Words Have Consequences

John Hinderaker, writing yesterday at Power Line on Vice President Cheney’s message at AIPAC that “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon”:

Those are bold words.  But can the administration possibly be serious about not "allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon"? [given all the difficulties and potential international and domestic consequences of a military attack].

Still, the administration is nothing if not resolute.  In yesterday’s speech, Cheney said:

Ladies and gentlemen, one of the basic truths of the world we live in today is that George W. Bush is a man of his word.

Hard as it is to believe that the administration is prepared to take military action against Iran, it is equally hard to imagine that its strong words on Iran are insincere.

Precluding Iran from achieving nuclear status does not necessarily require military action.  As Michael Ledeen argued in an article in January and reiterated yesterday in testimony before the House Committee on International Relations, there are many actions we can and should be taking that may be as effective as military ones. 

But it is also true that diplomacy cannot succeed absent a willingness to use force if diplomacy fails.  The first step is to communicate clearly a commitment to resolve the issue by one means or another, so that the threat of force as a last resort becomes credible.  (Another is to communicate the feasibility of force, as was done here this week).

Cheney’s words were in fact a reflection of a policy already set — judging by the following three statements, by three different senior officials, on the same day earlier this year (January 23) — all of which used the same, significant word and which thus presaged Cheney’s declaration: 

1.  In an exchange with reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said this in connection with the then-upcoming IAEA Board meeting on Iran:

I think that there is a clear desire on the part of the international community to refer the matter to the Security Council.  There is a growing consensus within the [IAEA] board.  We’re continuing to talk to others to broaden that consensus.  We think a very clear message needs to be sent to the regime in Iran, that its behavior will not be tolerated.  Its non-compliance is unacceptable.

2.  On the same day, UN Ambassador John Bolton gave an address to the Herzliya Conference in Israel:

We can see that the threat posed by the Iranian program is real and not fabricated.  If they perfect the nuclear cycle and delivery systems or if they give those weapons to terrorist organizations, it is obvious why their case should be referred to the Security Council. 

We have worked for 3 years to achieve this.  In an effort to close those tactical gaps we supported the EU3 effort but after Iran‘s rejection of their effort, the Europeans have come to accept the perspective of the US. . . . [W]e will try to pressure the government of Iran to make the same strategic decision Libya made 18 months ago. 

I hope the Iranians make the correct decision; they have the key in their own hands.  President Bush has made it clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

3.  Most importantly, there was this exchange the same day between Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and the press in Washington, D.C.:

QUESTION: [T]he United States says that the option in the Iranian issue is — the valid option is the diplomatic one, but that on the President’s table, there are all options open.  Now considering the present situation, considering also the fact that in Iraq still a war is being waged, is it realistic to think that United States can afford to fight two wars?

SECRETARY RICE:  Well, the question, as I said when I was in Europe, is not on the agenda because we have committed to a diplomatic course.  We believe that a strong international response, a united international response, a Security Council context and response can indeed succeed in getting the Iranian regime to take a more acceptable course because I do not believe that the Iranian regime wants to be isolated in the way that it will be when it’s in the Security Council.

But let me be very clear, the President of the United States doesn’t take any options off the table. The key here is for an international response that will deal with a very real threat of an Iranian regime that may be, indeed, dedicated to the creation of a nuclear weapon under cover of peaceful nuclear uses.  It’s not acceptable . . . .

QUESTION:  My question was can the USA afford realistically a second war?

SECRETARY RICE:  I said the President takes no options off the table.

All three officials — the President’s spokesman, the UN Ambassador, and the Secretary of State — used the same word about Iran’s nuclear weapons:  unacceptable. 

In international diplomacy, you don’t use the word “unacceptable” and then later accept what you declared you wouldn’t accept — not if you expect your country’s word to have any further meaning in international diplomacy. 

Cheney’s unambiguous words, in a formal address in a highly public forum, confirm that the stakes for U.S. diplomacy are now quite high. A marker has been laid down, indicating that this issue is going to be resolved — by one means or another. Not only ideas, but words as well, have consequences.