Activity & Capability need Understanding
JMA & Bob,
Quote:
: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:
Quote:
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?
If it were easy, this would have been resolved long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
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.
Iran and the IAEA Nuclear Weapons Program Report
Iran and the IAEA Nuclear Weapons Program Report
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Thread closed to live on in new thread
Mod's Note
New thread for this recurring topic started for 2011 and so this thread is closed or locked.