Give Up Your Nuclear Weapons Program Or Else We’ll Damage Your Nuclear Weapons Program!
I understand the argument that the United States should give up on diplomacy with Iran and then follow that up with a hysterical overreaction and an unprovoked military assault. I disagree with it, but I understand what it’s proponents are saying. But when I read this kind of thing from Jeffrey Herf in The New Republic, I’m really baffled:
This brings us to the one policy option that Tehran truly fears–and thus the only one that gives these negotiations any realistic chance of success: a credible threat of military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States, perhaps joined by Britain and France, or Israel. If the Iranian leadership believed that such an attack was a real possibility, it, or some parts of it, might be persuaded to change course.
The idea that the threat of a bombing raid that would partially damage the Iranian nuclear program would inspire the Iranian government to voluntarily give up the nuclear program makes no sense whatsoever. Suppose I wanted Herf to give me $10. I figured maybe I could offer him various incentives in exchange for the $10. But it turns out that Herf is irrational or whatever and hell-bent on holding on to his $10. Reaching into his pocket and stealing $7 might have some merit as a response. But threatening to steal $7 in hopes of persuading him to give me $10 would be ridiculous.
I assume Herf actually understands this and just wants to see the United States launch an illegal preventive military attack on Iran. But he thinks that conclusion is likely to be unpalatable to his audience. So the idea that the credible threat of an attack is likely to produce a diplomatic win serves as basically the sugary coating to make the warmongering go down more sweetly.
37 Responses to “Give Up Your Nuclear Weapons Program Or Else We’ll Damage Your Nuclear Weapons Program!”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 13th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Does it make any less sense than economic sanctions generally?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Herf?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Oops.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am
U.S. Wants Bunker Buster Fast, Denies Iran is the Reason
“I don’t think anybody can divine potential targets,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.
Geoff Morrell–cretin, using God to shield what is obvious. Almost anybody can predict the bunker buster’s use in Iran, by America or our 51st state, Israel.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hveHzEWQMwPC5hnh8mmSzQnuI-vgD9BA2GMO0
October 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am
The idea that the threat of a bombing raid that would partially damage the Iranian nuclear program would inspire the Iranian government to voluntarily give up the nuclear program makes no sense whatsoever.
Especially when such an attack would vastly strengthen the regime’s hand against domestic opponents.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I’ve never figured out how the threat of violence is a compelling way to get some nation to stop building a weapon they plan to use to thwart people from attacking them. Seems like it would make me (if I were that nation) escalate my development process even more.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am
The argument is not as a priori stupid as the analogy suggests. There could theoretically be reasons why Iran would fear such an attack. They might care about the Iranians killed in such an attack. They might see the futility of spending money on something that will just be blown up. Or they may fear looking weak when the US shows it can blow up its facilities without risk.
Of course in the real world it is even stupider than the analogy suggests. The Mullah’s in Iran are looking at a divided country. And nothing would unify the Iranians behind the Mullahs than an attack inside the country. So it is actually a stupider argument that Yglesias gives it credit for being. But not quite as stupid a priori.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Actually Matt, if makes perfect sense, if the probability of attack is high enough. Assume that Iran is overvaluing their nuclear facilities by $10, and let p be the probability of attack:
Our offer ($10) vs p*$3 + (1-p)*$20
Solve for p (10/17).
Can I haz economic theoriez book pleaz?
October 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I don’t think things are quite as simple as threatening to steal $7 from Iran in the hopes of persuading them to give us $10. Ostensibly, Iran stands to gain something in the negotiations if they give up their nuclear program, so I think a more apt analogy would be “Either give me $10 and I’ll give you a sandwich, or I’m going to steal $7 and you get nothing.”
It’s not so ridiculous to think that our hand is strengthened if Iran is convinced that, no matter what, they will lose their nuclear program and that they can either get something in return for it or not.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am
No Matt, you are over-thinking this again, and assuming too much rationality and powers of analysis in the person you are criticizing.
scott–you are assuming that ‘we can take away their nuclear programme’ by bombing. There is nothing that could more strengthen any military nuclear programme that the right in Iran might be pining for.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Isn’t there a significant risk to the Iranian regime that if we launch a military strike against it, the regime could crumble, rather than just losing its nuclear program?
Obviously, as others have noted, it could have the opposite effect, but the idea that a military assault on Iran’s nuclear program would have no implications beyond Iran’s nuclear program seems overly simplistic.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
No Scott, I haven’t heard what we are offering Iran. So is more like “give me $10 and I will just bad mouth and threaten you or else I will beat $7 out of you”
October 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Either give me $10 and I’ll give you a sandwich, or I’m going to steal $7 and you get nothing.
Not nothing, you also get the crap beaten out of you. The idea is that Iran will remember the first gulf war and realize that the United States is not known for using a light touch when it takes your 7 bucks.
Its still a bad idea but its more coherent than Matt assumes.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Of course in the real world it is even stupider than the analogy suggests. The Mullah’s in Iran are looking at a divided country. And nothing would unify the Iranians behind the Mullahs than an attack inside the country. So it is actually a stupider argument that Yglesias gives it credit for being. But not quite as stupid a priori.
I agree with this. Bush wasn’t very popular before 9/11 and became hugely popular after 9/11.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Chris-You’re correct, I am assuming that, but I’m not sure it’s much of stretch. It’s a bit tough to continue building a nuclear program if the facilities you were doing it either cease to exist or are no longer accessible. Beating you to the punch, yes, I am presuming that we can accurately find those facilities and hit them (I’m not sure how easy it is to hide such a place, but we seem to have already found the ones they do have).
Before we get carried away, I’m not advocating that we bomb Iran. Such a move could/would have disastrous consequences (let’s not forget that Iran gaining a bomb could have disastrous consequences as well). All I’m saying is that it is not so ridiculous to argue that negotiations are more likely to succeed if Iran is convinced that we are willing to go to mats and that they can either get something for the loss of their nuclear program or not.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Agree with Scott basically. Matt’s analogy does not make much sense, as it assumes that Iran’s current program comes at no cost to them, while in reality it prevents them from making other investments.
So, here is another analogy, Matt: suppose you are considering building a house for $200,000. This is a considerable cost for you, but you expect the resulting house to have a value of $300,000, so it seems like a good investment. Now, if I tell you I will destroy your house with 50% probability, that might change your calculation, right?
October 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I don’t support threatening or carrying out an attack on Iran. However, Matt’s analogy is totally wrongheaded and disengenuous, as many commentators have pointed out.
The idea is that, from Iran’s point of view, it is conceivable that suffering a military attack could be a worse outcome than a negotiated settlement.
Matt is always talking about positive-sum outcomes, but now seems unable to conceive of the possibility of a negative-sum outcome?
October 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
TS is right
October 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Iran is not going nuclear to stop the West pre-emptively bombing out their nukes.
But you’re right, the incentive of a ‘credible threat’ is not to halt the process, but to make it quicker and better hidden.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Apparently Scott is ignorant of the history of Iraq’s nuclear program before and after the bombing of Osirak by Israel.
In short, it was a nascent program that was bombed, but–guess what–backing up data exists, so it set them back financially but not scientifically. In the meantime, everybody agreed that the ability to defend itself from Israel was now paramount, and the financial investment quickly restored what had been destroyed.
In short, bombing Osirak sped up the program by a few years.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Actually, if anything I would imagine the Iranian government wants us to bomb them. They are extremely unpopular right now. So the US and Israel (even better) bomb Iran. We set their program back at best a couple of years, while we rally the population around the government just like 9/11 united Americans around ours.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
if Iran is convinced that we are willing to go to mats and that they can either get something for the loss of their nuclear program or not.
I would agree with that statement if we were actually willing to “go to the mat.” To me that means airstrikes plus a ground offensive. (I’m against both by the way) But there is no way either the U.S., the Europeans, or anyone else is going to launch airstrikes and use ground troops. Iran knows it and so do we.
I fear the genie is out of the bottle and it is not an issue of if but when Iran gets a nuke. Airstrikes just kick the can down the road but not very far.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
The issue is uranium enrichment capabilities. America has no problems with other oil rich Middle Eastern countries building nuclear energy sites. We struck a deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council states (UAE and Saudi Arabia) in this very arena.
Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement countries (like Iran) have the right to enrich uranium for power generation. The issue is whether they’ve gone beyond that limitation.
Meanwhile nonsignatory Israel, America’s BFF, already made the Middle East a nuclear weapons zone.
The U.S. has a mixed track record in honesty, at least on the basis for starting new wars.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
jeebus – Perhaps you all are misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not saying that bombing Iran is a perfect solution and they it will now and forever prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Nothing can do that except an invasion and successful takeover (I’m certainly not advocating that!).
What I am saying, however, is that bombing their nuclear facilities will (1) prevent them from acquiring a weapon, at least for a while, and (2) cost them a bunch of money and, probably, lives. This is not an ideal outcome for them, especially when you consider that there is no guarantee that we won’t do it again when they get the program back on its feet in “a few years.” Who is to say we can’t keep “kick[ing] the can down the road”?
Matt seems to think that its ridiculous to suggest that, if they are convinced that that is the likely consequence for failing to negotiate, then they are more likely to negotiate. I disagreed. That’s it.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
No, there is no risk that the Iranian regime crumbles. Despite the insane Green fever they had here a few months back, The Iranian regime is fairly popular and virtually all of its dissidents are isolated in specific sectors of it’s cities.
Iran is going to be a nuclear power, and there is nothing we can do about it. This is, after-all, primarily our fault. Seeking nuclear weapons is completely rational given the position we have put Iran in. Not that this will stop the usual war-mongering psychopaths from finding all sorts of nifty, fantasy reasons why fucking around the the affairs of other countries is an awesome idea.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Just so I’m clear, getting Iran to voluntarily halt any nuclear weapons program it has is the goal. Airstrikes are not.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
The Iranian “nuclear weapons” program is a figment of neocon imagination and does not merit a fraction of the discussion it gets in the US media.
It is just another example of the zionist media monopoly.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
soullite:
The Iranian regime is fairly popular and virtually all of its dissidents are isolated in specific sectors of it’s cities.
Links? Proof? Everything I’ve seen says this is wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/world/middleeast/13emigres.html?_r=1&ref=world
Iranian journalists are fleeing Iran.
““The protesters were young, just like me,” Mr. Moghimi, 24, said in a telephone interview from Turkey. “It was impossible to be indifferent. I felt it was my duty to take pictures and reflect their voices abroad.”
With the camera given to him by Fars he began taking pictures every day. He said one of his pictures appeared on the cover of Time magazine anonymously, but he never told anyone he had taken it.
Mr. Moghimi said his fear increased after he saw a former colleague, Majid Saeedi, who was jailed for a month. Mr. Moghimi said he looked terrorized.
A few days later the director of Fars delivered a stern warning. “We have learned two of our photographers have been taking pictures secretly and sending them to foreign media,” he said. “We are just waiting for more information and will confront them soon.””
Photos? Oh noes!
If Soullite was talking shit about the Iranian regime as an Iranian the way he talks about Obama and the US he’d be thrown into an Iranian prison and raped repeatedly.
And its funny how the soullite thinks the Iranian media are too spoiled and liberal and out of touch just as the conservatives in the US think of the US media.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I’m totally for the attack. I’ve got two things riding on it. First, I own oil, and an attack will drive oil prices through the roof. So I’ll make a lot of money. That alone is, well, a lot of money. The second issue is that I really enjoy irony. And some of their sites really will require ground penetrating nuclear weapons to take them out. So the irony is that we’ll use nuclear weapons to make sure nobody ever uses nuclear weapons. And somehow, Bill Kristol will find the logic in that. But Bill Kristol is the master forger. Who else could bang irony into Steele?
October 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Can we all just take a moment to ponder that as there are different levels of “weapons of mass destruction”, a nebulous term spaningthe chasm between mustard gas and hydrogen bombs, there are also different levels of nuclear weapons. The reason why Clinton was ok with North Korea pursuing centrifuge-quality uranium enrichment, but not reactors to brew plutonium, is because it allows them to save face without giving them a deliverable weapon. There’s no puttinga 20 ton U238 bomb on a missile or plane, or at least the risk is miniscule relative to a 500 lb plutonium bomb, with higher yield..
Additionally, the effort/nuke is very high for a centrifuge-enriched device, as is the likelihood of an unsuccessful explosion (though it would still be a horrific catastrophe/mess). It’s a whole different calculus, and that needs to be acknowledged.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
With all Matt’s talk of counterfactuals, philosophical principles, etc., you would think he wouldn’t make an argument from analogy using a spectacularly bad analogy. Does he really not get this, or is he rendered temporarily incapacitated by the Fox News being played in the CAP offices?
Hint: Try substituting “Building a widget that will cost you $10″ for the $10 and “I will destroy the widget that you build” for taking the $10 and Hey Presto! the logic at least becomes clear. (not that it’s not still a potentially bad idea)
October 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
[...] Americans Really Think This Way? 2009 October 13 by Daniel This is a frequently used bit of logic. This brings us to the one policy option that Tehran truly fears–and thus the only one that [...]
October 13th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Does anyone still read The New Republic? The Herf post has a total of two comments and the notorious Michael B. Oren post only has ten.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Yes, Crusty Dem, we really could do that. But it’s so much more fun to bomb people. Bomb Bomb Bomb. And some people think that rationality should possibly be part of the discussion. Bomb Bomb Bomb. And they have these crazy thoughts that the people there might actually be human beings. Bomb Bomb Bomb. And that maybe it might be in our interest to preserve the flow of oil. Bomb Bomb Bomb. And maybe Iran really can pull some wight for us if we work with them right. Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran! Wohoo! Bomb Iran! Bomb Iran! Woohoo! But in all seriousness, what I’ve just written is about as serious as you’ll get from the Very Serious People. Maybe it’s time to listen to us Dirty Hippie Freaks. The VSPs haven’t really helped us in the past sixty years. Maybe it’s time to stop listening to them.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Iran has a very credible surface to air missile defense capability. Therefore only unmanned attacks would be risk free. It has to be appreciated that we only have bombed countries risk free since Germany surrendered except for sometimes against N Vietnam. We love bombing the shit out of people risk free, because we are the home of the brave. Possibly our stealth planes would lower the risk. In either case only we can bomb risk free, Israel can’t. Forgetabout anyone else.
So a bombing campaign against nuclear facilities will involve attacks first against Iran’s missile defense infrastructure. Radar and missile sites. Iran has fighter planes also. Probably not very good ones but better bomb those too. Now we talking hundreds of sorties. Now we are talking war. Not some mamby pamby surgical strike pretend war that chicken hawks can wank thinking about.
Then there is the possible release of contamination which at one site I have read could contaminate several tens of thousand Iranians.
Hell,we just as well just nuke em,that’s what Dr Strangelove and his crowd want anyway. They want to kill millions and millions. They will,sooner or later.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
No, there is no risk that the Iranian regime crumbles. Despite the insane Green fever they had here a few months back, The Iranian regime is fairly popular and virtually all of its dissidents are isolated in specific sectors of it’s cities.
Yeah, I suppose you’ve been to Iran recently? Or at all?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
#25: Iran is going to be a nuclear power, and there is nothing we can do about it.
It would be more accurate to say that there is nothing that wouldn’t be terribly stupid that we could do about it. We could stop them if we nuked their cities, for example. But all ideas of how to destroy any Iranian nuclear program tend to be rather – shortsighted.