U.S. State Department on Iran: Testing the Limits of Hogwash

A comedy routine at the U.S. State Department? Yup, and it ranks right up there with Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?". Those of you who can take the five minutes to read the transcript in its entirety, I promise mirth and hilarity (now spelled "Hillary-ty"). For those who fear dismissal for wasting precious office time, I present you with the following highlights from the December 22 press briefing of Assistant Secretary Philip J. Crowley, available via "U.S. Department of State, Diplomacy in Action" (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133951.htm):

MR. CROWLEY: . . . And finally, a few of you have asked about the schedule of the Secretary of State over the next few days. I can tell you this morning the Secretary departed Washington and she stopped at the North Pole for an important bilateral meeting with a well known international figure. . . . [I'm not making this up.]

. . . .

QUESTION: Can I ask about the conference call [teleconference with P-5+1 counterparts re Iran]?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: What, if anything, was accomplished on this call?

MR. CROWLEY: . . . We’re in this period where we’re taking stock of Iran’s inability, unwillingness to respond to the – our offer of dialogue and the specific offer regarding the research reactor that was put on the table in Geneva and now sits on the table at the IAEA.

. . . .

QUESTION: Well, I guess I’m just confused as why you even had this call. . . .

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we have – I mean, this is an issue that is not about the United States alone. It’s about the international community. We are not the only ones who have concerns about the current trajectory. And so this is part --

. . . .

QUESTION: How did this improve anything? What’s different after the call than before?

MR. CROWLEY: . . . And we are at that point where we are consulting broadly within the P-5+1, but beyond that, so that come 2010, should Iran continue in its current posture, that there will be implications and consequences for their failure to take advantage of this opportunity.

QUESTION: How far into 2010 --

. . . .

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we have a range of – I mean, we’ve – there are sanctions that are available that are on Iran right now. We will continue to look at ways both bilaterally and multilaterally that we can add to that mix and increase the cost to Iran of its inability or unwillingness to resolve the concerns the international community has about its nuclear program.

QUESTION: But, I mean, how far into 2010? . . . .

MR. CROWLEY: . . . The offer of engagement remains available to Iran, but at the same time, we have said that we are prepared to take additional steps. . . .

QUESTION: No, I understand that, that you’ll always have this kind of dual track available. But come the beginning of the year . . . are you going to move towards imposing new sanctions against Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t put a particular date or deadline on this. . . . And obviously, going forward, will something dramatically happen on January 4th? No. But there is a point at which we will intensify our discussions around the country, and I would think at some point, we would be in a position to take some action with our partners through the various fora that are available to us.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, could you just – can you just kind of specify or put a finer point on “at some point?” . . . .

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, this is where it’s always been, which is we have a two-track strategy. One track is engagement, one track is pressure. And these have never been mutually exclusive. Even today, we continue to look for ways to strengthen and fully implement the sanctions that are already on Iran. At the same time, we’re looking at additional steps that we could take nationally and internationally should the President make that determination.

QUESTION: Given that this deadline seems to be a little bit soft, do you think in the future you’ll --

MR. CROWLEY: Let me just – Andy, sorry to interrupt you, but what we have always said throughout the year was that at the end of the year we would assess where we are. But that’s not a deadline . . . .

***************

My queries after reading the foregoing:

"Diplomacy in Action"? Is this some new State Department oxymoron?

"Crippling sanctions" or "crippled U.S. foreign policy"?

"Deadlines" or "dead in the water"?

And finally, at what point does hogwash transcend bull twaddle and penetrate the ethereal limits of Jabberwocky?