The European Union countries are considering protesting the Iranian regime's decision to detain embassy workers by withdrawing all 27 of their ambassadors. I don't think this is an amazing idea (and it seems that not everyone involved is serious about it) but then again Iran's treatment of diplomats (and the foreign press) may warrant harsher moves. In other bad news, there's this:
In a statement quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency on Wednesday, Iran's chief of staff, Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying that because of the European Union’s “interference” in “the post-election riots, they have lost their qualification to hold nuclear talks with Iran.”
“Before apologizing for their huge mistake,” he said, the European countries have “no right to talk about nuclear negotiations,” according to a Fars report quoted by Reuters.
It was the first sign that Iran might use its post-election dispute to cast further doubt over the stalled nuclear negotiations, buying time to continue a nuclear enrichment program which Tehran says is for peaceful, civilian purposes.
Just what we needed, another obstruction to possible engagement. Rebuilding negotiations with the Iranians is not the easiest choice right now, but the non-diplomatic options are just so sparse, risky and likely counterproductive that I shudder to think what the options will be for dealing with Iran's nuclear program a year from now if engagement goes by the boards. On a related note, despite the belligerent rhetoric of the Iranian regime, the administration should keep up its public efforts at rapprochement; those moves will help burnish U.S. legitimacy should that unpleasant list of non-diplomatic options be presented to the president this time next year. For now it's still too soon to prejudge the outcome in Iran or the U.S. response. (My quick-take piece on the subject has held up pretty well.)
In terms of the president's current rhetoric, I read this Michael Crowley item with interest, but I'd emphasize that the people who are looking for shifts in Obama's position on this issue aren't really framing the question correctly. It's not like Iran over the last few weeks has represented a status quo that Obama has changed his mind about in response to certain pressures. Instead, post-election Iran has been dynamic, and much of what drove the administration's posture has been events on the ground, not any single coterie of advisers or conservative criticism.
-- Tim Fernholz
