Diplomacy With Iran, and Other Delusions
From Eliot Cohen:
Unless you are a connoisseur of small pictures of bearded, brooding fanatical clerics there is not much reason to collect Iranian currency. But I kept one bill on my desk at the State Department because of its watermark—an atom superimposed on the part of that country that harbors the Natanz nuclear site. Only the terminally innocent should have been surprised to learn that there is at least one other covert site, whose only purpose could be the production of highly enriched uranium for atom bombs.
Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.
Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush.
That’s right, the much-maligned diplomat George W. Bush was part of a diplomatic effort, continued by Barack "Change" Obama, to get Iran to abandon the nuclear weapons program that they’ve denied but that the world knows they’re gearing up. The talk and the Sternly Worded Letters(tm) from the United Nations have bought Iran the time they needed and brought us to the brink of either war on Iran or war from Iran.
Rock, meet hard place.
Cohen goes on to say that, at this point, it’s really too late and too difficult to remove the threat via a tactical strike, as Israel did in 1981, and an all-out war with Iran is a difficult proposition, because of the consequences to oil production, a potentially expanded war in the region, and because the Obama administration can’t even sell Afghanistan as "the good war" anymore.
His suggestion is the kind of "meddling" that Democrats have shown distaste for in the past but which we’re left with after all the talking has proved fruitless; overthrowing the regime through something other than overt war. The alternative is living with a nuclear Iran, and if you think they’re bothersome now, what with financing terrorism in the region, just wait until they have a missile with a nuke on top and no one dare cross them.
At least we won’t have a nuclear Iraq with a regime also bent on terrorism. You can thank Dubya for that, and reserve your thanks from the UN. Over a decade of what passes for diplomacy and negotiation got us precisely nowhere. History is repeating itself.
Filed under: Doug • Foreign Policy • Government • Iran • Middle East • United Nations
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.
Pressure “will not” work? Why not?
I see no reason why one would not believe that the appropriate pressure could work. IF, as reason would dictate, the people of Iran (leaders included) are indeed people (ie, human creatures), then we can count on some amount of reason. IF we can help them see why it is not in their best interests to pursue this path, then why would we expect reasonable people could not be persuaded?
Now, one might make the case that their current leader is not reasonable – that he is perhaps insane or lacking in basic rational capacities (although, truly, even crazy people can be reasoned with, it’s just more difficult). But this leader won’t be in power forever. EVEN IF he were unreasonable, we can go around the leader and approach his allies and others with the ability to influence him.
I’ll not continue, but you get the idea: This is basic direct action teachings and they are entirely workable. 100% foolproof? No, not at all, but then, neither is war. In fact, war would be a failure right off the bat and an admitting that we’ve failed to outsmart this particular unreasonable leader.
Rarely, if ever, in life are we presented with only two options. Anyone who is suggesting that tends to sound like someone with an agenda and a lack of creativity. This fella’s not saying we CAN’T resolve this without resorting to bloodshed, he’s saying, “I can’t imagine how we can do this…”
Seems to me.
My response is my blog post today. See you there.