Keep Iran Diplomacy Tied to Nuclear Suspension

The State Department and the Pentagon have differing opinions on Iran and its current role in stabilizing Iraq. Basically, the State Department believes Iran is curbing weapons flow into Iraq; while the DoD believes it’s too early to assume Tehran has changed its behavior.

According to the WSJ:

The differences between the Pentagon and the State Department over Iran have come into clear view in recent days.

On Friday, Mr. Gates told reporters that he had “not yet” seen any persuasive evidence that Iran was trying to reduce the flow of weaponry into Iraq. A new Pentagon report about Iraq similarly concluded that there “was no identified decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shia militias in Iraq.”

State Department officials have taken a very different tack. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told reporters in Baghdad on Sunday that there were “some indicators that the Iranians are using some influence to bring down violence from extremist Shia militias.” That echoed similar comments by David Satterfield, the top State Department official on Iraq.

emphasis mine

The problem the president faces is how much credit to give Iran with respect to diplomatic talks. Previously, Iran’s suspension of its nuclear program was a prerequisite for any diplomatic engagement. However, in light of November’s lukewarm National Security Estimate, many analysts believe this requirement should no longer apply. In fact, signs are pointing to the State Department ultimately agreeing to talks without the nuclear suspension.

I believe this is a serious mistake and sincerely hope our government officials aren’t duped into going forward with any diplomatic discussions with Iran without the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program. Although the NIE appeared to paint a favorable picture of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the truth is there was much that needed to be read between the lines. Specifically, the first sentence of the NIE states, “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” However, a footnote to this statement reveals, that the definition of a “nuclear weapons program” does “not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.”

What does this mean?

How does one make a distinction between what is “civilian” and what is “military”? For a country like the United States, civilian and military distinctions are easily made because they’re written into our laws. But how can such a distinction be made within a terrorist state like Iran? I don’t think it can be done because it doesn’t exist. The NIE tells us that Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered on 2003. Furthermore, Iran has 3,000 centrifuges and continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. Since Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from the Russian plant in Bushehr, there is no civilian purpose for such enrichment.

Though buried within its pages, the NIE contains all the information necessary to answer the question of easing diplomatic restrictions with Iran: The answer is unequivocally, NO!