The Divide on Iran
Kevin Drum and Gary Sick both make the case that there’s been more activity, and a more dramatic shift in policy, on Iran than most people realize. I spoke with a senior European official this morning who’s had some involvement in this issue, and I would say that his comments were in line with that assessment. There’s been so much change in part because there’s been continuity. Robert Gates is still at the Pentagon, William Burns is still Undersecretary of State, and David Petraeus is still running CENTCOM. Plug in a President, a Secretary of State, and a National Security Adviser who are broadly sympathetic to what they’re trying to do and things start moving quickly. That said, there’s still some points that need to be ironed out. In particular, the looming Iranian election:
Apparently, the British have one view on the merits of engaging with Iran before the election and the French have a different view. The Americans, meanwhile, disagree with themselves about this. On one level, this is a sort of minor thing to be disagreeing about relative to the big strategic picture. But on another level, it’s hard to get very far with Iran until you make a decision.
Another issue is that I don’t think western governments have had discussions amongst themselves about what to do if diplomacy can’t be made to work. It’s clear if you speak to people outside government that many analysts think a nuclear Iran is something we could live with. But nobody wants any high-level policymakers in any of the key countries to say that, lest it fatally undermine the bargaining posture. One result of that, however, is that there’s no real talk about how you respond if you give it your best shot with the Iranians and they just turn out to really want a nuclear weapon.
21 Responses to “The Divide on Iran”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 6th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
We can live with them having a little bomb, we just need to let them know that we have a target painted on their little country and if one missile lifts off, they will be living in a radioactive hell. Us it and you die! It worked with the USSR so why would it not work here. I don’t believe for one second they are suicidal.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
The Afghan conference, which Iran might attend, should happen this month. Their elections are in June I believe. I think we can reserve judgement about when to meet with them until after the Afghan conference is over.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Matt,
Be careful when you speak to US or European analysts of the Iran issue. When they say Iran wants “a weapon”, what they mean is Iran wants “the capability to build a weapon in theory”.
There’s no if. Iran really does want that. Iran has said repeatedly that it will not give up domestic enrichment, which is clearly an allowed technology for any NPT country that wants it.
“A weapon” in the usual sense of an actual bomb is something Iran says it does not want. Iran has already expressed willingness to adopt stricter inspection regime than any currently applied to any nuclear program to ensure that it doesn’t build a weapon.
Iran’s neighbors, if Iran has a capacity to enrich uranium, are going to want to enrich uranium also. Iran has offered to teach any Muslim country that wants. But with Iran’s offer in their pocket, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to go to the West and ask for their own programs. A region full of countries that could build a weapon if they wanted could be a strategic problem for Israel though. It definitely devalues Israel’s current regional nuclear monopoly.
So parties sympathetic to Israel like to use the most provocative terms possible for “a capacity, in theory, to build a weapon”, a term we see often is “a weapon”. They do it so often that they don’t even realize it unless you challenge them. Then they might say some stupid shit like “there’s almost no difference.”
There is a big difference between having the capacity, in theory, to build a bomb and having a bomb.
Be careful when speaking with these guys. They’re lying and not knowing it.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Iran is under the strictest inspection regime by the IAEA of any country. The IAEA says Iran is not producing weapon-grade material.
There is some question as to whether the uranium available to Iran can be refined sufficiently to produce weapon-grade fuel.
The mullahs have declared nuclear weapons to be “un-Islamic”-no small declaration.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
It’s ridiculous. Of COURSE we could live with a nuclear-armed Iran. We lived with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, nuclear-armed China, hell, nuclear-armed France. The formulation is well understood.
Plus, in addition to what Arnold says, remember that a first generation weapon will be big, heavy, unreliable, essentially undeliverable. Worth infinitely more as a deterrence, an inoculation against invasion/regime change and as a political bargaining chip.
After some years, when they have (a few) second generation deliverable warheads, why would you expect them to trigger a nuclear exchange and be annihilated, rather than use them to take their place as a leading, powerful twenty first century nation and a regional power? It’s all just fantasy…
mikey
March 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
What can of post is this?
Matt – and Obama, and Clinton, and the rest of the morons in Washington and Europe – still does not get it.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. There is little to no evidence they ever DID have a nuclear weapons program.
It’s entirely made up over some phone intercepts and a laptop that most people think is a fraud from the Mossad and some activities Iran’s military engaged in some years back that probably was related to a nuclear weapons DATABASE program which any modern military threatened by nukes would have.
There’s no “there” there and never was.
But Obama continues to bullshit like there is. Why?
“there’s no real talk about how you respond if you give it your best shot with the Iranians and they just turn out to really want a nuclear weapon.”
How about discussing what if you give it your best shot – and the Iranians simply refuse to stop enriching, which is their legal right under the NPT? That would be the appropriate question, not the bullshit one about “really want a nuclear weapons”.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
you aint wrong to me, so strong to me, you belong to me
Like a very hairy Jake Gyllenhaal to me
Mahmoud make my heart beat right out of my chest
my mind says no but my body says yes
March 6th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Ahmadinejad seems to be getting haircut tips from Blagojevich.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
It makes no difference what the commentors on this blog say. Israel will attack Irans nuclear facilities by the end of the year.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Krauthammer’s Take [NRO Staff]
From last night’s All Stars.
On Obama’s health care plans:
I think he ought to wait until at least he offers a plan on the banks.
The reason our economy is in the tank and really sinking and there is a lack of confidence is because we’re in a financial crisis which, as Fred indicates, is not in any way caused by healthcare, and it won’t be cured by a reform of healthcare.
What the president is saying, which I think is true, is that in the long run, we have to have control over the cost of healthcare.
And I think what he told “The Washington Post” and some people in public and private before the inaugural is that he has a sort of grand strategy of getting the control of entitlements, retirement, Social Security, and Medicare, and that will save tens of trillions.
So the implication is he’s willing to waste a trillion here or a trillion there on stimulus pork as a way to win allegiance of Congress and get the reform of the entitlement.
However, in the speech he made to congress where he spoke about the reform of Medicare, which is the biggie of this, he didn’t speak about cutting its costs. He said it’s going to have to be in a package with the reform of all of healthcare, and the reform of all of healthcare he wants as an expansion of healthcare to almost 50 million uninsured.
And he himself has said it would require an increase of spending of about a trillion dollars.
So on the one hand he has the idea of cutting entitlements. On the other hand he offers expansion of healthcare of a trillion. So obviously he’s not serious about a cutting of entitlements in the long run.
On the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons:
Contrary to what the president just said, there’s nothing that we are doing or will do that will lessen Iran’s commitment to acquiring nukes. All of this stuff happening diplomatically is a charade, as it was in the past and is now.
The only thing that would stop the Iranians, conceivably, would be a complete embargo, including refined petroleum, meaning gasoline, which would shut down its economy.
A, that may not even deter them, and, secondly, the Russians and others, and even the Europeans are not going to go alone, which means that in the end, it will be Israel acting here—6 million Jews in Israel are not going to allow a country that is threatening genocide to acquire a genocidal weapon.
We have to prepare ourselves for an Israeli attack by the end of this year….
Look, I think even if the U.S. sold out the Czechs and the Poles and the Georgians and the Ukrainians in the bargain, I’m not sure Russia would help us on Iran, and even if it did, I’m not sure it has sufficient leverage to actually stop a determined Iran. I don’t see anything diplomatically stopping them.
I would agree, if you want to have a negotiation which looks nice and you know will fail as a way to set up an attack, that’s OK. But I’m not sure that’s how the Obama administration is thinking.
03/06 10:23 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5YjQ3YjM1NjdlYTZiZGJjZmQyODI1ZDdlMGIwMTk=
March 6th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Well, Matt, let’s hear how you would respond. Would you accept an Iranian nuke in those circumstances? Consider this a request.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
How is it looking for Ahmadinejad. Or as I like to call him, the George Bush or Iran. Two peas in a pod. It was a brilliant strategic stroke by Bush to help get Ahmadinejad elected. Another example of how Bush is underestimated.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I wonder if the man on the street in Tehran, i.e., a person outside of the Iranian government, has decided if he can live with a nuclear-armed Israel or American military bases on both of Iran’s borders?
It’s not like America is going to attack a Muslim country or Israel would attack one its neighbors.
The man may of course be subject to cleric propaganda about people called “neo-cons” in Washington who have been advocating for regime change for years. They tell the media about how unpopular the Iranian government is. Which is interesting because the last American president had a 25% approval rating and the “neo cons”–who claim to support democracy–were not calling for regime change at home. The Iranian man on the street is confused by this apparent contradiction.
Moreover, the clerics are also spreading the lie that Israel has choosen a Prime Minister who has announced in public that he might attack Iran. This seems very bizarre because th Iranian man on the street knows Israel is a peaceful nation. It’s not like they would attack a neighbor in order to “educate” them.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Matt, you should know better. They almost certainly don’t want nuclear weapons. At best they will want to move towards the Japanese option. They are insisting on control over the fuel cycle as they are guaranteed by treaties signed with US, Britain and France (UN charter and the NPT).
However Iranian Uranium is not the best and the programme is horribly expensive; with suitable carrots they could almost certainly be persuaded to outsource their fuel supplies.
If neocons repeat talking points often enough then even MY starts repeating them?
March 6th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Chris: I saw an article today conflating Mexican drug gangs and Iran….because both offered strategic challenges to America. See http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/arthur-cyr/2009/03/06/198949/p1/Robert-Gates.htm
Nothing changes. Didn’t we conflate Saddam and 9/11? Now it will be “banking crisis and Iran,” “global warming and Iran,” “post-partum depression and Iran.” Whatever it takes to stir up enough angst among our fellow citizens in order to justify an Act of Aggression against Iran. Like I said, nothing changes.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:51 am
“Israel will launch a strike on Iran”
Could we dispense with the more obviously lunatic nonsense, please?
March 7th, 2009 at 10:49 am
“Matt, you should know better. They almost certainly don’t want nuclear weapons.”
Why would any midsized regional power NOT be working toward nuclear weapons? Dick Cheney taught them all a very clear lesson about that.
“At best they will want to move towards the Japanese option.”
I often wonder if the the Japanese gov’t has a few dozen nuclear warheads stashed away in a very deep, very secret cave somewhere. Along with a number of other government that eschew all nuclear ambitions publicly but which clearly have the capability to build them and the potential need, post-Cheney, to do so.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Nuclear State and Nuclear Bomb
In fact Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. But, there is a great difference between being a nuclear state, i.e., nuclear fuel cycle capacity, and a state with nuclear bomb, such as India, USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel and Pakistan.
Iran already has provided a window for cooperation with USA. They have invited USA and other states such as Germany, Japan to participate as a member of an International consortium to enrich uranium in Iran. We must accept their invitation.
We must be very careful not to push Iranian people by our over aggressive posture. President Bush’s aggressive posture changed the Iranian internal politics during their last Iranian election. Are we going to affect the Iranian election once more?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
What if “diplomacy” doesn’t work? Depends on what you mean by that. If by “diplomacy” you mean coersion to force Iran to give up their perfectly legitimate nuclear program then no, it won’t “work” because we’re deliberately setting up an unachievable standard designed to fail. If on the other hand by “diplomacy” we mean recognizing Iran’s legitimate rights and not trying to steal their right to nuclear power, then it can work — however the Israelis won’t be happy about that.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
April 9th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
My friend on Facebook shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed that I came to your blog.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:43 am
FANTASTIC!