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

[Entropy]

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]

... 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.

You're correct on the IC assessment, I think and my add-on comment is only partly in jest...

[SJPONeill]

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]

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...

[JMA]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Entropy is right, though—no one ever seriously contemplated invading North Korea over the nuclear issue.

[Bob's World]

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]

Robert,

Who do you mean?

non-state actors such as LH

I thought LH=Lebanese Hezbollah.

[Pete]

Could it have been Liddell Hart? I heard that Wilf was trying to have his citizenship revoked retroactively.

[Rex Brynen]

No, LH=Lufthansa. I think it's a back-handed swipe at Fuchs

[Bob's World]

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...)

[Tukhachevskii]

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]

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.

[JMA]

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]

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.