Moving the Iran Negotiations Forward at Moscow
Moscow did not yield a breakthrough to the Iran nuclear standoff, but did end with agreement to meet again in a few weeks. But because Moscow was one small step following other small steps, some may call it a failure. The outcome of the Moscow talks may be unsatisfying; it may not have been a breakthrough. But negotiations are the only way to achieve a long–term solution to resolve the Iranian nuclear standoff
The meetings planned at the Moscow talks differ slightly from the previous meetings. According to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s press briefing, the upcoming meetings will include a technical-level meeting in Istanbul on July 3rd, a deputy-level meeting between Helga Schmid and Ali Bagheri, and possibly a political meeting (to be discussed by Lady Ashton and Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili).
This may not be a breakthrough, but neither is it a failure. The Moscow talks will undoubtedly be called a failure, however, by those who would prefer a dramatic military strike over slow, plodding negotiations.
There’s just one problem with a military strike: it won’t work. In fact, military action would likely be counterproductive – convincing Iran that building a bomb is in their only option – besides driving up oil prices, setting back the economy, provoking retaliation and even sparking a regional conflict.
This is not the assessment of one or two experts. Expert after expert has weighed the evidence and come to the same conclusion: a military strike would be disastrous. RAND, for example, said pointblank that “an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons.” And it isn’t just the think tanks either. U.S. and Israeli officials, from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to former Director of the Mossad Meir Dagan have cautioned against military action.
