Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

April 14, 2007
Rice The Display Dummy

Who is running U.S. foreign policy? It certainly isn’t the Secretary of State.

The Washington Post writes about 5 Iranians the U.S. captured in the Iranian consulate in Irbil.

After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.

There is not a shred of evidence that these are "Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents." As AP reported on January 11:

Iraqi officials said Thursday that the U.S.-led multinational forces detained five Iranians in an overnight raid on Tehran’s diplomatic mission in the northern city of Irbil.

The forces stormed the building at about 3 a.m., detaining the five staffers and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, …

The Iraqi/Kurdish officials in Irbil protested against the U.S. raid:

A spokesman for the autonomous regional government and its presidency expressed their "alarm" and condemned the Thursday morning operation.

They characterized it as a raid on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, "which opened in the provincial capital in an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government."

The Kurdish regional government is based in Irbil.

The Kurdish statement, which includes a call for the immediate release of the detainees, says the consulate is entitled to immunity in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.

Still, to the Washington Post, these are "Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents" and it checks off every one of the administrations anti-Iranian talking points in that piece.

But the interesting stuff is in this graph:

Differences over the five Iranians reflect an emerging divide on how to deal with Iran. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went into the meeting Tuesday advising that the men be freed because they are no longer useful, but after a review of options she went along with the consensus, U.S. officials say. Vice President Cheney’s office made the firmest case for keeping them. Their capture signals that Iran’s actions are monitored and that Iranian operatives face seizure.

There is no legal justification to keep the five. The point of monitoring was made when they were captured. There are good reasons to let them go and I even tend to believe that their release was part of an informal deal that led to the release of the British sailors on Easter.

But it is Cheney who is running the foreign policy shop, personally and through his State implant Elliot Abrams. Both do not care about laws or contracts. Rice, just like Powell before her, is nothing but a decorative display dummy. Anytime she comes up with something that could make sense, Cheney and Abrams have the backchannels and sabotage and overrule her.

Not releasing the Iranian diplomats will of course have consequences. It is likely that Cheney does want further and escalating confrontation with Iran. But the Iranians already know this and their next step may be very different from what Cheney expects.

Posted by b on April 14, 2007 at 06:35 UTC | Permalink
Comments

raw source: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (PDF)

Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14 2007 12:12 utc | 1

In my post above I write: “I even tend to believe that their release was part of an informal deal that led to the release of the British sailors on Easter”
Now I read Bill Lind

I continue to suspect a deal was made regarding the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers held by the U.S. in Iraq. If they go home in a few weeks or months, it will be a quid pro quo, regardless of how much Washington and London deny it.

But with the U.S. not in compliance of quid pro quo …
But then it is deniable that such a contract was made – Cheney will have pressed because of that. (Bliar of course will know about it, but he and his people have already been damaged in that affair and will not speak up.)
So if Lind and I am right, a international deal has just been broken by the U.S. and that will have consequences. If one doesn’t play by the rules, the other party will neither.

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2007 13:59 utc | 2

It is likely that Cheney does want further and escalating confrontation with Iran. But the Iranians already know this and their next step may be very different to what Cheney expects.
The Iranians must have known, or at least suspected, that Cheney would reneg.
They can wring out a small propaganda plus: Once again, the US is shown to be faithless. But this is a very small point.
Let’s look at the seizure of the Brits: Luck, or a masterly plan? The Iranians could just as well have seized Americans, but they did not do that, knowing it would lead to war. It was a fine calculation to realize the Brits were not ready to go straight to war, and yet could be used to embarrass the Americans just fine.
I expect their next move will similarly highlight American perfidity and helplessness, while offering the US no direct course of action.
I have no idea what it will be.
Meanwhile, even Condi understands that you have to get your lies to be believed, or they do not work. Cheney thinks it does NOT matter, because the Iranians have no recourse. Except that he is wrong, and they do; besides, they are smarter than he is, not dumber, as he thinks.
The bull in the china shop does not know that the door is already locked. And it is not wood: It is steel. No exit.

Posted by: Gaianne | Apr 14 2007 20:01 utc | 3

“Who is running U.S. foreign policy?”
Nobody. That’s why we need a ‘war tsar’, though one may justly ask, “Why not a tsarina?”.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Apr 15 2007 5:20 utc | 4

Back to Main