Play it cool, Chancellor.

Following up on Joshua Pollack’s post on ACW about the problems with negotiating through public statements, it looks like German Chancellor Angela Merkel took some time during her address to Congress yesterday, which was mostly about climate change, to add her two cents worth of provocation.

Zero tolerance needs to be shown when there is a risk of weapons of mass destruction falling, for example, into the hands of Iran and threatening our security . . . Iran knows our offer, but Iran also knows where we draw a line. A nuclear bomb in the hands of an Iranian president who denied the Holocaust, threatens Israel and denies Israel the right to exist is not acceptable.

Sure. Agreed. And according to the Politico's account, it generated "the most rousing applause" from the Congress. Three cheers for cheers, but this wasn't a good idea.

It would have been much easier and (from a negotiating standpoint) probably a lot better, had Merkel brought the composure to hold back the rally cry in a speech that was largely about something else, especially at a time when the offer to send three-fourths of Iranian LEU to Russia is technically still on the table. Merkel evoking the Cold War imagery of the U.S. and Europe unifying against the Soviet Union and breezily segueing into a denunciation of Iran makes it far too easy for the media to pick up the pieces of the story and assemble them in such a way that makes it seem as though the West is ganging-up and intent on bullying. Clinton gave the media less fodder and Pollack pointed out what happened.

It's not hard to understand Merkel's desire to speak to an important issue during her time before Congress and her wanting to reaffirm Germany's position given her country's historical trouble with poorly enforced export controls that have helped Iran get to where it is - an issue that remains of some concern, as pointed out by David Albright at an event at George Washington University yesterday. But we'd all be better served by a little more discretion and nuance than what Merkel's ambiguous zero tolerance position conveys. Zero tolerance with respect to what: the terms of the offer, the prospect of Iran actually having a bomb, or both?

Also, yes, Ahmadinejad's treatment of the Holocaust is as wrong as it is ridiculous, but it's not exactly the best argument as to why Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. Iran should not have a nuclear weapon because it signed and ratified the NPT; let's leave it at that. For a number of reasons, including Israel's own possession of nuclear weapons, conflating issues concerning Israel's presence and behavior with Iran's nuclear rights creates an all-too-convenient obfuscation that does no favors to the effort to find an agreeable solution to the problems with Iran's nuclear program. Again, her interest in expressing support for Israel is understandable, but it's obviously not going to help. Why bring it up?

More discipline in controlling the message could go a long way. The lack of it makes it far too easy for the media to assemble highlight reels of provocation and for Iran to summarily dismiss whatever deal is on the table on the grounds that accepting it would look too much like giving-in to the enemy. Rallying in solidarity has its place, but when the microphones are on and the cameras are rolling, playing it a bit cooler is the better way to go.