THE House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee, under the new chairmanship of Mike Gapes, (Labour, Ilford South) has been over in America. On its return it told the press of its members’ astonishment at the lack of agreement they had discovered in Washington, over the issue of the hour, Iran’s nuclear program.
It is true to say British MPs are frequently amazed by the different voices that come out of an American administration on international issues. We have a very different system of government. I can recall many occasions over the recent decades when the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon have been putting forward their own distinctive proposals. In Washington the checks and balances on policy are formidable.
The Foreign Affairs Committee, which is composed of MPs from the main political parties and has a Labour majority, had a meeting with John Bolton, who, it will be remembered, was installed as America’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations last August. President George Bush bypassed Congress which appeared likely to block his appointment. The Economist had described Ambassador Bolton as “a conservative’s conservative” and he is no admirer of the United Nations.
It is no surprise that the Committee found him to be a hawk on Iran; he is a hawk on most international issues. He was in favor of the United Nations Security Council operating under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which could authorize the use of military force — airstrikes on key installations would be the most likely option.
He was quoted as saying of the Iranians: “They must know everything is on the table and they must understand what that means. We can hit different points along the line. You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down.”
Moving over to the Pentagon, the Committee met Peter Rodman, the assistant defense secretary, and a former US commander in Northern Iraq, Brig. Gen. Carter Hamm.
The curious view of the Pentagon was that the issue should be lobbed “into the Security Council like a hand grenade and see what happens”.
I should have thought the State Department could come up with an accurate estimate of the reaction of Security Council Members well in advance, and a draft Resolution should attempt to take their views into account. (Traditionally the Pentagon thinks little of the abilities of the State Department.)
The message from Richard Luger, the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the CIA was that the United States should “ride it out” rather than engage in “posturing” —which is just what Dick Cheney, the vice president, has been doing recently.
They were also unsure of the views within the Security Council. Of course, there was a fear that the United Nations might present them with similar problems to those experienced in the spring of 2003 over Iraq.
It is always fascinating to see who is up and who is down in Washington. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has been able to greatly strengthen the standing of the State Department since she took over from Colin Powell. No doubt the mounting political and internal security problems in Iraq have weakened Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom should have been put out to grass years ago.
Before meeting Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, on March 6, Condoleezza Rice, said: “Nobody has said that we have to rush immediately to sanctions of some kind. I think the Security Council will have to have a serious discussion about what the next steps will be.”
We should not be surprised that the Foreign Affairs Committee returned to London confused over America’s likely long-term response. This is a brute of a problem and not just for the United States and Europe. Iran seems determined ‘to do its own thing’ and looks unlikely to be unduly influenced by friend or foe.
I do not expect the Security Council to find it acceptable for Iran to resume its nuclear research. With President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his present mood, very few members of the United Nations would wish him to have his own nuclear trigger at some future date.
Ali Larijani, Tehran’s chief negotiator, and one of the most important people in Iran, has hardly helped by declaring his country had a “God-given right” to a nuclear program. He has warned that his country, which has the second largest crude oil reserves on the globe, might use oil production as a weapon against the Western world.
I suspect behind the scenes on both sides of the Atlantic a consensus is forming in reality. Targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime looks the likely course, provided both Russia and China can be persuaded to back them.
