every turn. Instead of looking forward with an understanding that this is a war that will take many decades to win and supporting the types of conservatives that in the long run will bring it about...they sit and whine like spoiled rotten children that scream for their ice cream when it is front of their face! Screw eemmmm.....

[penelopesire]

"Personally, I have more confidence in Condi Rice than Richard Perle."

Dittos!!

[penelopesire]

Good grief..remind me not to hang out with you when we kill Osama. You are like that 'Downer couple' on SNL!!...LOL

[section9]

Perle is right to be suspicious of Iran. If this were another Michael Ledeen column, I'd ignore it, but it is Richard Perle. So what is going on is the commencement of a huge power struggle in Washington over Iran policy which is what the President doesn't need right now.

Perle is a serious player, and this column was a broadside to Condi to tell her that her policy will not pass muster without opposition unless it is explained to conservatives that Iranians will not be allowed to cheat and retreat. No enrichment means no enrichment. She will be held to the "no enrichment" policy. Any deviation and a chorus of "appeasement" will come up from the Republican Party. This is a warning to the White House: no truckling under to Nazis. Period.

What Rice needs to do is to remember where her base is, and to make sure that she sits down with people like Perle and Ledeen and to remind them that she was a hardliner Soviet specialist for decades. Henry Kissinger lost his entire base of support when Republicans decided that "detente" meant "appeasement".

I'm convinced that Rice understands that she's dealing with a bunch of bad actors. Unfortunately, we don't have the best allies, and the Chicoms and the Rus are playing a double game.

Be Seeing You

Chris

[Minuteman23]

The State Department and its European counterparts know what they want: negotiations.

The rest of this article, though good, is redundant.

It's time to get some new blood in the state department. Too many entrenched ideologues too used to "dialogue" and compromise with the enemy.

[WLR]

I suspect after consultations with Israeli intelligence we know Iran's actual status.

We know we can wait and roughly for how long before the Israelis feel they must act. That waiting does as someone else said puts others in the mix. Further it gives us time to work on current projects and prepare should we have to take action.

Just smart.

W

[penelopesire]

Most of this article is nothing but an attempt to divide the base(us). We all know that the State Department has a bunch of entrenched left wing cronies and clinton holdovers.....wake up..the only reason that the Washington Compost printed Perles 'tantrum' was in the hope that we will all get mad about it.

Get real..we need to be on the side of our troops right now..like our President. Our troops don't need to 'open' Iran right now..especially when we can nuke them if push comes to shove!

[TheCrusader]

"President Bush will not allow them to have nuclear weapons or the means to build it."

What do you mean? The entire world knows that Iran has the means to build a nuclear bomb, and that they are just one little step away from having it. That's what the whole uproar is about.

I honestly can't understand why so many people look at Bush as some genius who just toys with the bad guys like a champion poker player, and then when it really counts he'll just pull out that big 'trump card' and win the day. But I have learned over time that Bush is not always playing "poker", and many of those times when it looks like he's not doing so well it's because he isn't doing so well.

I don't know what tomorrow will bring, maybe Bush will pull out some kind of 'trump card' and set Iran's nuclear bomb ambitions back 50 years; but so far Iran is laughing in Bush's face as they continue to build their nuclear weapon, and Bush isn't doing a thing about it except threaten them with some kind of useless sanctions. Frankly, I think Iran has Bush over the proverbial barrel and he doesn't know what do about it.

[WLR]

You are right. The problem is that these people are "enlightened, broad minded, see the big picture" while you and I do not. I know first hand they in large measure view GIs as retrograde and conservatives as subhuman.


W

[penelopesire]

"Frankly, I think Iran has Bush over the proverbial barrel and he doesn't know what do about it."

What is your "Iran Plan"?

[TheCrusader]

"Perle and others hawked the war in Iraq..now on the turn of a dime..they want us to take out Iran without a blink while we are still trying to secure Iraq!"

Iraq will never be secured, you must know that by now. It takes a madman with an iron hand like Saddam to keep those animals 'secured'. They are an archaic people who are a real throwback to medieval times, and their tribal warfare against each other has become so much a part of their way of life that it isn't going to change any time soon.

The hatred between their rival factions, sunnis, shiites, kurds is as ancient and deep as the hatred between Israel and the Palisitians. This hatred won't be appeased by a forced 'democracy', and the rivals will forever be murdering each other for revenge or for power. So maybe it is time to let go of Iraq and deal squarely with Iran, which is a much bigger threat to the world right now.

For all the bluff and bluster that Iran is spewing out, I believe that if we mass our forces against them in a dramatic and awesome showdown then they will back down immediately and comply with the world's demands. And if they don't, then the Iranian regime will come to a bloody end and their nuclear manufacturing facilities will be destroyed. Any further delaying of dealing militarily with Iran is a huge sign of unwillingness and weakness, and Iran will only become more emboldened by our inaction.

[Minuteman23]

The problem is that these people are "enlightened, broad minded, see the big picture" while you and I do not. I know first hand they in large measure view GIs as retrograde and conservatives as subhuman.

Absolutely. The majority of these people are ivory tower elitists who think that consistent past failures are just proof that the wrong people were implementing the policies. Their superiority and condescending attitude toward the people who make this country work is sickening. And what's worse is that it's putting all our lives in danger.

[Minuteman23]

We all know that the State Department has a bunch of entrenched left wing cronies and clinton holdovers.

Most on this forum know that, but the average American looks at the State Department with something like reverance, and in this case ignorance isn't bliss.

[TheCrusader]

"What is your "Iran Plan"?"

That's hard to say, but I do know what our general options are. We can either take out their nukes with laser guided bombs and cruise missles, or attack them with our full forces and overthrow their rotten government and dismantle their nuclear facilities. We can continue 'negotiating' with the bearded little madman who spits on our olive branch and laughs in our faces. We can also use NATO to continue to threaten them with useless sanctions, or we can actually employ those sanctions then wait and see what happens. Our last option is to do nothing at all and just let them have their nukes.

I suppose another option would be for Bush to wait and see if Isreal will attack, because they obviously have the biggest stake in the whole deal. But that option just plays into the hands for the Mohammedans, because it would inflame the entire region of Jew-hating muslims into battle mode, and even our so-called "allies" like Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, etc, might turn against us.

If it's really true that Iran is just one little baby step away from having a nuclear bomb, (as most of the experts are claiming), then I believe the only option is to threaten them with force; and if that doesn't move them to into compliance, then take decisive military action. I would warn the little madman with the greasy beard to open up his nuke sites for insepction, or else they will be destroyed. If he doesn't comply the I'd nuke ONE of their nuclear facilities with a small tactical nuke. And so on, until they either comply and open their sites up to inspection, or simply loose them all, one-by-one, to our nuclear arsenal. I got this ingenious idea from Harry Truman. It worked for him.

[Aria]

We can only hope you're right. Maybe the Israel will sneak over there and do the deed.
I think the Iranians are drunk with power from all that oil money - they got lucky and they think it makes them right....I wish we could shut off the spigot.

[WLR]

"What do you mean? The entire world knows that Iran has the means to build a nuclear bomb, and that they are just one little step away from having it. That's what the whole uproar is about."

Perhaps... Further if we had a Loyal Opposition instead of the treasonous Quislings we do the President might have more latitude to act.

You comments bring to mind two incidents.

When the Russians launched Sputnik the Media (a different media) went bonkers and people savaged Eisenhower for letting the Russians "Get Ahead of us" flying over the US with a satellite etc. Publicly Eisenhower was hurt. Asking if people really thought he would put the security of the US at risk. Privately he was Hot!!! Because what he would not tell the public is we were over flying the Soviet Union all the time.

Fast forward: Kennedy during the Cuban Crisis. He also got frustrated at people asking what was going on. In a momentary lapse he gave a brief insight into what we really knew to the public. The CIA (a different CIA) went bonkers as they lost intelligence capabilities because of it.

What the President does or does not know is echelons above my pay grade. So for me it is a hard call. I have seen some pretty neat things done by good leaders and so I just have to hope and pray for the best.

In a lot of ways we are all just along for the ride.

BTW Crusader sees the Arabic Islamic Culture clearly.
They are all about transitory self interest so beating them is not as hard as we are making it.

W

[Texasforever]

I think Iran will take care of itself. That government is not sustainable given the overwhelming youth of the population. I really believe it will be overthrown.

[WLR]

When people on an American Embassy staff earn more money in :Hazardous duty pay alone than an Infantry Sgt fighting in Iraq earns as his base pay. How could people in those economic classes ever comprehend the concerns and dreams of average Americans. It is not funny but I have to laugh to keep from crying when I listen to some radio finance guy giving advice to someone on how to "invest" their $50,000 or $100,000 for retirement. I think how a single term in the House of Representative earns the "Elected Official $140,000 for life.

It is not all about money but money affects how you view the world. Al Gore thinks $5 a gallon for gas is just peachy. Tell that to my Son in Law who just received his paramedic certification and is completing his firefighting courses. All while working 75 hours a week at three jobs for $10 an hour. That is what he must do to on his own care for his wife (my daughter) and their two sons. Interestingly my wife of 25 years who is one heck of a hard worker herself still opines he is lazy for a 24 year old ...jeez can you imagine the poor guy married to her LOL :).

W

[BJungNan]

Why did Bush blink on Iran?

If you are going to have the likes of Murtha, Kerry, etc working against you, making any effort on Iran impossible to carry through on, then you have to go for another option.

Look at Iraq. The Dems have hurt our effort there tremendously.

[Hugin]

I was extremely disapointed a few months back when during a press conference Bush was asked point blank will America ever allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. It was such a high hanging fastball of a question, one which clearly should have been answered with a one word, "No". Instead he went off with the usual diplomatic garbage about pursuing negotiations with the EU countries, going to the UN security council, we're on the right course, blah, blah. If you were Khameni or Ahmednutjob would you be worried by that answer?

[Hugin]

If you are going to have the likes of Murtha, Kerry, etc working against you, making any effort on Iran impossible to carry through on, then you have to go for another option.

If Bush is going to let Murtha and Kerry have a veto on defending America we might as well kiss our ass goodbye. Bush doesn't need anyones appoval to bomb the Mullahs, their nuke facilities and the whole Iranian military straight to Allah.

[familyop]

Welcome aboard. Perle and others hawked the war in Iraq..now on the turn of a dime..they want us to take out Iran without a blink while we are still trying to secure Iraq!! They (Krystal included) sound like spoiled little children that did not get their blinky! What do they do? They start to undermine our President at every turn. Instead of looking forward with an understanding that this is a war that will take many decades to win and supporting the types of conservatives that in the long run will bring it about...they sit and whine like spoiled rotten children that scream for their ice cream when it is front of their face! Screw eemmmm.....Dittos!!Good grief..remind me not to hang out with you when we kill Osama. You are like that 'Downer couple' on SNL!!...LOLMost of this article is nothing but an attempt to divide the base(us). We all know that the State Department has a bunch of entrenched left wing cronies and clinton holdovers.....wake up..the only reason that the Washington Compost printed Perles 'tantrum' was in the hope that we will all get mad about it. Get real..we need to be on the side of our troops right now..like our President. Our troops don't need to 'open' Iran right now..especially when we can nuke them if push comes to shove! What is your "Iran Plan"?

General: Iran Behind Anti-US Iraq Attacks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654015/posts

US Commander Accuses Iran of Aiding Iraqi Shi'ite Insurgency
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654142/posts

Iran has moved missiles near the Iraq border while working toward building nuclear weapons. And the issue is not only about Iran attacking Israel. Iran recently purchased missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Rome and will likely acquire/modify missiles that will reach further.

[penelopesire]

SO...what is your plan?

[familyop]

My plan is to continue telling our Republican politicians to have our generals carry out their task lists for Iran. It's a better plan than that of clucking around too long.

[familyop]

"SO...what is your plan?"

And your repetion of that question had nothing to do with my comment #34. Iran is contributing to the fight against our troops in Iraq while developing nuclear weaponry. Iran has also hinted at the likelihood of later propagating nuclear weapons to other Islamist regimes. How will helping Iran with its stalling tactics contribute to solving those problems?

[WoofDog123]

"What do you mean? The entire world knows that Iran has the means to build a nuclear bomb, and that they are just one little step away from having it. That's what the whole uproar is about."

Add north korea to the list. If anything, both accelerated their programs the last few years.

[WoofDog123]

Look at Iraq. The Dems have hurt our effort there tremendously."

I think in the (probably) far future, it will come out that the far left anti-american elements of US politics have been covertly funded by China this last decade. The 1996 election and chinese funds for the DNC is pretty well known, but I bet they find a way to help out any pol who will try to cripple US foreign policy, defence spending, etc. I would imagine many of the recipients have no idea where the money is coming from.

I am not sure why this is such a radical idea. You would think the '96 election showed that it could be and WAS done on a fairly large scale, so it is naive to think they simply stopped. I am sure we support useful candidates in countries that have elections as well.

[Democratshavenobrains]

As Iraq has shown, the Left and the media will not support a war or attack unless one of our cities is blown off the map first.

[albyjimc2]

What an ignorant answer. One step away as in, 2 years? 5 years? George Bush attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. He is playing the diplomacy angle to make the rest of the world happy. Not necessarily because it is what he wants to do.

A country in shambles from 10 years of fighing and they are laughing in a superpowers face. What? Your answer baffles me. You are either a liberal that is narow minded or you are begging for an argument. I am sitting in a class in Baghdad and would love to debate this with you, but we only have 10 minutes breaks.

The entire world would love to see Bush jump the gun which would be a huge mistake right now.

[jveritas]

You are wrong.

[SE Mom]

And here's another little piece of information that might give perspective to us all...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655519/posts

Iran and China chatting ...

[TheCrusader]

"What an ignorant answer. One step away as in, 2 years? 5 years?"

You're gambling on your personal intuitions regarding Iran's nuclear bomb capabilities and I gave an ignorant answer? The world's best experts are saying that Iran is anywhere from MONTHS to a couple years away at most. Some say they may already have the bomb because of Pakistani and Russian help. No matter whose guess is closest to factual, they're WAY too close to having the bomb for comfort. And waiting around for that 'perfect time' to do something about it just might turn out to be another major miscalculation by the Bush White House.

Was it you who said Iran is still recovering from their ten years war? That ended over 16 years ago, and they have since become wealthy from their oil sales and have spent billions and billions on their military. But their real leverage is their oil, and the Straits of Hormuz, and their ability to damage the economies of the West if a war is started. Which is exactly why they have to be dealt with swiftly and decisively, as in bombing their nuclear facilities to ashes. The longer Bush delays, the worse it gets. Just as he delays in closing our borders because he's a weak kneed liberal, he's dallying around with Iran.

[defenderSD]

"But their real leverage is their oil, and the Straits of Hormuz, and their ability to damage the economies of the West if a war is started. Which is exactly why they have to be dealt with swiftly and decisively, as in bombing their nuclear facilities to ashes."

That statement doesn't make much sense. Airstrikes on their nuclear facilities would surely start a war that would endanger shipping in the strait and oil production facilities throughout the gulf. Airstrikes will only be used as a last resort if all efforts at a diplomatic solution fail.

I haven't seen any statements by nuclear experts that Iran is months away from building nuclear weapons. All the expert analysis I've read indicates Iran is at least two years away from buidling nuclear weapons and probably more like 3-5 years away. The "one little step" that you mention (uranium enrichment to weapons grade) is the main challenge in building nuclear weapons and it requires very large processing facilities with thousands of centrifuges. Iran doesn't have such a large processing plant yet and they're not close. But it's critical that Iran doesn't build this kind of facility and you can be assured that the US will bomb this kind of facility (into rubble) as a last restort if necessary.

[TheCrusader]

"All the expert analysis I've read indicates Iran is at least two years away from buidling nuclear weapons and probably more like 3-5 years away"

I've been hearing this "3 - 5 years away" projection for several years now. Iran has already produced enriched uranium, they have at least 164 centrifuges and claim they will have 3,000 before year's end. They say their goal is to have 54,000 centrifuges by 2008, and not many experts are denying this possibility.

I don't know about you, but for me 2 years is nothing, it will fly by and 2008 will be here before we know it. Then what? Why should we delay action while they produce more centrifuges, and get closer and closer to the bomb every day? And what's to guarantee that our intelligence is accurate? What if they have more centrifuges than they say and are even closer than we think? The scenario of an atomic Iran is far too dangerous a development to place our hopes on "negotiations". Waiting and debating until the last minute could prove to be disastrous.

[penelopesire]

OK...but now we have the little bastard starving his people in NK.....setting off missiles like soe crazy guy!! Of course he is crazy......he fell in love with madeline albright.

[Jorge]

No, Bush will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents in history, and you, well, will be remembered as one of the nothing defeatists to be forgotten forever.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[The Westerner]

It would be lovely if you're right. Time will show us the answer.

[saradippity]

Ouch,you just pushed my button with your statement about a $140,000 a year lifetime income for our "esteemed" elected reps. I truly believe if "we the people" managed to wrest away their dam pensions we would never have to worry about term limits again. Two terms might be more than many of them would be interested in serving.

I think they could just pay their social security tax and go home and get a job with good retirement benefits,if it's not too late. And only they would really know if it's already too late.

Does anyone know if anyone or any group is working on that?