[Peace-discuss] Hillary gets with the program

[C. G. Estabrook]

[This article, unpacked, contains in a nutshell much of US policy in the Mideast 
-- notably the US need for ongoing belligerence and an atmosphere of threat, 
in order to maintain the excuse for the effective US occupation of the region.  
Absent that, the justification for US military presence would evaporate, and the 
US would have to rule through clients, not always reliable.  If peace were to 
break out, the long-term US policy would be confounded.  --CGE]

    NYT - July 27, 2009
    Clinton Says Nuclear Aim of Iran Is Fruitless
    By DAVID E. SANGER

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Iran’s leaders on Sunday that 
if they were seeking nuclear weapons, “your pursuit is futile,” and ruled out 
explicitly the possibility that the Obama administration would allow Iran to 
produce its own nuclear fuel, even under intense international inspection.

Mrs. Clinton made her statement, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” days after she 
raised the possibility of an American-created “defense umbrella” over the 
Middle East to counter Iran’s efforts to build its power in the region by trying to 
develop weapons capacity. Soon after Mrs. Clinton spoke of the shield on 
Wednesday, senior members of the Obama administration tried to walk back 
her comments, saying that she was speaking “personally” and that such an 
umbrella had always been implied by America’s strong interests in the region, 
including oil interests.

But on Sunday she did not back away from her statement. “I think it’s clear 
we’re trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime,” she said, 
adding, “What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these 
decisions that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of 
intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen.”

It is unclear what a “defense umbrella” in the region would look like, however, 
and Mrs. Clinton offered no details when asked whether the United States was 
willing to extend the same defense over Middle East allies that it has already 
extended across Europe, Japan and South Korea.

“We are not talking in specifics,” she insisted. “You hope for the best; you plan 
for the worst.”

While the Obama administration has often said that it would not allow Iran to 
possess a nuclear weapon, some officials have hedged slightly when asked 
whether they could envision a situation in which Tehran, as part of a broader 
deal, might be permitted to produce its own nuclear fuel, called a fuel cycle in 
the nuclear industry. Reformers and hard-liners in Iran have said the country 
should produce its own fuel and have argued that it has that right as a 
signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

But President George W. Bush had argued that Iran forfeited that right by 
conducting secret nuclear activities for 18 years. In contrast, Mohamed 
ElBaradei, the departing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a 
nonproliferation watchdog, has argued that the best way to avoid a 
confrontation is to allow Iran a token of nuclear fuel capacity, under toughened 
inspection rules to assure that fuel is not diverted for weapons. On Sunday, 
Mrs. Clinton seemed to side with the Bush administration.

“You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil, nuclear power,” she said, 
as if addressing Iran directly. “You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear 
weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and 
reprocessing cycle under your control. But there’s a lot that we can do with Iran 
if Iran accepts what is the international consensus.”

Her phrase “under your control” seemed to leave open the possibility of having 
others enrich uranium on Iran’s behalf, perhaps on Iranian soil.

Mrs. Clinton also found herself in the uncomfortable position of explaining the 
recent comments of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who on returning from a 
visit to Georgia offered a surprisingly downbeat assessment of Russia’s future 
and its intentions.

“They have a shrinking population base,” Mr. Biden told The Wall Street Journal. 
“They have a withering economy. They have a banking sector and structure that 
is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years. They’re in a situation 
where the world is changing before them and they’re clinging to something in 
the past that is not sustainable.”

Asked whether Mr. Biden’s message was that “the U.S. now has the upper hand 
when it’s dealing with Russia,” she replied, “No, and I don’t think that’s at all 
what the vice president meant.”

“We want a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia,” she said.

Brian Knowlton contributed from Washington.