Despite the beating drums of war on its news pages from David Sanger and others, the Times published an intelligent, pragmatic outline of a possible agreement between Iran and the U.S., written by two senior diplomats of past Republican administrations, Tom Pickering and Bill Luers.  Here’s the heart of it:

 …The United States would agree to full recognition and respect for the Islamic Republic, and Iran would agree to regional cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both sides would agree to address the full range of bilateral disputes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council could accept an Iranian civil nuclear program in return for Iran’s agreeing to grant inspectors full access to that program to assure that Iran did not build a nuclear weapon. Once international agencies had full access to Iran’s nuclear program, there could be a progressive reduction of the Security Council’s sanctions that are now in effect. Iran would agree to cease making threats against Israel, and the United States would agree to support efforts toward achieving a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It would be important to make arrangements for Israel’s security; the exact shape of those measures would have to be worked out in the negotiations. An agreement in which there would be full access to Iran’s nuclear program, with a monitored limitation of 5 percent enrichment, would offer Israel additional reasons for confidence in the deal.

Both sides would agree to cooperate in reducing the influence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in combating drug trafficking; and in keeping open the routes through which energy flows to the world from the Persian Gulf. Both sides would agree that while wide differences between the two nations remained, those differences must be resolved peacefully.

I’m not sure the 5% enrichment limitation is acceptable since it will hardly allow Iran to develop a civilian nuclear program.  But possibly no enrichment beyond 20% might work.  Also, the U.S. will have to promise to bring Israel into the NPT and to lobby intensively for a Middle East nuclear free zone.  Only the U.S. can compel Israel to do this.  Otherwise, it won’t happen.  Those are big stumbling blocks.

What the proposal doesn’t mention, and which could be a critical long-term component in any resolution, is solving the Israel-Palestine issue.  Even if the U.S. and Iran agree to a settlement between themselves, a festering Israel-Palestine conflict will maintain a high level of tension in the region.

The op-ed uses the example of Nixon and Mao’s rapprochement as a parallel to the current situation between Iran and the U.S.  But the former diplomats note this important distinction between the two eras and situations:

The China analogy for American-Iranian relations falls short in some areas. The most important is that Mao was ready for an American approach, while Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is not. Instead, he is convinced that the United States will not work with Iran until his regime is gone.

For Iran’s leadership, the notion that the United States is bent on overthrowing its rulers is rooted in historical experience: the United States did overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, supported the Shah afterward, supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran in the 1980s, and now backs increasing efforts to weaken and isolate Iran.

Reducing the malign influence of this legacy on the thinking of Ayatollah Khamenei will be essential to achieving any deal. Simply “keeping the door open to diplomacy” will not be sufficient. So the Iranian leader must be approached directly, but discreetly, by someone he trusts who conveys assurances from President Obama that covert operations and public pressure have been demonstrably reduced. The interlocutor might be a leader from a country in the region, enlisted when the American president felt the time was right.

Ayatollah Khamenei will have to be convinced by actions, not just messages. Just as Nixon halted covert action in Tibet before approaching China, a similar signal will be needed with Iran.

There is no guarantee that diplomacy will succeed. But that is also true of war. And only diplomacy can offer Iran’s current rulers a stake in building a secure future without a nuclear bomb. Only diplomacy can achieve America’s major objectives while avoiding the mistakes committed in Iraq or Vietnam.

After so much blather and delusional thinking from so many U.S. (I especially “like” Niall Ferguson’s call for a new “Six Day War” against Iran which would involve “creative destruction,” which is turn is reminiscent of that other infamously delusional phrase crafted by Condi Rice during the 2006 Lebanon war, which she called the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”), and particularly Israeli politicians and analysts, it’s finally welcome to hear clear thinking and realism.  Though I am afraid that the conflict has gone beyond such pragmatic approaches.  I fear that both sides are on the road to war and nothing can stop it.  Though I hope I’m wrong.

Another issue that complicates the Pickering-Luers proposal is that the U.S. would essentially have to turn its back on Israeli hysteria about Iran.  It would have to drop its participation in the Israeli covert ops campaign against Iran.  It would have to firmly tell Israel the war scenario has come to the end of the road.  We will also have to demand that Israel join NPT and that it confront world pressure for a nuclear free Middle East.  Israel wouldn’t have to necessarily accede to this immediately.  But it will not be able to dawdle forever as it has regarding solving the Palestine issue.  I just don’t see Obama having either the will or the muscle to pull this off.  If it were Nixon and Kissinger–maybe.  Or Clinton–maybe.  But Obama? He doesn’t have it in him.  Again, may I be proven wrong.

In a somewhat related development, Efraim Halevy, the former Mossad chief touts a Pax Israelitus which envisions toppling the Syrian regime, icing Iran out, replacing Assad with a compliant, pro-western (i.e. pro-Israel) puppet.  Of course, he only says some of those things.  But he means all of them.  Halevy has a grand vision that foresees a new Syria cutting Iran’s arms lifeline leading to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.  This is turn will somehow force Iran to end its nuclear program and even topple the Ayatollahs.

Though I usually find Halevy eminently pragmatic, here he’s drunk the typical Israeli Koolaid, which usually involves elaborate fantasies of skullduggery and manipulation that turns the world from hostile to friendly to Israeli interests.  Returning to the Pickering-Luers thesis, there is only one way to create a stable Middle East.  That is negotiations among equals and with full consideration of the interests of all parties.

What Halevy is proposing is more of the same contrived realpolitik which has meant rivers of blood running for decades.  It’s also part of a neocon vision of western intervention to make the Middle East safe for Israel and our interests.  Other pro-Israel sources who’ve been touting this path are Michael Weiss in the pages of Foreign Policy and the Aipac affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  They spin a fantasy of hitching our wagon to the star of the Free Syrian Army, which, once it comes to power, will cast out Iran, make nice with Israel and turn off the spigot to Hezbollah.

Instead, all parties including Israel, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and others need to sit and figure out how to give each party something of what they want to satisfy its most critical needs.  For Syria, that will mean a new government that is independent and not dominated by the U.S., the west or Israel.  One hopes such an independent Syria will pursue a course that favors neither Iran nor Israel unduly, but approaches each for what it can offer Syria.

This sort of new Syrian government would focus on improving its domestic economy and improving people’s lives rather than dabbling in regional power politics as it does now with Iran and Lebanon.  In turn, this would mean Israel would have to reign in its own impulse to dabble in the double game of spycraft and covert war against its neighbors.  Territorial disputes would be resolved by Israel returning the Golan and Shebaa Farms to their rightful owners.  In turn, Syria and Lebanon would recognize Israel and normalize relations.  This of course would help sideline or defang Hezbollah.

But none of this can happen through Halevy’s machinations.  It can only happen by negotiations in good faith, something Israel clearly isn’t prepared to do (yet).

Earlier this week, Brookings Institution scholar Bruce Riedel spoke (listen to audio here) at an Atlantic Council Iran symposium.  He made some very incisive comments which are worth mentioning.  First, he began his remarks with the colorful phrase which fittingly integrated the world political situation with the U.S. presidential elections:

There is saber rattling from Teheran to South Carolina.

Riedel asked the pointed question: does the U.S. want war?  He noted that he uses the term “war” and deliberately rejects the common coinage, “military strike,” since that is a misnomer. Any attack on Iran, he points out, means a real war and not just a set of isolated military attacks “lasting an afternoon, maybe a couple of weeks” and ending at a time of our choosing.  He warned, in fact, that if Iran doesn’t accept our terms, then the war would become open-ended and we might become involved “in another war in Asia,” a deliberate reference to the Vietnam War.

One of the particularly severe possible impacts of an Iranian counter-strike could make an already difficult situation for us in Afghanistan much worse.  Iran is “supremely positioned” geographically to make our life miserable.  Obama, who wants to end the Middle East wars we’re currently engaged in rather than prolonging them, can’t want such a possible outcome.

He asked whether war against Iran is “necessary.”  Is an Iranian bomb the “apocalyptic end of time” portrayed by Bibi and the pro-war neocons?  No, is his answer:

The overwhelming balance of power between Israel and Iran will remain in Israel’s favor even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

Riedel pointed out that the Iran arms embargo imposed by the UN in 2010, an especially effective one, essentially freezes that nation’s conventional weapons capability  Even in their nuclear programs Israel dominates, with at least 100 nukes which can be delivered by any of three different delivery systems (Jericho, Dolphin and F-16).

He then asked whether military deterrence against Iran (instead of war) can work: his answer was that Iran, contrary to the arguments of Bibi and the neocon crowd, is “not suicidal nor seeking to end itself in a mass moment of Armageddon.”  He then concluded that the overwhelming superpower presence of the U.S. on Israel’s side will deter Iran, which does not which to destroy itself, but rather seeks to preserve its domestic Islamic revolution.

Though Riedel supports sanctions and covert operations against Iran, he believes that ultimately they will fail because Iran views it as in its long-term interest to have the capability of defending itself with the most powerful weapon in the military arsenal:

If I was an Iranian national security planner I would want a nuclear weapon.  Look at the neighborhood I live in: everyone else who matters has nuclear weapons and those who don’t, don’t matter and get invaded by the United States…

We have drifted into war so easily in the last decade.  Let’s not make that mistake again.

In the Q&A session afterward, Riedel speaks about how the presidential election factors into an Israeli decision to attack Iran.  He says that it’s “abundantly clear” that one of Bibi’s primary goals is “regime change on the Potomac.”  An Israeli attack would, in the prime minister’s thinking, put Obama “in a tough place” because his range of responses will be limited by political considerations, even more so than were there no election (and even in that event, a president would not be as free to sanction Israel as he might wish).

That means that an Obama who is embarrassed is a good thing for Bibi and his political sugar daddy, Sheldon Adelson (whose money is on Newt Gingrich).  One of the current president’s few strong suits in his first term has been national security.  For an Israeli PM to tarnish that reputation by calling out a U.S. president might make the latter look small.  Especially to be bested by a relatively small power like Israel.  That is something Bibi would relish.

Also, Bibi bested Obama during the settlement freeze fiasco.  He bloodied the new president’s nose and taught him a lesson that Israel’s right-wing leader wasn’t to be toyed with.  As a result, the U.S. has been a paper tiger in its dealings on the Israel-Palestine question.  Once someone like Bibi gets a taste of that heady stuff, of taking down a peg or two a president he views as insufficiently supportive of Israel, the impulse to do it again will be strong.

Possibly for that reason, Obama has summoned as many as three carrier task forces to the Gulf.  If Israel is planning mischief, Obama wants Israel to know that it has the military capability in place to keep a lid on things if they get out of control.  This show of force might also have a deterrent impact on the Iranians as they contemplate how to respond if they’re attacked.  Obama knows that Iran could be his Achilles Heel in this election if he doesn’t handle it right.

And of course, the more Bibi ties us up dealing with Iran the less time or inclination we will have to muck about in the Israel-Palestine mess.  Which is all to Bibi’s liking.  He knows that the more time and attention the world gives to that conflict, the worse off it will be for Israel.  That’s why Iran poses such a terrific distraction.  As I’ve written here, I don’t fully believe Bibi or Barak truly believe Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.  But they want the world to think they do.  This aids and abets the plan to divert attention from the evils of Occupation and siege.

A separate story in Politico, of all places, notes the five top misconceptions about Iran, all of which subvert the underlying assumptions of current western approaches to that country.  You know when a right-leaning online publication like Politico promotes such a pragmatic, realistic approach that they’re hedging their bets in case war fever turns out to be a bad deal.  The story is written by an independent Iranian-American journalist who just returned from spending a year in Iran.

In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl, a former U.S. Defense undersecretary responsible for Mideast affairs argues forcefully against any strike against Iran.  He argues that the imminence theory of the pro-war crowd which argues that an Iranian nuclear weapon is on the horizon within the next six months is bogus.  He says that Iran may have enough uranium to make a bomb within that time frame but not it cannot produce a weapon (if that is what it’s goal is, which is in some dispute) for well over another year beyond that.

The author reminds us once again of something Meir Dagan has tried to bring home to the Israeli audience again and again–that war with Iran will not be “surgical” or contained or short:

Any war with Iran would be a messy and extraordinarily violent affair, with significant casualties and consequences.

Prof. Cahl reminds us that even though we may see the mission of a military strike as confined solely to taking out Iran’s nuclear capacity, that’s not the way the Iranian leadership would understand things.  They would perceive the goal of an attack as regime change and react accordingly.

He also notes that once an attack is unleashed there is little prospect of containing it even if both sides go into the conflict seeking a limited one.  In the heat of war, decisions are made and buttons are pushed which can’t be unpushed.  The results of those decisions kill people, many people.  Once the genie is out of the bottle, you simply can’t know what will happen.

Laura Rozen has reported a new wrinkle on the cancellation of the Austere Challenge joint Israel-U.S. military exercise. Originally sources reported that the U.S. caused the cancellation out of piqué about Israel’s covert war with Iran, which led to yet another assassination of a nuclear scientist two weeks ago.  Rozen reports that the event was cancelled not by the U.S., but by Israel.  There is almost only one way of interpreting this act: as a sign of its preparation for an Iran strike.  Israel doesn’t want U.S. military personnel on Israeli soil when war comes.  If they’re there and get killed, it might put Obama in the precarious situation of having to choose between attacking Iran in retaliation or impeding Israel’s range of action.

Israel Defense also reports that the reason why Bibi has decided to postpone the naming of a new IAF chief is he wishes not to change horses in midstream, as he anticipates a possible Iran attack.  The publication also says that Israel may’ve cancelled the joint missile tests with the U.S. because it would distract from preparations for the Iran attack.

Time Magazine publishes a new report that the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, has reinforced the unity approach between Israel and the U.S. toward Iran.  He puts in the starkest terms yet our expectation of the economic contagion we’re hoping to result from economic sanctions:

We need to show the Iranian government that it must choose between the nuclear plan and the country’s economic existence.

Two things seem clear from this statement.  We don’t merely want to exert economic pressure on Iran, we actually want to sow ruin, the equivalent of economic genocide.  The U.S. wants to see Iranians suffer, and do so on such a massive scale that the entire country will be brought to its knees.  We appear not to care whether babies starve as they did by the hundreds of thousands in sanction-era Iraq.

The other aspect of his remark that appears clear is that while the U.S. has denied participating in the sabotage campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, we know of it and approve it.  We’ve compartmentalized our efforts so the U.S. puts the squeeze on economically and Israel does it militarily.  But this is a coordinated program and we are willing participants in it.  Whether or not we planted bombs in Teheran, we are accessories after the fact and share in the culpability for this egregious conduct.

It is also clear that sanctions as defined by Shapiro are NOT an attempt to forge a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear “threat.”  Rather, they are an attempt to bring Iran to its knees and force it to accede to western demands.  Make no mistake, we’re not trying to avoid bloodshed.  Sanctions are part of a calibrated series of actions which will lead inexorably to war. Because there is no way that sanctions alone will bring the result the U.S. demands.  And our policymakers have to know this.  The only possible next step will involve force.  But even force will not work unless we are prepared to put boots on the ground and violently topple the regime.  This means that this policy can only fail ultimately.

When asked whether U.S. options also included a military one, Shapiro responded:

“Because stopping a nuclear Iran is so important, we’ve said this before and I’m saying it again, all options are open. All the possibilities.” said Shapiro. “And I’ll say more than that, we are examining these possibilities actively, and we are drawing up the necessary plans to ensure that all these options exist, and I’m not ruling out any option…”

Caspit said he asked the ambassador what he meant by “planning the options,” and whether they are also training for the implementation of these options, as foreign reports say the Israeli air force has been doing for some time. “Shapiro was quiet, and then said that America doesn’t need all that much training: ‘We have a massive military presence in the Persian Gulf, right?’”

Clearly, there are senior yahoos in the U.S. government who share Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak’s enthusiasm for a military strike against Iran.  These individuals will be fully responsible for the results of their statements.  It should be made clear that Shapiro is bringing the region ever closer to the brink of war.  He is sowing the seeds of disaster and will reap the whirlwind.

The Iran situation is becoming more and more like a slow motion train wreck.  You see the train barreling toward you at high speed.  You see the engineer and conductor screaming and waving at bystanders to get out of the way because the train has lost its brakes.  No one can do a thing to stop it.