Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)

[William F. Owen]

I have always understood "strategy" to refer primarily to a plan for how to accomplish an objective through specific means (e.g., Liddell Hart's definition of strategy as “the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy”).

Yes, Strategy is "The use of all instruments of power, including force, to gain a policy objective." Military Strategy is just the use of force, but it almost never operates in isolation.
IMO, Liddell-Hart was a clown, who did a good amount of damage to the academic study of military power.

BUT, what fails to be addressed is that as a Strategy can only be realised by Tactics, a Policy can only be realised by Strategy. There is no point in having a policy that lacks a strategy to apply it. - and no point in having a Strategy that cannot be realised in tactics.

When a nation outlines a policy objective, shouldn't it be able to answer the questions of "why?" "so what if we accomplish it?" and "so what if we don't accomplish it?" -?

It should, but the US always fails to do that. Vietnam, Iraq, A'Stan, Pakistan Nukes, etc etc etc.

I cannot recall reading anywhere a clear explanation of what the U.S. wants from Iran or what the U.S. would like for Iran to be or to do.

The US wants Iran to become a peaceful, pro-western, secular, Gulf State, who will buy lots of goods and services from the US. When was that ever not made clear?

[rborum]

These comments are all very helpful and appreciate your insights.

Though I am still unclear about what WILF thinks of Liddell Hart's contributions since he was clearly hedging and holding back on his true feelings :-)

But you're right, this question is not about parsing his specific definition - it is about whether the azimuth deficit in US engagement with Iran is really one of strategy or more of policy.

BW - as usual - makes a noteworthy point. "Grand Strategy" - is the distinction between having a strategy for a specific objective (like no nukes) and a broader strategy for pursuing national interests (perhaps in relation to a specific country) what is meant by "Grand Strategy"?

WILF - very nice summary of a big picture objective "The US wants Iran to become a peaceful, pro-western, secular, Gulf State, who will buy lots of goods and services from the US." Perhaps that could be the basis for a grand strategy, perhaps not. I don't know.

I suppose what I'm missing is the connection between national interests, objectives and plans (strategies). Maybe as WILF says we should but don't think explicitly though policy questions of "why?" "so what if we accomplish it?" and "so what if we don't accomplish it?"

Without that, though, it seems easy to get mired in a battles over positions (I want to do X. We don't want you to do X) rather than pursuing interests. An interest-based approach might open up a wider range of solutions ... and perhaps be less likely to escalate conflict.

But at least from your responses, it seems like I'm thinking of the concepts in the right way even if there is not a commonly used language to separate them.

Thanks again everyone.

(p.s. Rex- nice to see you here).

[rborum]

Oh yes. And "Happy Canada Day!"

[Entropy]

There's also simply a lot of historical bad blood between the US and Iran which constrains our options. 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. Given events over the past year, I think it's turned out to be much more difficult for the Iranians.

[Rex Brynen]

There's also simply a lot of historical bad blood between the US and Iran which constrains our options. 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. Given events over the past year, I think it's turned out to be much more difficult for the Iranians.

On of the supreme ironies is that many Iranians are actually rather pro-American, at a certain level. As a consequence, many US policies get popularly blamed on British manipulation of Washington. It is a very bizarre thing to experience.

[Rex Brynen]

Oh yes. And "Happy Canada Day!"

Thank you! There's a certain irony in the fact that Canadian Confederation in 1867 was in large part intended as an alliance against American expansionism.

When I was lecturing in Tehran a couple of years ago, and would get the occasional (but rare) fiery anti-imperialist question/speech from an audience member, I would launch into a mock tirade about how Iranians had no right to lecture me about American imperialism until they had fought two wars with the US, had their two major cities occupied by American troops (1775 and 1812), and had burned down the White House.

The audience reaction was priceless

[Entropy]

Rex,

I hope you Canadians stay in line. I would hate to have to dust off and update War Plan Red.

[Rex Brynen]

I hope you Canadians stay in line. I would hate to have to dust off and update War Plan Red.

I'll see your War Plan Crimson, and raise you a Defence Scheme #1.

[rborum]

Rex,

I hope you Canadians stay in line. I would hate to have to dust off and update War Plan Red.

I have actually had a theory for quite some time that Canada has slowly been moving its border southward - while America sleeps - at a rate of about an inch each year.

[rborum]

When I was lecturing in Tehran a couple of years ago, and would get the occasional (but rare) fiery anti-imperialist question/speech from an audience member, I would launch into a mock tirade about how Iranians had no right to lecture me about American imperialism until they had fought two wars with the US, had their two major cities occupied by American troops (1775 and 1812), and had burned down the White House.

The audience reaction was priceless

That is hilarious by the way and I wish I could have been there. - R

[rborum]

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]

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]

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...ar-facilities/

Reading music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKb9XQ39-zc

[Jedburgh]

25 Oct 10, CEIP: Iran: A View From Moscow

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.

[Pete]

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.

[Pete]

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]

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.

V/R,

Cliff

[Bob's World]

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]

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]

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.