View Full Version : Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)
rborum
07-01-2010, 08:27 PM
Neither one of us can afford to be perceived as appeasing or giving into the other. This makes substantive engagement very difficult for either side. .
I get that - but it seems to me that kind of posture locks us into positional (rather than interest-based) security policy, which really doesn't seem to be that useful. Apart from it's deleterious effects on security, it ultimately can undermine - rather than strengthen - a nation's actual power.
Bob's World
07-02-2010, 12:43 AM
A conversation along the lines of:
"Look, you stop your excessive efforts to destroy Israel and we'll stop our excessive efforts to protect them. They're big boys and have earned the right to be there on their own merits and besides we both have more important issues to deal with.
As to the Saudis, yes, we know they hate and fear you and that they are always spinning us up on how evil Iranians in particular and Shia in general are. We've stopped buying into that line of crap and have told the King to stop threatening to turn off the oil if we don't. Our position is that we will not let EITHER of the two countries cause serious trouble with the other, and may work with the Iraqis about keeping some degree of presence in their country for just such purposes. We're also taking a very hard line on the issue of how the Saudi's treat their own Shia populace, in fact, someone might have hinted that it is never too late to carve out another oil rich, small population Gulf State if pressed on this issue...
Now, let’s talk about developing nuclear power in a way that doesn't make everybody else nervous. We need to get a major program going in our country as well, so by pushing forward together it works out for both of us. Also Afghanistan; we know we have too much presence there, but to back it off we need more regional support. Let’s discuss how we can better balance the interests that you all have in the region with the ones we have there and find some ways to work this together."
One thing for certain is, to simply continue with the same old policies and approaches is not a rationale COA.
AdamG
10-20-2010, 06:01 PM
Iran acknowledged Saturday that some personnel at the country's nuclear facilities were lured by promises of money to pass secrets to the West but insisted increased security and worker privileges have put a stop to the spying.
The stunning admission by Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi provides the clearest government confirmation that Iran has been fighting espionage at its nuclear facilities.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/16/iran-acknowledges-espionage-at-nuclear-facilities/
Reading music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKb9XQ39-zc
Jedburgh
10-26-2010, 04:45 PM
25 Oct 10, CEIP: Iran: A View From Moscow (http://carnegieendowment.org/files/iran_view_moscow.pdf)
Iran’s emergence as a rising power is straining its relations with Russia. While many outside observers assume the two countries enjoy a close relationship, in reality it is highly complex. Although Iran and Russia have strong economic and military ties, Moscow is increasingly wary of Tehran’s growing ambitions.
Offering a view from Moscow, this paper explores how an empowered Iran threatens Russia. Home to the world’s second-largest natural gas resources—behind only Russia—Iran can severely cut into the profits of Russia’s state controlled energy company, Gazprom, by selling more gas to Europe. And a nuclear Iran would significantly diminish Russia’s influence in the wider Caspian region that includes the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Iran’s relationship with Russia has evolved. While Moscow did not want to strengthen a potential regional rival, it was desperate in the past to save its crumbling defense industry and Tehran seemed to offer a large and willing market.
Still, the relationship is growing more contentious on both sides. After Iran failed to agree to a nuclear deal with the international community that was brokered by Moscow last year, it continued to use Russia as a foil to undercut U.S. policies. Meanwhile, Russia—as it resets relations with the United States—has backed economic sanctions against Tehran and supported a United Nations Security Council resolution blocking heavy weapons exports to Iran....
Complete 44 page paper at the link.
If the Iranians continue to jack us around regarding their nukes perhaps the time may come that the President should announce that he has directed the U.S. Air Force to target intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads on Tehran, Tarriz, Mashbad and Eshafan. The understanding would be that if they shoot nukes at anyone in the world those cities will be black holes in the ground within one hour.
The same message to Pakistan regarding Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore might show them we're tired of trying to prove to them what nice guys we are. Okay, have it your way, you've been asking for it a few decades now, now you can live with the consequences.
To put this a bit more crudely:
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum - the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!"
Cliff
11-20-2010, 06:34 AM
If the Iranians continue to jack us around regarding their nukes perhaps the time may come that the President should announce that he has directed the U.S. Air Force to target intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads on Tehran, Tarriz, Mashbad and Eshafan.
As Sec Gates pointed out, there are not a lot of really good options for stopping Iran's nuclear program with military force. Short of completely taking the country over it would be pretty tough to stop the Iranians from getting nukes. The second order effects with Hezbollah, Hamas, Mahdi Army, as well as the effects on the moderates like the Green Movement would not be good. The struggle between Ahmajinedad/the Revolutionary Guards, the mulllahs, and the moderates would be affected - perhaps destroying the best chance of truly changing Iran. From the Iranian's point of view, as long as the regime's survival is at risk they will continue to pursue nukes - us hitting them with some airstrikes will only delay the inevitable.
The Saudis, Qatar, UAE etc are all prepping to deter Iran conventionally. There's no reason why Israel/the US can't use deterrence against Iran. The only big danger is them spreading nuclear material or technology to terrorists. In some ways, Iran having nukes would stabilize the situation somewhat as they would have to worry about escalation.
If Iran gets nukes, I expect we will make some explicit statements about deterring them with our own nukes.
It's basically inevitable...
A decent article about deterring Iran is here. (http://globlogization.wikistrat.com/globlogization/2010/9/20/what-a-serious-containment-of-nuclear-iran-would-demand-of-u.html)
V/R,
Cliff
Bob's World
11-20-2010, 12:50 PM
U.S. policy toward Iran is so bi-polar. On one hand we leave them little choice but to pursue nuclear weapons with our heavy bias toward their traditional ideological foes of Saudi Arabia and Israel; and our occupation of historic Persian territory/areas of influence on their current left and right flanks of modern Iraq and Afghanistan. This coupled with our overthrow of their government in 1953, followed by the past 30 years of the US seeing them as a threat ever since they tossed our guy out.
On the other hand we tell them to trust us; while the entire world can see that the U.S. clearly treats nations that possess nuclear weapons with far more respect than those that do not; and that we have a clear bias against Iran.
Its probably time for a new approach. While I will be the first to admit that the government of Iran is a pain in the ass; Iran itself is a great nation with a tremendous history and a great future. Sure, they are are in a bit of a slump currently, but the US cannot ignore our contributions to that current slump (nor those of our British friends).
This is not a problem to be defeated, contained, or deterred, but rather one to be addressed rationally as to how we all move forward together. For those who say "the government of Iran is irrational," true that. But there are plenty who have reasonably leveled that same claim at the U.S. over the years.
The U.S. needs to not let our little buddies push us into a fight that is against our interest, and need to seek ways to resolve our differences and move forward. The people of both nations deserve no less.
slapout9
11-20-2010, 01:32 PM
If the Iranians continue to jack us around regarding their nukes perhaps the time may come that the President should announce that he has directed the U.S. Air Force to target intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads on Tehran, Tarriz, Mashbad and Eshafan. The understanding would be that if they shoot nukes at anyone in the world those cities will be black holes in the ground within one hour.
Thats right....Strategy is Targeting.
davidbfpo
11-20-2010, 03:24 PM
Going back decades in arms control IIRC one of the gains from strategic dialogue with the USSR (civil and military) was how much each side learnt about the realities of having nuclear weapons. Not my subject, somehow I doubt there has been any dialogue by official and non-official Iran with outsiders on these matters.
There are some very wise academics and ex-policy makers who could contribute from the USA, Graham Allison and James Schlesinger come to mind.
Has Iran developed nuclear weapons without a strategy? If they have I do wonder how much relevance deterrence is.
Entropy
11-20-2010, 03:27 PM
Why do we have to tell Iran anything? It seems to me we've made it pretty clear, many times, that our umbrella of nuclear deterrences spreads far and wide, including to Israel with whom we don't even have a formal defense treaty. What, exactly, will more bellicose threats accomplish?
davidbfpo
11-20-2010, 03:37 PM
Entropy,
I'm not sure if your post is directed at mine. So with that caveat aside.
I am not advocating the USA solely talks with Iran, but a far wider community and probably best from outside government. Pugwash for example.
Where are the 'hot lines' to call Teheran in a crisis or when something odd appears on the radar? In a weird way, additional caveat it is decades since I had to think about nuclear deterrence, both sides to know far more than we have nukes and we will hit you. Confidence building in destruction is indeed strange.
Entropy
11-20-2010, 07:02 PM
Dave,
No, I was speaking to Pete in his original comment. Personally, I think we should reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran, but I understand that idea isn't very popular.
IntelTrooper
11-20-2010, 07:28 PM
I agree with Entropy and those saying that continued threats are counterproductive. Iran has been thriving for 30 years under constant sanctions and threats from the Western world. They've done little to change the situation there. Threats of military force will simply serve to unite the people in anti-American sentiments, and the general population of Iran is not our enemy.
Recent indications are that a rift is emerging between the religious leadership and Ahmadinejad's taunting the West while pursuing the nuclear program. The change needed to peacefully resolve the situation must come from inside Iran, and that's not going to happen when we threaten the lives and cultural heritage of Iran by targeting Mashhad, Esfahan, or any other city, really.
Fuchs
11-20-2010, 07:42 PM
Thats right....Strategy is Targeting.
There was a time when smart people understood that strategy was about resource allocation because war means scarcity.
I assume that got somehow lost after decades of beating up (and at times losing against) 4th class to 10th class opponents.
My original message in this thread is based on the assumption that Iran is going to become a nuclear power whether we like it or not, and that it will also continue to develop the missiles to deliver them. The sentiment expressed is not intended to be saber-rattling -- rather, it would be a matter-of-fact warning that actions have consequences, and they would be grave indeed should that nation fire a nuke at someone.
Fuchs
11-20-2010, 08:18 PM
It's also unrealistic.
Russia is an autocratic state with nukes and some challenges to its status. Its CIS is bordering on Iran. They would be a 10:1 better candidate for a third party nuclear retaliation than any Western country.
Entropy
11-20-2010, 08:29 PM
My original message in this thread is based on the assumption that Iran is going to become a nuclear power whether we like it or not, and that it will also continue to develop the missiles to deliver them. The sentiment expressed is not intended to be saber-rattling -- rather, it would be a matter-of-fact warning that actions have consequences, and they would be grave indeed should that nation fire a nuke at someone.
I understand, but Iran is already well aware of that and we've been saying essentially what you're suggesting for quite a while. In fact, we've gone further and suggested that a nuclear capability itself could invite "retaliation."
In short, Iran is not operating under the premise that it could use a nuke and not face retaliation.
Hi Intel Trooper, just want to say that Monterey was where I lived when I was at Fort Ord in the 7th Infantry Division before you were born in '82-'84, and before then the place was my Dad's U.S. Army reception station in '43.
I lived on Alice Street in New Monterey. The streets there with women's names are said to have been named after the town's favorite ladies of the night during the Steinbeck Cannery Row days. There's a Lottie Street as well.
My watering hole was Segovia's on Lighthouse Avenue. There were some interesting regulars there back then -- one, a former student jet fighter pilot in the World War II Luftwaffe, spent his career as a DIA spook before he retired as chief of the DLI Asian Languages Branch; another was a Marine Corps Iwo Jima veteran who became an Army armor officer who was briefly Elvis Presley's battalion commander in Germany in the '50s. Before I started going there Clint Eastwood and Jimmy Doolittle, the flyer and Medal of Honor guy, were also occasional visitors.
IntelTrooper
11-21-2010, 04:13 AM
Hi Intel Trooper, just want to say that Monterey was where I lived when I was at Fort Ord in the 7th Infantry Division before you were born in '82-'84, and before then the place was my Dad's U.S. Army reception station in '43.
I lived on Alice Street in New Monterey. The streets there with women's names are said to have been named after the town's favorite ladies of the night during the Steinbeck Cannery Row days. There's a Lottie Street as well.
My watering hole was Segovia's on Lighthouse Avenue. There were some interesting regulars there back then -- one, a former student jet fighter pilot in the World War II Luftwaffe, spent his career as a DIA spook before he retired as chief of the DLI Asian Languages Branch; another was a Marine Corps Iwo Jima veteran who became an Army armor officer who was briefly Elvis Presley's battalion commander in Germany in the '50s. Before I started going there Clint Eastwood and Jimmy Doolittle, the flyer and Medal of Honor guy, were also occasional visitors.
Hi Pete,
I'm always amazed by how much history and celebrity exists around this area. If you've been back in the last 10 years or so you've probably noticed how little of the old Lightfighters stomping ground in use anymore, and aside from the part that was converted into CSU-Monterey Bay, they've made no effort to cover up the delapidation. Sad.
I'm not a drinker but I hear Segovia's is still around, along with a few of the other iconic places. Clint Eastwood owns a restaurant over in Carmel that he frequents. Jimmy Doolittle would have been fascinating to see.
I keep telling myself to slow down and enjoy the area more so I have some memories other than the inside of the classroom. It really is a special place here.
When Dad was at the Presidio of Monterey on his second or third day in the Army in 1943 one of the recruits asked an elderly master sergeant there what his ribbons stood for. The sergeant named what they were, and when he got to his World War ribbon, the one he was proudest of, he raised his voice and said, " .. and this, gentlemen, is for the Siberian Expeditionary Force!" The guy had been in the Vladivostok area of Russia during 1918-19.
SJPONeill
11-21-2010, 07:42 AM
U.S. policy toward Iran is so bi-polar. On one hand we leave them little choice but to pursue nuclear weapons with our heavy bias toward their traditional ideological foes of Saudi Arabia and Israel; and our occupation of historic Persian territory/areas of influence on their current left and right flanks of modern Iraq and Afghanistan. This coupled with our overthrow of their government in 1953, followed by the past 30 years of the US seeing them as a threat ever since they tossed our guy out.
On the other hand we tell them to trust us; while the entire world can see that the U.S. clearly treats nations that possess nuclear weapons with far more respect than those that do not; and that we have a clear bias against Iran.
Its probably time for a new approach. While I will be the first to admit that the government of Iran is a pain in the ass; Iran itself is a great nation with a tremendous history and a great future. Sure, they are are in a bit of a slump currently, but the US cannot ignore our contributions to that current slump (nor those of our British friends).
This is not a problem to be defeated, contained, or deterred, but rather one to be addressed rationally as to how we all move forward together. For those who say "the government of Iran is irrational," true that. But there are plenty who have reasonably leveled that same claim at the U.S. over the years.
The U.S. needs to not let our little buddies push us into a fight that is against our interest, and need to seek ways to resolve our differences and move forward. The people of both nations deserve no less.
Absolutely plus start waving the big stick around as Pete proposes and the littler kids on the block might decide to get their hits in first...the genie is and has been out of the bag for decades so acceptance is probably more useful than rhetoric...no one seems that worried about French nuclear weapons and they've probably sponsored as much terrorism as Iran...
If the Iranians continue to jack us around regarding their nukes perhaps the time may come that the President should announce that he has directed the U.S. Air Force to target intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads on Tehran, Tarriz, Mashbad and Eshafan. The understanding would be that if they shoot nukes at anyone in the world those cities will be black holes in the ground within one hour.
Well I agree they should be put on notice that no new nuclear weapons holding countries will be allowed.
Not sure taking cities out is the best way to get that message home but the current cowardly acceptance of an Iran nuke is quite sickening.
Dayuhan
11-22-2010, 06:28 AM
Well I agree they should be put on notice that no new nuclear weapons holding countries will be allowed.
Not sure taking cities out is the best way to get that message home but the current cowardly acceptance of an Iran nuke is quite sickening.
A bit silly to declare that you will not allow what you haven't the capacity to prevent. Canute and the tide...
It's odd that so many simply assume that an Iranian nuke would be promptly shot toward Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the US (via sneaky terrorists), despite the certain and devastating consequences any such action would have for Iran. Have we not considered the possibility (or probability) that the Iranians want a deterrent, just as the Israelis do? As Bob's World points out, they have their share of threats and enemies, and not a lot of friends.
Remembering the old Tom Lehrer song, and the reference to Israel's nuclear program...
The Lord's our shepherd, says the psalm, but just in case...
We'd better get a bomb.
I suspect that it translates well to Persian, and a few other languages as well.
A bit silly to declare that you will not allow what you haven't the capacity to prevent. Canute and the tide...
So you don't believe it possible to prevent Iran developing nukes? And you call me silly?
Dayuhan
11-22-2010, 08:22 AM
So you don't believe it possible to prevent Iran developing nukes? And you call me silly?
Like so many things, it's certainly possible on an internet forum. Realistically the theoretical "options" are... well, not realistic at all. This comment was made earlier on the thread:
As Sec Gates pointed out, there are not a lot of really good options for stopping Iran's nuclear program with military force. Short of completely taking the country over it would be pretty tough to stop the Iranians from getting nukes.
The conversation always comes back to air strikes, and the conclusion is always that they would probably not accomplish the desired goal, and that the probable negative consequences would be outweigh the very questionable gains.
If you've a strategy in mind, perhaps you should reveal it. I'm sure many here would like to know.
Dayuhan
11-22-2010, 08:29 AM
Reference for the quote above:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g64FsYSZmeVnt-m9FludPsfAwuGQ?docId=CNG.70dba1b8e4efe2bdae1cc5674 a9676aa.191
WASHINGTON — US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Tuesday that military action would not stop Iran's nuclear program and instead would only make it "deeper and more covert."
Gates told a conference that military action would offer only a "short-term solution" to the thorny issue of Iran's nuclear program...
Military action against the Iranian government, which has refused global calls to rein in its suspect nuclear enrichment program, would "bring together a divided nation, it will make them absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons," the US defense chief said.
Bob's World
11-22-2010, 01:05 PM
Gates is spot on with this. Smartest thing I've heard regarding Iran coming out of the Pentagon.
We've had way too much focus on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and very little rational thought regarding WHY they seek them.
The knee-jerk Intel driven position is that it is to threaten/attack Israel or Saudi Arabia or even the U.S.; but it is is highly unlikely a country with 1 or 2 weapons is going to attack someone in such a manner, only to receive 20-30 even larger devices back at them (The US is not famous for our moderate responses to such things).
I suspect the primary driver is to deter others from attacking them and to free themselves from having to kowtow to the demands of nuclear powers. With the US military currently on both their flanks, the heavy anti-Iranian rhetoric coming out of both official and unofficial US sources on a regular basis, and the persistent prodding of both the Saudis and the Israelis, the most logical COA is to develop a nuclear capability. Even their populace, that is no fan of their current government, rallies around the cause of their right to develop such weapons and the lack of right of those who already possess such weapons to deny them the same. Gates is on target on this one.
We need more of this. Only a military with the moral courage to tell the boss "yes we can, but no we should not and here is why," can truly serve the nation to its fullest capacity.
Rex Brynen
11-22-2010, 03:07 PM
The knee-jerk Intel driven position is that it is to threaten/attack Israel or Saudi Arabia or even the U.S...
I doubt this is the IC view. I suspect it is more accurate to say that 1) the intel community is split on what exactly the Iranian program is (in part, perhaps, because the Iranians themselves are split on the issue), 2) the notion that they are there for first strike purposes is only held by a minority, and 3) most analysts (in and outside government) would probably offer a more nuanced view that would point to Iranian desire for a deterrent, a desire to strengthen Iranian power/prestige, and internal regime dynamics.
Fuchs
11-22-2010, 03:59 PM
I'd like to add that I'm under the impression that the Iranian nuke project is a "no nukes, but we could build some in two years" project, comparable to the situation of South Africa, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Ukraine.
Entropy
11-22-2010, 04:11 PM
Rex,
Thanks for that, I agree. Just consider the hostility directed toward the IC after the 2007 Iran NIE by some segments of the political and policy community.
Ken White
11-22-2010, 04:43 PM
... Iranian desire for a deterrent, a desire to strengthen Iranian power/prestige, and internal regime dynamics.I believe that the priority and percentage order would be 2 / 60%, 3 / 25% and 1 / 15% -- almost an afterthought for most Iraniha. :wry:
You're correct on the IC assessment, I think and my add-on comment is only partly in jest...
SJPONeill
11-22-2010, 06:04 PM
We're worried that Iran might have nukes but comfortably cosying up to an 'ally' like Pakistan that does have nukes and which is far more closely aligned to the takfiri who detest western culture...
Ken White
11-22-2010, 06:57 PM
Are we cozying up to keep a better eye on the Pakistani nukes? Is Pakistan supporting our efforts, no matter how grudgingly, while Iran tries mightily to disrupt our efforts?
While majority US public opinion grudgingly supports the Paksitani relationship, there are some in the US -- to include in the Congress -- who would not support cozying up to Iran.
Plus always recall that things in that area of the world are rarely as they seem...;)
We're worried that Iran might have nukes but comfortably cosying up to an 'ally' like Pakistan that does have nukes and which is far more closely aligned to the takfiri who detest western culture...
As time passes we learn what a great mistake it was to allow Pakistan to develop nukes... as with North Korea... and in the future with Iran.
Fuchs
11-22-2010, 07:51 PM
Well, so far there has no war been observed between Pakistan and India since either have nukes.
The warmongers have also become silent about invading North Korea.
Entropy
11-22-2010, 08:12 PM
As time passes we learn what a great mistake it was to allow Pakistan to develop nukes... as with North Korea... and in the future with Iran.
Who is this "we" that you speak of? There wasn't much anyone could reasonably do to stop any of them. After all, it was, I think, Bhutto who famously said" "If India builds the Bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry. But we will get one of our own."
Entropy
11-22-2010, 08:14 PM
The warmongers have also become silent about invading North Korea.
Who would those be? From where I sit the focus has been on deterring and defeating a North Korean attack.
Fuchs
11-22-2010, 08:22 PM
Who would those be? From where I sit the focus has been on deterring and defeating a North Korean attack.
That wouldn't have required the amount of demonization that went on till NK tested a low-yield nuke.
Entropy
11-22-2010, 08:26 PM
That wouldn't have required the amount of demonization that went on till NK tested a low-yield nuke.
Sure, but demonization isn't the same thing as invasion.
Rex Brynen
11-22-2010, 08:27 PM
That wouldn't have required the amount of demonization that went on till NK tested a low-yield nuke.
NORK has the singular merit of being self-demonizing. They do it it with every famine, press release, or creepy "spontaneous" choreographed demonstration of mass love for the Dear Leader. :D
Entropy is right, though—no one ever seriously contemplated invading North Korea over the nuclear issue.
Bob's World
11-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Containment is a weary strategy...time for some fresh approaches more tuned to the world we live in today.
The fantasy of a nuclear weapon-free world is not a viable approach to this either. Feasibility and Acceptability still must be given their due.
Iran is a great case-study for devising and applying some new approach. Efforts to simply contain their ambitions produce dangerous side effects, such as encouraging non-state actors such as LH that are largely immune from the tools of statecraft.
davidbfpo
11-22-2010, 11:51 PM
Robert,
Who do you mean?
non-state actors such as LH
I thought LH=Lebanese Hezbollah.
Could it have been Liddell Hart? I heard that Wilf was trying to have his citizenship revoked retroactively.
Rex Brynen
11-23-2010, 03:38 AM
No, LH=Lufthansa. I think it's a back-handed swipe at Fuchs :D
Bob's World
11-23-2010, 10:04 AM
The agency relationship between Iran and Hezbollah. If squeezed too hard in state forums, Iran is far more apt to act out through non-state forums.
Instead of simply trying to build a box around Iran due to our differences (which are at least as much our fault as theirs), why not look for areas of shared interests where we can work together and work more productively to resolve those areas where our national interests are at odds. For example, Iran would be a far more effective partner work with in Afghanistan than any of our NATO allies, yet we can't even have that conversation because of the position we have taken on areas where our interests and perspectives vary.
Containment as an overall strategy was designed for conditions that are long behind us. While there will always be certain issues that can be well addressed by "containing" them (and perhaps Iran is such an issue, but I doubt it), it is time to move forward with a more positive strategy designed for the conditions we live in today.
(Though I may need to drill into this Liddel-Hart / Lufthansa connection; and containing WILF does have a certain appeal...) :D
Tukhachevskii
11-23-2010, 08:11 PM
Instead of simply trying to build a box around Iran due to our differences (which are at least as much our fault as theirs), why not look for areas of shared interests where we can work together and work more productively to resolve those areas where our national interests are at odds. For example, Iran would be a far more effective partner work with in Afghanistan than any of our NATO allies, yet we can't even have that conversation because of the position we have taken on areas where our interests and perspectives vary.
All true. As a political realist it makes a great deal of sense. However, disentangling the Iranian "stance" on Israel will be the major stumbling block here especially given that Iranian/Shi'a legitimacy is largely based upon shared antipathy toward Israel with their "Sunni" brethren. Besides, so much of Iran's legitimacy regionally comes from its perception as the only Islamic state to stand up to the "zionist international" and its proxy (Hizballah's) reputation in the Arab world that "normalising" relations would be a incredible, if not magical, ciricle to square.
Containment as an overall strategy was designed for conditions that are long behind us. While there will always be certain issues that can be well addressed by "containing" them (and perhaps Iran is such an issue, but I doubt it), it is time to move forward with a more positive strategy designed for the conditions we live in today.
I disagree. Containment works within a given set of conditions . The fact that the Cold War era containment policy worked then doesn't mean it can't work now; it's all about the conditions necessary for its effective implementation. Recreate those conditions and apply a suitable amount of power and containment could work again. The issue is not regarding the obsolecene of the concept but rather what eney/foe existing today would require such a response? (Cuba?).
Rex Brynen
11-24-2010, 01:16 AM
However, disentangling the Iranian "stance" on Israel will be the major stumbling block here especially given that Iranian/Shi'a legitimacy is largely based upon shared antipathy toward Israel with their "Sunni" brethren.
Legitimacy in whose eyes? Certainly among hard-core ideologues in the regime, but it really doesn't resonate much among many ordinary Iranians.
On the contrary, it is common to hear complaints in Tehran about all the money "wasted" on Hizbullah and Hamas. I was frequently asked about Israeli politics by curious students when I was there. In a half dozen or so public lectures at various universities and think-tanks, I received only one anti-Semitic question—to which several members of the audience either complained, or walked out in protest at the question. On the other hand, when I criticized Ahmedinejad's Holocaust denial, I was applauded.
A 2002 Gallup survey showed that only 10% of Iranian TV viewers "frequently" watch news on the Arab-Israeli conflict, compared to 60-75% in most of the Arab world, and 15-20% in Turkey and Pakistan.
Regionally, yes: Iran's anti-israeli stance resonates well among the Arab public. Among the Iranian public, however, the effect seems strikingly limited.
Legitimacy in whose eyes? Certainly among hard-core ideologues in the regime, but it really doesn't resonate much among many ordinary Iranians.
Can the "ordinary Iranians" do anything about it? Can the "ordinary Zimbabweans" do anything about their situation? And a host others?
When the (any such) regime has its jackboot on the throat of the nation the population tends to follow meekly along.
Dayuhan
11-24-2010, 07:12 AM
When the (any such) regime has its jackboot on the throat of the nation the population tends to follow meekly along.
Until one day the guy with the jackboots finds himself running for exile in another country (if he's lucky) or hanging from a lamppost (if he's not). It's happened before, it'll happen again.
Tukhachevskii
11-25-2010, 11:54 AM
Legitimacy in whose eyes? Certainly among hard-core ideologues in the regime, but it really doesn't resonate much among many ordinary Iranians.
On the contrary, it is common to hear complaints in Tehran about all the money "wasted" on Hizbullah and Hamas. I was frequently asked about Israeli politics by curious students when I was there. In a half dozen or so public lectures at various universities and think-tanks, I received only one anti-Semitic question—to which several members of the audience either complained, or walked out in protest at the question. On the other hand, when I criticized Ahmedinejad's Holocaust denial, I was applauded.
A 2002 Gallup survey showed that only 10% of Iranian TV viewers "frequently" watch news on the Arab-Israeli conflict, compared to 60-75% in most of the Arab world, and 15-20% in Turkey and Pakistan.
Regionally, yes: Iran's anti-israeli stance resonates well among the Arab public. Among the Iranian public, however, the effect seems strikingly limited.
Yes, sorry I meant regime ideology. Funnily enough most Yemenis I spoke to detest the Palestinians because they think they get a good deal by being a "diaspora" (i.e., the Arab states "throw money at them" and so does the international community, whatever that is).
Bob's World
11-25-2010, 01:08 PM
Yes, sorry I meant regime ideology. Funnily enough most Yemenis I spoke to detest the Palestinians because they think they get a good deal by being a "diaspora" (i.e., the Arab states "throw money at them" and so does the international community, whatever that is).
These are important points in remembering that this is not a single monolithic problem, or a global insurgency; but rather many unique and distinct points of friction between populaces and their governments.
Is there a synergy? Well, certainly that is AQ's goal; but such UW efforts by AQ do not make everyone who talks or works with them into AQ as well to be resolved through CT. AQAP, AQIM...these are clusters of nationalist insurgent movements where AQ conducts UW to seek such synergy. Large, common ends such as a Caliphate? Highly unlikely.
An Iran of course is completely unrelated to all. They don't blame their poor governance on the US as these others often do (and of course are largely
Shia). They took care of that problem back in the 70s, the current problem is their own and they know it. This is why the Iranian populace is our greatest resource in keeping the Iranian government in check, or "deterred." Taking positions that alienate the Iranian populace only weaken our position in that region.
Taking positions that alienate the Iranian populace only weaken our position in that region.
Would you care to illustrate what "positions" these would be?
Bob's World
11-25-2010, 06:16 PM
Would you care to illustrate what "positions" these would be?
Well, the largest one is this issue of nuclear weapons. Reports I have seen indicate that even those who are least satisfied with their government are outraged that the West should dictate to them as to if the nation of Iran can have such weapons or not.
We all know that we would feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot.
Well, the largest one is this issue of nuclear weapons. Reports I have seen indicate that even those who are least satisfied with their government are outraged that the West should dictate to them as to if the nation of Iran can have such weapons or not.
We all know that we would feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot.
So let them go ahead and develop such weapons and who... (the students, you say?) will deter the regime from ever using them?
Until one day the guy with the jackboots finds himself running for exile in another country (if he's lucky) or hanging from a lamppost (if he's not). It's happened before, it'll happen again.
And then one set of jackboots will be replaced by another... and the cycle will continue.
Dayuhan
11-25-2010, 11:42 PM
And then one set of jackboots will be replaced by another... and the cycle will continue.
Not necessarily so; quite a few countries have gotten rid of dictators, kings, etc and moved forward. Doesn't happen overnight, but it happens... and what's the alternative? Some foreign deus ex machina coming in and "installing" democracy?
So let them go ahead and develop such weapons and who... (the students, you say?) will deter the regime from ever using them?
Deterrence is achieved by the certainty of overwhelming retaliation. Whether or not to "let them" develop weapons is not really an issue, as there is no effective and acceptable way of stopping them. The US is not in a position to tell other countries what they are and are not allowed to do within their borders.
Bob's World
11-26-2010, 12:52 AM
So let them go ahead and develop such weapons and who... (the students, you say?) will deter the regime from ever using them?
Deterrence of activity and development of capability are two very different things. Though as your comments point out, are quite often confused.
Deterrence of activity and development of capability are two very different things. Though as your comments point out, are quite often confused.
Maybe you are attempting to sidestep the issue?
Lets try it this way then.
Once the Iranian regime has a nuclear capability what will in your opinion be the effective deterrent to their ever using them?
davidbfpo
11-26-2010, 09:03 AM
JMA & Bob,
:Originally Posted by Bob's World:
Deterrence of activity and development of capability are two very different things. Though as your comments point out, are quite often confused.
From JMA:
Once the Iranian regime has a nuclear capability what will in your opinion be the effective deterrent to their ever using them?
I am sure there is a third leg to this strategic stance Iran is going for; activity, capability and understanding - of the consequences and more of having nuclear weapons.
No-one doubts the intelligence of the Iranian people, some admire their state's diplomatic dexterity, but in the open world how much understanding do they have?
Bob's World
11-26-2010, 11:41 AM
So let them go ahead and develop such weapons and who... (the students, you say?) will deter the regime from ever using them?
Denial of a capability and deterrence of inappropriate employment of a capability are two very different things that should not be confused.
The question for the US is "Would we be taking the same position we are taking today if it was, say, 1970 and the Shah was still in power?" Point being, is the issue Iran becoming a nuclear state, or is the issue the nature of the relationship between our governments currently? I would argue that it is primarily the latter.
I see the US falling into the same trap with Iran on this nuclear issue that it has fallen into with China over Taiwan. It is not that there is any great evil that would necessarily occur if China forced a unification with Taiwan or if Iran developed a nuclear capability. The issue always boils down to one of we can't allow them to do something that we have committed ourselves to denying or preventing.
It becomes an issue of face, an issue of influence. Personally, I think we should pick these issues more carefully, and become more adept at evolving our positions over time to as to be able to gracefully divest ourselves of positions that have lost the relevance that drove their adoption in the first place.
Taiwan, for example, is a sucker's bet. If the PRC made a play for Taiwan and was defeated, but the US lost a Carrier or two in the process and several top of the line aircraft, it is a moral victory for the PRC; and the U.S. best case situation is to merely reset the conditions of failure. Does anyone think that China is going to someday stop thinking of Taiwan as being part of China? Similarly, does anyone think that China is going to do anything to disrupt the economy of Taiwan if they reunified? I suspect the PRC enjoys the predicament the U.S. has placed itself in, and plays it to their advantage to build their own influence regionally and globally and to erode U.S. influence regionally and globally as well. More importantly, it has a very negative effect on the US-Chinese relationship (and our relationship with every other state in the region) so that the Costs far exceed the benefits.
Anyway, as to Iran, if we focus on the relationship rather than the weapon we can have a grown up conversation with Iran as to why it is they feel it so important to possess such a weapon and look for alternative ways to address those concerns; or failing that, ways to ensure that their development of the weapon is not done in such a manner as to destabilize the region. Would this piss off Israel and Saudi Arabia and their powerful lobbies in the U.S.? Undoubtedly. But this is another benefit of this COA, as far too many around the globe see the U.S. as a big stupid puppet of these two little states currently, and doing something clearly counter to their interests but supportive of our own would likely build U.S. influence in the long run.
Rex Brynen
11-26-2010, 05:26 PM
Anyway, as to Iran, if we focus on the relationship rather than the weapon we can have a grown up conversation with Iran as to why it is they feel it so important to possess such a weapon and look for alternative ways to address those concerns; or failing that, ways to ensure that their development of the weapon is not done in such a manner as to destabilize the region. Would this piss off Israel and Saudi Arabia and their powerful lobbies in the U.S.? Undoubtedly. But this is another benefit of this COA, as far too many around the globe see the U.S. as a big stupid puppet of these two little states currently, and doing something clearly counter to their interests but supportive of our own would likely build U.S. influence in the long run.
Bob, I think you're right at one level (A), but it isn't so easy at another (B).
(A) The Iranian nuclear program started under the Shah, and the West was fine with it. When Khomeini came to power, the nuclear program was stopped.
In 1980, Iran was attacked by Iraq, half a million people died, and CW were used against the Iranians and Kurds with hardly a peep from the West—on the contrary, the West armed Saddam, escorted Iraqi and Kuwait oil exports, and even shot down an Iranian civilian airliner (due to carelessness, I know--but that doesn't matter much in Iranian eyes). That is the Iranian strategic perception.
At this point, the Iranians—quite sensibly, given their strategic situation—thought a deterrent might be useful, and restarted their nuclear program. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it I am saying that there are wholly understandable Iranian reasons for doing so.
On this level, therefore, I agree that there is value in a dialogue on Iranian strategic interests that could be quite useful in assuaging their concerns and convincing them to abandon any quest for a weapon, except...
(B) ...it is not at all clear that the Iranians want such a dialogue under the current President and Supreme Leader, or in the current political climate. You'll find former senior Iranian officials in Tehran who will, reluctantly and off the record, suggest that while dialogue would have been possible between Khatemi and Obama (had they been in office at the same time), it just won't fly under Ahmadinejad any more than it flew at the US end under Bush. In the eyes of many of the current regime, the US is part of the Axis of Evil.
I think the US is right to offer dialogue as an option. No matter how well that is done, however, I have little confidence (sadly) that it will get us anywhere anytime soon given present realities.
Bob's World
11-26-2010, 06:00 PM
Bob, I think you're right at one level (A), but it isn't so easy at another (B).
(A) The Iranian nuclear program started under the Shah, and the West was fine with it. When Khomeini came to power, the nuclear program was stopped.
In 1980, Iran was attacked by Iraq, half a million people died, and CW were used against the Iranians and Kurds with hardly a peep from the West—on the contrary, the West armed Saddam, escorted Iraqi and Kuwait oil exports, and even shot down an Iranian civilian airliner (due to carelessness, I know--but that doesn't matter much in Iranian eyes). That is the Iranian strategic perception.
At this point, the Iranians—quite sensibly, given their strategic situation—thought a deterrent might be useful, and restarted their nuclear program. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it I am saying that there are wholly understandable Iranian reasons for doing so.
On this level, therefore, I agree that there is value in a dialog on Iranian strategic interests that could be quite useful in assuaging their concerns and convincing them to abandon any quest for a weapon, except...
(B) ...it is not at all clear that the Iranians want such a dialog under the current President and Supreme Leader, or in the current political climate. You'll find former senior Iranian officials in Tehran who will, reluctantly and off the record, suggest that while dialog would have been possible between Khatemi and Obama (had they been in office at the same time), it just won't fly under Ahmadinejad any more than it flew at the US end under Bush. In the eyes of many of the current regime, the US is part of the Axis of Evil.
I think the US is right to offer dialog as an option. No matter how well that is done, however, I have little confidence (sadly) that it will get us anywhere anytime soon given present realities.
One of the major strengths of taking a firm, but supportive position and seeking dialog is that it marks us as the rational (rather than hypocritical) party, building international support to our policies, as well as building support within the Iranian populace. Secondary benefit is that it also puts the lie to much of AQ's propaganda about the US simply being anti-Muslim. Not that any Sunni likely wants Shia Iran to possess such a weapon, but that it cannot be painted as just an other example of the US countering anything Muslim and supporting anything Israel.
President Obama's instincts are right, but our Cold War inertia is strong on our foreign policy. When President Bush spoke he always said "Iran" lumping the people and the government as one. President Obama is much better at distinguishing that it is the "government of Iran" that he is addressing on policy issues, and that the US supports the "people of Iran." Taking a similar approach with our allies would be a smart move as well; particularly those whose people have little say in government as is often the case in Muslim states.
Rex Brynen
11-26-2010, 06:14 PM
Not that any Sunni likely wants Shia Iran to possess such a weapon, but that it cannot be painted as just an other example of the US countering anything Muslim and supporting anything Israel.
Interesting side-note: while almost all other Middle East regimes don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, this isn't necessarily the case among their (Sunni) populations. According the the University of Maryland/Zogby 2010 Arab public opinion poll (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.pdf), a plurality of respondents felt that the net effects of a nuclear Iran would be positive.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami/08_arab_opinion_poll_telhami_page_graph2.jpg
Fuchs
11-27-2010, 04:08 PM
(B) ...it is not at all clear that the Iranians want such a dialogue under the current President and Supreme Leader, or in the current political climate. You'll find former senior Iranian officials in Tehran who will, reluctantly and off the record, suggest that while dialogue would have been possible between Khatemi and Obama (had they been in office at the same time), it just won't fly under Ahmadinejad any more than it flew at the US end under Bush. In the eyes of many of the current regime, the US is part of the Axis of Evil.
IIRC Iran's government offered a great deal of cooperation in 2001/2002 in a wave of anti-terror sympathy - and GWB rejected it.
Maybe they weren't serious, but if they were - then this should be rated amongst GWB's 5 greatest mistakes.
SWJ Blog
11-08-2011, 11:51 PM
Iran and the IAEA Nuclear Weapons Program Report (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/iran-and-the-iaea-nuclear-weapons-program-report)
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/iran-and-the-iaea-nuclear-weapons-program-report) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
davidbfpo
11-09-2011, 04:58 PM
Mod's Note
New thread for this recurring topic started for 2011 and so this thread is closed or locked.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.