Trading a Missile Shield for Sanctions

Obama launched an eager push at the United Nations and at the G-20 gathering in Pittsburgh to foster international resolve on punishing Iran for its nuclear energy and purported nuclear weapon program. Even though US intelligence failed to locate any evidence of a weapons program, the disclosure of a new uranium enrichment facility in Qom scares the bejesus out of the Americans, British, French, and Israelis. As Juan Cole points out, however, the Qom installation is suspicious but should not be regarded as a sure sign of a nuclear weapons program. Nor should it it swell the drum beats for war. At Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch believes that the Obama administration engineered a successful first diplomatic strike at the UN and in Pittsburgh that will fast-track sanctions or other international efforts to dismantle Iran's quickening pace. A WINEP fellow and FP Shadow Government contributor, Michael Singh, offers guarded praise for the initial efforts. Despite some sun, he forecasts red skies at morning if Obama and the US' allies cannot rein in Iran over the course of the next few months.

If Obama can draw Russia into agreement on imposing new sanctions, then he plucked a thorn from the bear's paw and demonstrated why an effective diplomatic agenda requires compromise over issues that threaten your dancing partner. (As an aside, my friend Nate Matlock commented that I could have been more explicit in the thorn post. Poland and the Czech Republic are NATO member countries and thus are shielded by a collective security agreement and have little to fear from a direct Russian attack. Thanks, Nate.) The question centers on China's support or rejection of the American, British, French, and Israeli movement. After the tire tariff, the US and China are in a minor spat with President Hu Jintao voicing his displeasure with the US trade decision. The Daily Beast's Mark McKinnon--a self-avowed free market and radical free trader--is fretting over the Obama administration's precedent and worries that an impending trade war will result from Obama's bows to scary big labor. Oh, you innocent free traders. Similar to those who apotheosize neoliberal free trade, McKinnon attacks organized labor (how can we shackle the free market? do you hate freedom?) and neglects to shed light on Chinese policies that might disagree with his unblemished ideals of free and fair competition. I've stated my opinions on these utopian flights of fancy, so I won't beat a dead horse.

The Obama administration will need to organize an effective diplomatic coalition in the P5 if they don't want the Chinese to veto sanctions. The Chinese are unlikely to jump on board without some inducement or pressure. Gal Luft, writing for the Harvard Middle East Strategy blog, suggests that the Chinese won't be plied away easily as they stand to gain from a proposed natural gas pipeline named Nabucco. Even though I'm not wild on his political views, Luft's writing on energy are fantastic. The Chinese have demonstrated their keen aptitude in natural resource diplomacy and leveraging their resources. (McKinnon and his orthodox pals don't seem to register any indignation with Chinese actions in such cases, apparently. But that Employee Free Choice Act, it's a sure sign of economic ruin.) Luft's cautionary rhetoric aside, he delineates the steps the US should take to prevent the pipeline from crossing Pakistan into India and through to China. It's worth questioning if the US has the power to accomplish that goal as its position in Afghanistan grows more precarious by the day, and it's worth wondering if the US can convince the Pakistanis--and by extension India and China--that it's not in their vested interest to push for the pipeline. (Luft says no in an August FP piece on the foolishness of gas sanctions for Iran.) We're entering a new, exciting period of resource diplomacy, and energy concerns will assume a center spot in any discussion on sanctions over Iran's nuclear program and if President Obama can swing President Hu onto the bandwagon.