No Military Option with Iran Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Joe Cirincione at the Carnegie Endowment has penned an important analysis that cautions policymakers against using military options to break the current nuclear impasse with Iran.  He writes:

There is no need for military strikes against Iran.  The country is five to ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs.  Even that estimate, shared by the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts at IISS, ISIS, and University of Maryland assumes Iran goes full-speed ahead and does not encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague such programs. 

He also elaborates on the failure of the Osirak Raid--when Israel bombed an Iraqi reactor on June 7, 1981:

The raid energized Saddam Hussein and Hussein's nuclear ambitions went from a side project to an obsession. He launched a new effort to secretly construct gas centrifuges and other devices (particularly electromagnetic isotope separation units) to produce weapons-grade uranium. The program went underground and mushroomed. "At the beginning we had approximately 500 people working, which increased to 7,000 working after the Israeli bombing," Hamza explained to a Washington audience in November 2000, "The secret program became a much larger and ambitious program.

Read the whole thing here.

Follow the (Power and) Money Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Ed Gresser over at the Progressive Policy Institute sent a follow-up to my post on women leaders worldwide that's too good not to pass on.  A year ago, his colleague Emily Bleimund surveyed trade and finance ministries worldwide and found 7 of 153 held by women -- that's a lower proportion than women heads of state/government, and much lower than "soft" ministries such as health and environment.  Secretaries Albright and Rice notwithstanding, women also show up rather rarely in the foreign minister role; ditto defense minister, Chile's Bachelet notwithstanding.  Interestingly, Ed cites USTR as a model for women's advancement at the lower levels, along with Mexico's trade establishment.

So power establishments lag behind public opinion?  Are we surprised?   

A Fractured Iraqi Government -- Will It Heal Stronger? Posted by Michael Signer

So what are we to make of the results of the Iraq election, showing the Shi'a majority in decline (not even a majority), and Sunnis on the rise?

Not to sound like the famous two-handed economist, but On the One Hand:  Political Science 101 counsels that coalition governments under parliamentary systems are constitutionally unstable, leading to vetoes by coalition members and uncertain and shifting agendas for the populace's consideration.  Nowhere would this be more true than in Iraq, where the members of the "coalition" haven't even necessary bought into the most fundamental premise of government -- the yielding of your own potential for violence to the central government's monopoly on it.

Re-Stating Things Posted by Michael Signer

News today in WaPo that Secretary Rice is re-tasking the professional diplomats at the Department of State to hot problem areas like China, Lebanon, and Pakistan, rather than the ticking time bomb being watched over by the FSO's assigned to Berlin (relax, this is meant to be dryly put).

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that she will shift hundreds of Foreign Service positions from Europe and Washington to difficult assignments in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere as part of a broad restructuring of the diplomatic corps that she has dubbed "transformational diplomacy."

Did Plan Colombia work? A look at the numbers Posted by Adam Isacson

Six years ago this week, President Clinton submitted an emergency request to Congress for $1.3 billion in mostly military aid to Colombia and its neighbors. The money – and billions more since – went to “Plan Colombia,” an ambitious Colombian government plan (written with very heavy U.S. input) that was to bring Colombia “peace, prosperity, and the strengthening of the state.”

Six years later, I continue to be absolutely mystified by U.S. officialdom’s capacity to convince itself that Plan Colombia has been a smashing success.

Tough and Tender Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Quick, what do the following countries have in common?  Ukraine, Sao Tome and Principe, Germany, Liberia and Chile. 

All have chosen women as their heads of state or government in the last 12 months, continuing a stealth trend in world affairs.  In the last ten years, something like 27 women have become heads of state or government around the world – as many as in the 30 years from 1960-1990, and more than the years 1900-1989.

But why should I care?  asks the "overwhelmingly male" blogosphere?

Here's why:  (and no, this isn't an item about US domestic politics)

Looking at how women's political empowerment took off globally and took root (or didn't) in individual societies just might tell us something important about how democracy promotion and civic empowerment do (or don't) work more broadly.  I would propose, in increasing order of importance:

--specific efforts to promote women in politics

--a global movement and globalized support for women in politics, flowing through the 1995 Beijing Conference, and

--a post-1989 global movement toward greater personal and societal freedom, and a desire for the real or perceived casting off of old rulers and elites.

Replace the phrase "women in politics" with another phrase -- oh, say, "democracy in Islam" or "petro-democracy" or "self-sustaining democracy" or "democracy among the poorest" and you might see how the broader democracy movement could learn from the "women thing."

How Much We've Learned? Posted by Michael Signer

I'm trying to figure out how to compare the news of our internationalist, and robust, approach to Iran with the Bush Administration's (bi)polar opposite tactic in Iraq without seeming petty, catty, and snarky, so bear with me here.   I'm also going to try not to gloat, which will doubtless require an almost physical effort.

Here's what we do know. 

We currently have Russia, China, Great Britain, Germany, and France helping us work through this.  Great Britain, Germany, and France all support strong intervention of the UN's International Atomic Energy Association, with an "extraordinary" meeting set for February 2.  China and Russia are a little less enthusiastic, which is to be expected from economic partners with Iran -- but the point is they're helping out, and working with us.

This feels so much better than three years ago.  Out of those, four -- Russia, China, Germany, and France -- opposed us in the Iraq war.  In retaliation, the Bush Administration barred all four from bidding for reconstruction contracts in postwar Iraq.

Getting the Hill Abroad Posted by Derek Chollet

A few months ago, when the DeLay-Abramoff scandal first broke, I wrote here with concern about the ramifications that these criminal acts might have on something that is entirely legitimate, and in my view, absolutely necessary – travel overseas by members of Congress or their staffs that is sponsored, organized and paid for by outside groups.

Now before the howls start (again), I don’t mean the Scottish golfing junkets or warm water resort research during the winter months.  I’m talking about the trips to policy conferences, meetings with leaders and analysts, and study tours that hundreds of think tanks and advocacy groups arrange and sponsor for members of Congress and Hill staffers. 

Many – most – of these are perfectly legitimate.  The reason so many turn to these trips is because the alternative – taxpayer-funded official travel – has traditionally been even more politically unpalatable.  In fact, outside of those who work on any of the relevant foreign affairs and security committees, travel paid for officially is almost unthinkable. 

We should all want Congress and their staffs to be more informed about the world and the challenges we face.  At a moment when so many justifiably lament the breakdown of legislative oversight in national security, it would be a mistake to do anything but promote more Congressional travel.  Yet what’s happening now is completely predictable: both Democrats and Republicans are racing to propose legislation that would prohibit all outside-funded travel.

If this were to happen without any remedy—like some kind of new official fund to support travel -- I think this would damage both Congress and American foreign policy generally.

An even more worthwhile idea was floated last weekend by former Colorado Congressman David Skaggs.  He suggests creating a private non-profit group, led by a board of former Secretaries of State and Defense, military and Congressional leaders, that would draft guidelines (with public input through hearings) to define whether a trip served a legitimate purpose or was properly financed.  This organization then would offer to review proposed travel by members or their staffs to judge whether they complied with these standards.  This process would be transparent and voluntary, but if implemented, Skaggs correctly points out that it would soon be a political necessity as officials would be worried about traveling without the good housekeeping stamp of approval.   

Sounds like a very good idea, and perhaps even a project that an existing bipartisan group dedicated to promoting national security, like Partnership for a Secure America, might consider taking on.

A New Grand Bargain for Nuclear Nonproliferation Posted by Morton H. Halperin

With Iran and North Korea both continuing to defy American efforts to get them to abandon nuclear programs, we need to consider whether we are on the right track in our attempts to halt nuclear proliferation.   

The NPT tried to create a grand bargain.  States, other than the five who had already tested nuclear weapons, would agree not to develop such weapons.  In return they would receive assistance in developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Ever since, all American administrations have adopted a double standard in implementing this bargain, looking the other way when our friends decline to sign and ratify the NPT or hedge their commitments and coming down hard on "rogue states."   However, the Bush administration has taken this posture several steps further by accepting the Indian nuclear programs and by seeking sanctions against Iran (which continues to observe its treaty obligations) and North Korea which has exercised its right to withdraw from the treaty.

The United States needs to put forward neutral rules which apply to all states and which take account of the realities of the twenty-first century.

Preemptive War in Iran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The latest disturbing news out of Iran is that the government now plans a conference on the Holocaust.   Having already judged the Nazi genocide a myth and called for Israel's destruction, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems bent on making a name for himself as this century's leading violent anti-Semitic megalomaniac, this time with nukes.

The Jerusalem Post has over the last few days published a succession of articles examining the potential for a preemptive Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, akin to the country's successful 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor, credited with setting back Baghdad's nuclear ambitions by years if not decades.   The Post reports that Israeli pilots have trained for such an attack, but pulling it off this time will be far tougher than 25 years ago because the Iranians have dispersed and defended their facilities.   Israel appears to be proceeding on the basis that for reasons including chiefly Iraq, it may not be able to count on the US to deal with Tehran on its behalf.

Putting aside whether Israel could successfully destroy Iran's nukes, this confrontation could shape up into the first major test of where the doctrine of preemption stands post-Iraq.   While the Israelis have never been able to afford the luxury of adhering rigidly to consensus international legal interpretations, after the Iraq War it would sure make things easier if Tel Aviv was on firm ground should the need to preempt arise.   

There were two primary criticisms of the Bush Administration's invocation of preemption in Iraq - failure to exhaust peaceful alternatives and failure to establish the imminence of the threat. 

Islamic World Top 10 Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Alt.muslim puts the fun back in foreign affairs:  A top ten list we couldn't have written ourselves at democracyarsenal but that is worth some study:  alt.muslim's "Top Ten Good News Stories of 2005."  Do yourself a favor and check it out.

I guarantee that you will not have heard about all ten of the developments.  You read about the Aceh peace agreements here; if you are a human rights type you know about Rebiya Kadeer;  it's good to be reminded that Bangladesh sent us charity after Hurricane Katrina; but check out Kenya's camel libraries and the Muslim admiral who discovered America.

If you ever have occasion to write, give interviews or lecture (even to friends and family) about international affairs and "clash of civilizations" type issues, you will enjoy having some of these good news tidbits tucked away in the back of your brain.

And wrapping your brain around someone else's perspective on the year past is good mental gymnastics, whether you agree with it or not -- we used to think understanding other perspectives was essential to success in foreign policy, but that just sounds so 1990s, doesn't it?