Plan B, Part III

Last time we checked in with our foreign policy experts, our State Department was assuring Iran that we wouldn't be stopping any shipments of arms to Iran's allies in Yemen, the Houthi rebels.  Sure, we're nearing the end of a capitulation, er, negotiation on Iran's nuclear program that might give someone second thoughts about the value of any deal.  And sure, there was a UN resolution we'd pushed for that prohibited arming the Houthis.  And sure, we were moving warships (including an aircraft carrier!) toward a convoy of Iranian vessels thought to be carrying a shipment of arms destined for Yemen, but our State Department wanted to make sure everyone understood that we're all bark and no bite.  As Spokeswoman Marie Harf explained:  I want to be very clear just so that no one has the wrong impression. They are not there to intercept Iranian ships."  Oh.  Why are they there then?  "The purpose of moving them is only to ensure that the shipping lanes remain open and safe."

Today's blog won't rehash the many ways in which this is both depressing and hilarious.  (But click here if you'd like to.)  In any event, it appears that the Iranians didn't believe the stated commerce-protecting purpose of warships.  Perhaps they believed the much less pacific message from the Pentagon instead.  The Iranian ships turned around and headed for home.  If the Iranians did in fact turn around because of the US Navy, it's despite our State Department's behavior, not because of it.  But let's move on to see how we're doing with our stated goal of protecting the shipping lanes.

On Friday, (one day after the Iranian arms shipments turned around for home), Iran's navy intercepted a US-flagged cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the Maersk Kensington.  After encircling and following for a time, the Iranians dispersed.  Yesterday, Iranian navy fired on and seized another cargo ship, the Maersk Tigris.  That ship is headed to port under Iranian escort.

Iran had not been in the habit of using its navy to block shipping lanes until immediately after our President and State Department made a point of saying we'd protect the shipping lanes.  I don't pretend to know if it's immediately possible to protect the cargo ships intercepted over the past 5 days, and I'd guess that Iran chose targets a little removed from the center of US naval presence in the region.  But it's as if Iran is making a point, no?

Which brings us back to Plan B theory.  Our President has publicly stated that he has no alternative to a deal with Iran.  He has no Plan B.  Iran will get what it wants in terms of nuclear militarization development because our lead negotiator, the President of the United States, believes there is no alternative.  He has said so, publicly.  His determination to get a deal at any cost, despite missed deadlines by Iran, despite Twitter (!) accusations by his counterpart of lying, cheating and general infidelitude, despite intentional military provocations during negotiations, confirms his desperation.  

If you get your opponent on the ropes, keep punching hard until he's down.

Plan B, cont.

Iran's march to regional domination is in the news again, as it will be for the foreseeable future. 

Yemen's government crumbled and dissolved into nothingness in January, four months after President Obama touted Yemen as an example of the success of his foreign policy.  Yemen has been in a Hobbesian state of war of all against all since then.

The Yemeni government was reasonably friendly to the US.  Not satisfied with the removal of US influence, Iran is attempting to ensure that Yemen becomes an Iranian puppet state.  A shipment of Iranian arms destined for the Houthis (Iran's allies in Yemen) is on its way.

A prior post examined the disaster that has resulted from having no Plan B in the negotiations with Iran over Iran's nuclear weapons program.  We still have no Plan B there, so even though Iran is actively pursuing military options against US interests in the Middle East (we've been assisting the Saudis in their military actions against Iran's Yemeni allies), we're not even going to pause negotiations.  White House spokesman Josh Earnest:  Iran's intervention "is not a reason to break up those negotiations — in fact, it is a very strong incentive for those negotiations to succeed."  Most experienced negotiators do not take threats, violence or other bad behavior as a reason to come to agreement.  The proper response to someone pounding the table across from you is not to agree with him in the hope that he'll stop the scary noises.  The proper response is to call his bluff.  But our negotiators seem invincible to experience.

On Sunday, the US diverted warships to the Yemeni coast.  Maybe we did learn how to call a bluff?  No.  Since Sunday, there have been a series of statements from the Obama administration, including Obama himself, that could not be better crafted to communicate confusion, weakness and irrelevance.

After his Press Secretary told reporters that the United States "is serious about the Iranians not providing weapons to the Houthis," President Obama said these words to Chris Mathews in an interview on MSNBC:

"Right now their ships are in international waters.  There’s a reason why we keep some of our ships in the Persian Gulf region and that is to make sure we maintain freedom of navigation. And what we’ve said to them is if there are weapons delivered to factions within Yemen that could threaten navigation, that’s a problem."

Let that sink in.  There's a UN resolution prohibiting anyone from arming the Houthis.  The White House Press Secretary has reiterated that we're serious about preventing Iran from arming the Houthis.  So to ensure that everyone understand our intentions, President Obama says that we're concerned with the shipping lanes.  If Mathews wasn't distracted by his tingling leg, perhaps he would have thought to ask what problem a weapons shipment could possibly create for maritime navigation.

Mr. President, there is no problem with the shipping lanes.  None.  The idea that weapons being delivered to Yemen could "threaten navigation" is intentional idiocy.  The weapons are to be used in Yemen, against our allies.  It's as if the FBI set up armed surveillance of a gun trafficking operation in a Walmart parking lot, for the sole purpose of ensuring that the traffickers didn't use any of the handicapped parking spaces.

For its part, the State Department wants to make sure we all understand that US warships aren't going to do anything, you know, warlike.  Spokeswoman Marie Harf:  "I want to be very clear just so that no one has the wrong impression. They are not there to intercept Iranian ships.  The purpose of moving them is only to ensure that the shipping lanes remain open and safe."

This is impossible to parody.  We're sending our warships toward an Iranian shipment of weapons, not to intercept those weapons, but to make sure they reach their destination safely.