Matt Yglesias

Kristol and Hume Call for Targeted Air Strikes on North Korea

As you probably know, a certain number of people are down-the-line pacifists. They believe that war is wrong, no matter what the cause. And as you’ve probably realized, none of them are major newspaper columnists or television pundits focusing on national security issues. Nobody takes the views of someone who’s a pacifist in general seriously on a specific question of war and peace. But if you’re Bill Kristol, and every time an issue comes up your idea is that we should launch a war, then you get to a Washington Post columnist and a constant TV presence. Here he is with Brit Hume calling for “targeted air strikes” against North Korean missiles:

Kristol doesn’t even attempt to say what he thinks this will accomplish. He just kind of tosses it out there for no reason because arguing that the United States should start wars is what he does. And ask yourself how Kristol would react if one of Iran’s leading political pundits went on television and said that maybe “targeting suicide bombings” against American targets would be a good idea.

Ahmadenijad Opponents Slam His Foreign Policy Stance

I would say that this counts as a more conciliatory posture from our side starting to bear fruit:

With campaigns for the June 12 presidential election in full swing, none of the three challengers have shied away from publicly criticizing Ahmadinejad on topics long considered off-limits for debate in Iran, such as his stance on the country’s nuclear program and his vitriol for Israel. Reformist challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi accused the president of so sullying the nation that Iranian passports are now on par with those of Somalia, the African state that has become a hub of poverty, piracy and terrorism. [...]

Mehdi Karroubi, another liberal challenger, took on the president’s handling of the nuclear program, which Iran says is aimed at civilian energy production but the West believes is meant to eventually produce weapons. Karroubi said Tehran needed to be more transparent and rational in pursuing its goals abroad.

This is one of the virtues of expressing a clear desire for an improved relationship with Iran. Doing so lowers the temperature over there and opens up political space for disagreement about foreign policy objectives. It also clarifies that there’s a real upside to responsible behavior, and a real downside to pushing the envelope on nuclear issues.

Israel, Iran, and Nuclear Proliferation

Eli Lake observes that, in principle at least, the Obama administration’s non-proliferation efforts could wind up implicating Israel:

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Let me make a few points about this. One is that obviously Israel’s nuclear program is not a direct security concern for the United States in the way Iran’s is. At the same time, insofar as nuclear proliferation in general is a direct security concern then we need to be working, over time, to build a stable rule-based order. That means working to get the United States and Russia into compliance with our NPT obligations by implementing sharp bilateral cuts. It means trying to inspire confidence in China that it shouldn’t expand its nuclear arsenal and should, instead, rely on US-Russian cuts to bring about parity. And, yes, it means trying to bring India, Pakistan, and Israel over time into the NPT framework. If you’re not trying to do that, then you’re reconciling yourself to an endless series of Bush-style ad hoc efforts that are likely to work about as well as Bush’s dual non-proliferation fiascos in Iraq and North Korea.

Specifically on the Israeli front, I think the idea that there should be no swapping of concessions whatsoever with the Iranians highlights a certain schizophrenia in the Israel view of these matters. The Iranian nuclear program, we’re supposed to believe, is an overwhelming existential threat to Israel’s existence and yet it’s not worth considering any form of Israeli concessions whatsoever in order to achieve any goals whatsoever on the Iranian front? Really? And at the same time, Israel’s nuclear deterrent is so overwhelmingly important that it can’t be bargained about for any purpose, and yet its existence gives the Israelis no confidence whatsoever that a nuclear Iran could be deterred. Again, really? If I were Israel, I wouldn’t want to swap my nukes for empty promises from Iran. But if I were Israel I also wouldn’t be ruling any sort of deal whatsoever off the table in advance.