by Andrew
"I shall represent the Narn Regime to the best of my ability, Ambassador!"
"Just don’t give away the home world."
Ambassador G’Kar giving negotiating instructions to his aide Ko’Dath, Babylon 5
It seems that Iran has asked the G8 not to refer the question of its nuclear program to the UN Security Council. Their foreign ministry spokesman now says that the incentive package being offered is an acceptable basis on which to begin negotiations. This is good news, although we cannot rule out the possibility that Iran is simply trying to stall for time. If that is the case, however, negotiations are not going to get us what we want under any circumstances, and as I noted in my previous post, the known obstacles to attempting to destroy Iran’s nuclear program are significant enough that such an attack would almost certainly be a mistake that would make things worse rather than better.
I do not believe that the west should publically rule out a military solution to Iran’s nuclear program, but only to maintain a degree of uncertainty in the Iranian government’s mind. Uncertainty is as far as it should go, however. The west should not make any threats of military action as part of negotiations, as such threats are likely to backfire and would only put pressure on western nations to follow through if their bluff was called. Privately, I believe the west should put military options out of their collective minds. Between the known difficulties such a military option would face, we would undoubtedly face unexpected problems as well, making a military ‘solution’ no solution at all to the problem we face.
Naysayers may argue that, by ruling out military action, we’re capitulating to Iran if they continue on the path to a nuclear weapon. My response is: yes, we are, because that is the least bad outcome we will face if diplomacy fails. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, there is little reason to believe that their government will be any more eager to risk national suicide by utilizing that arsenal than any other nuclear power to date. (Note that India and Pakistan, while enduring a great deal of friction, have been quite circumspect about the use of military force against one another. And while North Korea does keep trying to get the world’s attention, there is no evidence they have any intention to attempt to use their nuclear arsenal for anything but deterrence.) I would prefer to live in a world where Iran remained a strictly conventional power, but it’s an imperfect universe. Given my options: adding another neverending war to our plates by attempting to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon through direct military intervention, or attempting diplomacy and preparing to deal with a nuclear Iran via deterrence if that fails, the second option seems far less fraught with risk. Although it can be argued that the cost of failure under option two is much higher than that of option one, I think option one is so likely to fail that the potential for disaster under that route is too near a certainty, while the chances of Iran actually using a nuclear weapon in anger with the knowledge that Israel will strike back with overwhelming force are low enough for me to place them in the acceptable risk column. A nuclear Iran is dangerous, but so is expanding the war in the Middle East to encompass the largest country in the area and cementing the belief among many Muslims that the United States is at war with Islam.
With military force off the table for the purposes of this discussion, can we cut a deal with Iran that would convince them to set aside their nuclear ambitions? While I cannot speak for the Mullahs who rule Iran, I believe that the answer is probably yes. Becoming a nuclear power would provide Iran with a great deal of prestige in the Middle East. But, thanks in no small part to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, Iran is already the major player in the Persian Gulf, and their influence/control with Hezbollah is likely to increase their standing in the region. Possession of nuclear weapons might be the icing on the cake, but it would also carry certain risks, not least of which would be a preemptive strike to destroy the program, possibly even a strike utilizing nuclear weapons. While being struck by Israel or the U.S. might grant Iran certain benefits in terms of world and regional perception, it would also cause significant damage to the country’s civilian and military infrastructure, possibly reducing Iran’s ability to influence the region. So they have an incentive to use the nuclear bargaining chip to get the best deal possible, a deal that might be better than what they would have with a nuclear arsenal.
At the same time, we do not want to cut a deal that grants Iran the ability to continue their program in secret while still getting the incentives the west can offer. Getting Iran to agree to the kind of invasive inspection regime that would likely be required to ensure their compliance would be difficult. However, there are precedents. The inspection regime used in Iraq, for example, appears to have been significantly more effective than might have been predicted, and the history of the Cold War includes numerous examples of deals between the United States and the USSR that allowed each side to verify the other’s complaince with the agreements. So while verification will not be easy, I don’t think it is so difficult as to make an enforceable negotiated settlement impossible.
Negotiation is no silver bullet to this problem. Iran may decide that maintaining its nuclear program is worth the risks. But negotiation offers a better chance of sidelining Iran’s nuclear program than airstrikes or invasion. The Bush administration and the rest of the G8 should place their best people on this team with orders to find a solution that satisfies both sides and removes this particular problem from the docket.
I don’t disagree with much of this post, but this sentence triggered a thought which may or may not be on topic (and may only be leaping into my head because of my as-yet unposted thoughts on asymmetric warfare):
“Note that India and Pakistan, while enduring a great deal of friction, have been quite circumspect about the use of military force against one another.”
This is not strictly true. The impression I get is that Pakistan feels more free to engage in terrorist tactics and support guerilla forces in India because they know that any reprisals could lead to a nuclear military face-off. They gamble that they can interfere in India because India will not dare to escalate militarily. Thus far they are correct, but as US v. USSR conflicts showed, the balance is very delicate. Having lots of people playing that game at once is going to be very dangerous.
With respect to Hezbollah (and to a lesser extent groups in Iraq) Iran has been very free in stirring things up as it is now. If they feel even freer with a nuclear capacity, that can’t be encouraging.
Sebastian,
Thanks for the clarification on the India/Pakistan situation. I concur that creating new nuclear states isn’t the preferred end state, I just rank that option as preferable to war. I have no doubt that we would see a number of new problems if Iran joined the nuclear club.
Excellent post, especially the third paragraph.
To me, verification of the terms of the agreement is the least of the problems. If we come up with a package Iran is willing to accept, it should be willing to accept this if we have consistently said this is an element of the final package.
The sticky details are in determining what Iran will accept. Since items on the table likely will include normalization of relations (including unfreezing of long-held assets) and resolution of US and Iran’s roles in Iraq, I suspect we will find out that the two sides’ views of what will be an acceptable outcome may be difficult to reconcile.
Forget the military side for a minute. Russia, largest natural gas reserves on the planet. Iran is #2. In a peak oil world, any developed economy will have to be best buddies with those two countries.
wrt India/Pakistan, I agree that most of the conflicts take place in India, but isn’t that also because there are a lot of Muslims in India, but not a lot of Hindus in Pakistan (Wikipedia gives 1.5%)?
Personally, I agree with Andrew, in part because of my belief that this administration is incapable of doing the right thing in almost any circumstance, and war, being the inherently most costly route in many ways, becomes even more so under their inept stewardship. It’s easy to imagine though that we will see a lot of brinksmanship from a nuclear Iran; I wonder what Sunni-Shiite conflicts will lead to if Iran develops nuclear weapons; that is, if the Sunni states, perceiving a loss of power and prestige relative to Iran, will begin to act sufficiently hostile towards it that the likely Iran-Israel conflict would be put off.
yes, we are, because that is the least bad outcome we will face if diplomacy fails
If we were dealing with rational actors here I might agree with you – but we are not.
there is no evidence they have any intention to attempt to use their nuclear arsenal for anything but deterrence
They have already provided advanced weapons to Hezbollah (C-802 cruise missiles). They have repeatedly stated that they desire to wipe Israel off the map. Realistically, they have only one way to accomplish that goal. And with that “return of the twelfth/missing Imam” crap, they may not be concerned with retaliation. How do you deter someone who believes they will have divine protection or at least great martyrdom for their actions?
As far as negotiations go, they have already been offered several sweet deals. If indeed their sole concern was nuclear energy, then they should have jumped at one of the deals (Russia selling them enriched uranium, Russian letting them enrich fuel at Russian facilities, etc.).
I just don’t see any kind of “trust but verify” deal working with Iran. Any deal they accept will simply be a ploy to give them time to finish their weapons program. We may as well ask the Albright/Clinton team to go in and cut us a deal like they did with NoKo.
I think intervention is necessary. Occupation is definitely out, but I don’t buy that we can not destroy or at least set their weapons program back many years.
and Now I have messed up italics 🙁
Italics off, damn you!
I think intervention is necessary. Occupation is definitely out, but I don’t buy that we can not destroy or at least set their weapons program back many years.
What do you think the Iranians would do in response?
They have repeatedly stated that they desire to wipe Israel off the map.
They have not. It was a single comment, mistranslated.
I think intervention is necessary. Occupation is definitely out, but I don’t buy that we can not destroy or at least set their weapons program back many years.
Yes, we could probably set back their weapons program. Maybe we could permanently destroy it.
Probably, maybe.
What bombing Iran would definitely do is wildly inflame the Middle East, and directly jeopardize 140,000 American troops in Iraq. It will definitely destabilize an already-weak Iraqi government. And it will definitely rouse a storm of hatred among Iranians — hatred against us.
Another definitely involves the Straits of Hormuz and the transportation of Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi oil to the world market.
Actions have consequences. Why have so many Americans suddenly forgotton this?
“It was a single comment, mistranslated.”
Depends on who you think is going to do the wiping. Some ideas, maybe?
Useful, though, to note that Aljazeerah made the same…um…mistranslation.
That said, I pretty much agree that bombing Iran would be a mistake. Unless they had a nuclear missile ready to launch, and we knew exactly where it was. But that’s a fantasy scenario.
“Depends on who you think is going to do the wiping.”
Rather, the vanishing.
Italics off, damn you!
Thanks Slart!
What do you think the Iranians would do in response?
Nothing good. Assuming they still had the option, they would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and disrupt ME oil production any other way they could. They would send hundreds/thousands of suicide bombers into Iraq and attempt to do the same with Israel. That’s just for starters – as I said, nothing good.
They have not. It was a single comment, mistranslated.
Cole’s translation has been challenged by many. “wiped off the map” may be too free a translation, but the context is Imam Khomeini. See this Slate piece for an example:
My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:
Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.
This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term “ghal-o-gham” is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be “annihilate.”
Actions have consequences. Why have so many Americans suddenly forgotton this?
Of course they do. Consider the consequences of Iran managing to set off even a small nuke in Israel – The Solomon Option I believe they call it.
God bless ya sir, and good luck.
So, in line with Sebastian at 2:05, looks like the likely outcome is a nuclear Iran, or a non-nuclear Iran with a guaranteed Iron-clad non-aggression treaty…umm a nuclear Iran.
Then we enter the 50-year middle eastern Cold War II, with messing around with guerrilas on the borders and other attempts at destabilization. Proxy wars in Iraq and the Levant and Caucausus. Propaganda and 4th generation warfare thoughout the region. World-wide economic war, for as Peak Oil approaches, gonna be ridiculous amounts of fungible money coming into the oilarchies. Buying up port operators, refineries and well, the rest of Texas. 105 here today, it will feel like home to an Arab. And we like fundamentalism.
Hmm. I think the US will lose that Cold War. We certainly won’t win it, come out the dominant power in the world. Maybe the question isn’t what price we pay today, but what world we bequeath our grandkids. A 30-50 percent relative decline to the rest of the developed world in standard of living looks in the cards. But, hey, what has posterity ever done for me.
Of course they do. Consider the consequences of Iran managing to set off even a small nuke in Israel – The Solomon Option I believe they call it.
Okay, Mr. OC Steve. Where’s your Personal Intelligence Agency report (to paraphrase either Djerejian or Cunning Realist, I can’t remember which), indicating that Iran is about to acquire or produce such a weapon in the near future? Like, in the time frame of the next few days and weeks of the current exchange of fireworks in Lebanon and Gaza and Israel.
We (the USA) do NOT need to hurry along Armageddon if we’re worried about the Iranian bomb. Show me a credible source which indicates this rush is necessitated by the mythical Mullah Bomb. The only people counseling “Faster, Please” are the same ones who lied us into Iraq in the first place.
“Show me a credible source which indicates this rush is necessitated by the mythical Mullah Bomb.”
While not advocating a rush to bomb Iran, I would like to note that mere weeks before Pakistan became a nuclear power, the CIA under the Clinton administration believed that Pakistan was years from gaining that capability.
While slightly ot, I note that Clemons is moving towards Mcmanus-like (and me-like, this is not a shot at Bob) paranoia. Remember the Maine, anyone?
“If we were dealing with rational actors here I might agree with you – but we are not.”
I’m starting to think there should be a Godwin’s Law-type rule here. God knows I am sick and tired of reading arrant gibberish that’s allegedly justified by the tag line “but X isn’t rational.”
There needs to be some REALLY GOOD PROOF that X really isn’t rational. I have yet to see ANYTHING from Iran that isn’t perfectly rational. Evil? Quite often. Cynical? You betcha. Against American interests? Most days.
But “irrational”? Not hardly. And it’s just an excuse for demonzing them, treating them like they’re less human/smart than we are, and justifying measures that are immoral, stupid, and often indeed “irrational,” in the sense of “counterproductive to our supposed goals.”
(Not to dump on you OC Steve, it’s just that your non-arrant comment was a tipping point.)
Sebastian:
I would like to note that mere weeks before Pakistan became a nuclear power, the CIA under the Clinton administration believed that Pakistan was years from gaining that capability.
I am not sure where you formed this impression, but it is almost certainly an urban myth.
Pakistani Foreign Secretary Shahryar Khan admitted in a February 7, 1992 Washington Post interview that his country had the components to assemble at least one nuclear bomb. Khan claimed he was revealing this information to bridge a “credibility gap” created by a previous Pakistani regime. But it is more likely that his admission was motivated by a desire to gain recognition of Pakistan’s nuclear status, and perhaps the renewal of U.S. aid to Pakistan. In 1985, Congress made aid to Pakistan contingent on the president certifying that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear weapon; aid was halted in 1990 when President George Bush could no longer do so.
It was a single comment, mistranslated.
Juan Cole translates it as:
“the occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”
Sorry. Anyone, including Cole, who takes this to mean anything other than “Israel must be wiped out” is kidding himself, grammatical niceties about transitive and intransitive verbs aside.
Nobody disputes that Iran wants to bring Israel’s existence to an end. However, the phrases “wipe off the map” and “off the face of the earth” suggest genocide. I think it’s clear that’s not what the man intended. (He referred to the collapse of the USSR and the regimes of the Shah and Saddam, so of course he isn’t ruling out “normal” violence.)
That was Cole’s point and AFAIC he won that argument – not least because MEMRI’s translation was much the same as his.
But “irrational”? Not hardly.
Given that (a) the US Administration clearly defined Iran as one third of an “Axis of Evil”, and (b) the US has invaded and occupied another third of that Axis of Evil, and (c) that the Iranian government at the time was relatively moderate compared to before and after, and (d) that the only real political influence that the US has over Iran is threat of military action, and (e) that such influence is bound to exercised a great deal more in the less energy-rich future, and (f) the present less-moderate regime is receiving a great of support due to its appearance of standing up to the US, I’d say that Iranian development of nuclear weapons is hyper-rational.
The conditions that have been made almost demand that they either develop these weapons, or give up their claim to sovereignty.
… I’d say that Iranian development of nuclear weapons is hyper-rational.
Right on. Which leads to the next question: is it rational of the U.S. to pursue a foreign policy that practically *begs* states like Iran to go nuclear?
And if we’re not rational, then I guess that justifies other nations in doing … what to us, exactly?
“I have yet to see ANYTHING from Iran that isn’t perfectly rational.”
The glow of light?
He did say these things.
I don’t believe in making too much of statements, but I don’t believe in ignoring them and dismissing them and finding reasons to do so, either.
dmbeaster: “I am not sure where you formed this impression, but it is almost certainly an urban myth.”
Have any cites for CIA warning on Indian nukes?
Regardless, the bottom line is that intelligence is by nature uncertain; maybe estimates of when Iran will have nukes are or will be over-estimates or under-estimates, or on the button. Whichever, we’re not apt to know which it is when we need to. This is not a reason to attack; it’s just a fact.
I keep trying to point out that no one outside the ruling circles of Iran really knows what they intend or might do; all stances by the rest of us are guesses; it’s really unimpressive when anyone argues otherwise, no matter what their POV is.
And this is one of those situations where reasoning by way of assuming that someone’s argument is wrong because of who is making it might not be the best guideline.
I don’t see any good argument for attacking Iran any time remotely soon. And I’m certainly not saying there will surely come a time when that would change.
I’m just saying that anyone arguing a terribly strong case, for now, that we know Iran will never be a serious threat, or even that its leaders couldn’t possibly act irrationally, is in no better position to say that for sure than anyone arguing that we know for a fact that Iran’s leaders will surely act irrationally, and most definitely must be attacked in short order.
If only it were that simple, in either direction.
The fact is that if things don’t go well, if, for instance, we don’t somehow manage to get entirely thorough and comprehensive guarantees that we can blanket Iran with UN nuclear inspectors, and keep them there until their regime is clearly unthreatening, that policy as regards Iran will continue to be an uncertain gamble.
I hate reality. And you folks are depressing.
Between Sebastian the other day pointing out that he believes THIS will all end with Tel Aviv and/or other Israeli cities being nuked and the Poor Man the other day setting up a cascading round of regional nuclear exchanges (Japan goes nuclear to counter North Korea; China goes nuclear big time to counter Japan; India feels surrounded and upgrades its nuclear capabilites… etc..
The only funny thing yet is McManus’ prophecy of Texas being bought out by the Middle Eastern kingdoms, and, you know, kind of liking it because what we have there is a little solidarity on the Mexican question and the homosexual question and whatever other questions idiots keep asking.
When I say “funny”, I mean funny as Slim Pickens thought it was funny when the bomb bay doors opened and he figured out he could still hold on to his hat for the downward celebration.
So I was looking at my kid out in the yard this morning schlepping some limbs I pruned off the trees over to the side of the house, I tried to imagine him being turned into a sort of pink human aerosol at the hands of a shithead who can’t pronounce “nuclear” and who sends a cruise ship to pick up the ‘mericans in Lebanon.
I hope the thing has one of those swimming pools on board with the man-made surf, and maybe a climbing wall, and ice sculptures, and porn piped into the staterooms. I hope they didn’t put a bulls-eye on the side of the hull. That would be too obvious.
So I’m thinking tonight a six-pack of beer, a little of Woody Allen’s “Play It Again, Sam”, and then slitting my throat. Maybe not in that order.
Or maybe I’ll start a rogue venture wherein I buy up satellites, arm them and then zap government leaders I think need it. Where does one start?
I would not be accountable. Like now, only on a much larger scale. It would be a criminal enterprise, but for the good of mankind.
So I’m thinking tonight a six-pack of beer, a little of Woody Allen’s “Play It Again, Sam”, and then slitting my throat. Maybe not in that order.
That would depend on if it were light beer or not, eh?
I heard something on the way home to the effect that Newt Gingrich was pushing to get this publicly declared World War III. No idea of where and when (and, not least of which, why), and nothing on the major news outlets that I can find at this time.
Popcorn will be served momentarily, and let’s hope this is ONLY a popcorn moment.
Gary:
Have any cites for CIA warning on Indian nukes?
I didn’t look for any as I was only responding to Sebastian’s contention regarding alleged CIA warning in 1998 concerning Pakistani nukes. His remark seemed flat wrong from what I remembered (that in 1998 at the time of the Pakistani test, there was back-door diplomacy ongoing to convince them not to do it in response to the India test, but they did it anyway. Seemed inconsistent with the idea that the CIA thought they were years away — turns out the Pakistan had as much as said it had nuclear capability years before the 1998 test, and Bush Sr. as of 1990 believed them).
The CIA did fail to detect India’s preparations for its 1998 test — CNN but this was not a CIA failure to assess that India had nuclear capability. The 1998 India test was a surprise only in that the CIA had not noticed preparations for the test in advance.
I think that is from Newt’s Meet the Press appearance.
Gingrich: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III.
Yes, Gingrich wants it.
And, via Hullabaloo via Silber via someone else, Limbaugh wants its, too. He’s stoking the base for the fun.
New rule: Guys who love war and butchering, especially cowards with megaphones whose bowels liquify if they are anywhere near the butchering, become the last corpses tossed into the mass graves.
New rule. Starts now.
John- Shouldn’t we work so that they are some of the first or even better only?
Yes, that might be a design flaw.
But we would miss the talk-radio Republican ejaculate.
Guys who love war and butchering, especially cowards with megaphones whose bowels liquify if they are anywhere near the butchering, become the last corpses tossed into the mass graves.
days like these make me want to sing War Pigs.
i live in Long Beach California and don’t have kids. my sister (who has 2 kids) lives in Manhattan, so if nuclear war comes, i’ll never know and i won’t have any family left to try to pick up the mess.
(The Ports of LA/Long Beach, which are near the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station [where the Navy likely keeps some of its nukes] are near the top of the list for any nuclear attack, plus the prevailing winds blow the fallout into the rest of the country which is a bonus. I’m in range of the fireball of even a relatively small nuke.)
woohoo!
oh. wait. i’m a liberal. my card says that i have to care about people other than my direct family.
rats. now i’m depressed.
Slart, that reminds me of one of those satirical headlines you see in bad comedy movies and the like: A huge banner headline, dated Dec. 8, 1941 — WORLD WAR II DECLARED!!
Slart, it was on Meet the Press (here is the transcript). There was also a rather enthusiastic rejoinder from RedState and others over this assertion.
After giving it a little thought (emphasis on LITTLE) I think that most likely Newt was making his bid for the history books, in case it turns out to have been true.
Or, possibly our own politicians are less sane than some those of other countries we’re looking at. No rational actor assumption to be had here.
“Or, possibly our own politicians are less sane than some those of other countries we’re looking at.”
Newt’s always liked to Think Big.
OT: sorry for no posting today: a combination of work, our horrible heat wave, and the fact that Big Media Me gets to be on CSPAN tomorrow. (7:30am, aargh. If you see Leon Kass debating someone who is sound asleep, that would be me.)
I’m sure you can beat him in your sleep ;^) Now to figure out how to get CSPAN in Western Japan…
Oh, cool. Hopefull there’ll be some online video?
What’s the topic? Or, rather, what’s the specifics? I’m thinking it’s going to be a bioethics debate, but bioethics of what?
Maybe they can discuss this LATimes op-ed entitled ‘When Man mated Monkey’
“…our horrible heat wave….”
Your horrible heat wave. Hey, it’s been 104 here, and over 100 for a buncha days in a row. And I gots no air conditioning.
Though, actually, I haven’t been hardly posting, either. But also I’ve been reading tons of apartment ads, few very pleasing. But that’ll be a blog post for another day.
“…and the fact that Big Media Me gets to be on CSPAN tomorrow.”
Curious serendipity; I was listening to two bio-ethicists on the Newshour earlier today, and I was thinking, hey, I knows me one of them, and that Hilzoy would be nice to see on tv more than Alta Charo, not that I have anything against Professor Charo, and I thought of e-mailing you to suggest you do a little press release to the Newshour and maybe some cable news stations/shows, on why you’d be a good person to have chat about bioethical issues, and, lo.
I’m sure this C-Span thing only happened because ex post facto I had these thoughts! No, no, don’t thank me!
Shame I don’t have cable, but, then, it always is. Except that then I’d be even more distracted.
“…but bioethics of what?”
I’ll bet a nickel it just might be, y’know, the stem cells bill.
Of course, that could be a complete coincidence. These things happen sometimes.
“If you see Leon Kass debating someone who is sound asleep….”
Mess him up! Knock him out! Make him suffer. (In an ethical sort of way. Man, I think that guy is a twit. Even though I’m just an amateur here.)
Ack!
(7:30am, aargh. If you see Leon Kass debating someone who is sound asleep, that would be me.)
You were fine — and boy, that blouse popped! — and if anyone seemed asleep it was the moderator. That, or maybe the guy screening the calls; nice to know you and I aren’t real human beings :s
Yeah, I figured it probably was stem cell research ethics, but you know where assumptions can get you.
the blouse popped? another wardrobe malfunction? call the FCC!!!!!
popped? translate?
It was so strange: I haven’t actually frozen from nervousness in several decades (it used to be my normal modus operandi for all public speaking, back before I became a recovering shy person.) Now it happens on TV.
Of course.
Eek. I just watched it on the DVD they nicely gave me, along with a coffee mug. It’s really amazing how thoroughly my hair managed to unbrush itself.
Anyone got a link to an archive video? CSPAN’s site is being uncooperative.
Gary, I’m sure some Iranian politicians are religious kooks. So were George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in their own ways.
But it’s a stretch to think that they are really indifferent to the consequences of, shall we say, nuclear incontinence. A big stretch.
The Taliban might qualify as, not irrational, but operating on a value system that makes deterrence impossible. They were willing to give up their hard-won control of Afghanistan to support Osama. I daresay there’s not a city outside of Mecca that they wouldn’t happily see nuked for the greater glory of Allah.
But I don’t think Iran’s leaders are Taliban-like.
“Pakistani Foreign Secretary Shahryar Khan admitted in a February 7, 1992 Washington Post interview that his country had the components to assemble at least one nuclear bomb. Khan claimed he was revealing this information to bridge a “credibility gap” created by a previous Pakistani regime. But it is more likely that his admission was motivated by a desire to gain recognition of Pakistan’s nuclear status, and perhaps the renewal of U.S. aid to Pakistan.”
I don’t really see how a public admission illustrates that we can trust our intelligence services to find things out. I would also like to note that according to current Pakistani sources this capability was developed in 1987–while the admission you quote is from 1992. And despite all that, the nuclear bomb was untested in Pakistan until 1998–which was a complete shocker to the US Intelligence services.
Jim Henley makes an interesting point. Syria, Iran and Iraq (until some point in the 1990s) all possess chemical weapons. And yet none of them have used such weapons against Israel, nor does it appear they have given them to their various proxies to use against Israel, despite the fact that they’ve shown no compunction about giving them other weapons.
And yet now we’re supposed to believe that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the first thing it’s going to do is drop it on Tel Aviv, or give it to a proxy to do the same (or use it in the U.S.). Why would they all-of-a-sudden change their behavior in such a way?
Who said it would be the first thing? 🙂
The first thing would be that, like Pakistan, Iran would feel freer to conduct terrorist attacks because everyone would know that escalating things against them in response to the terrorist attacks would turn into a nuclear conflict. Considering the ridiculous amount of terrorist support Iran currently gives, that in itself is a frightening thing. Nuking Tel Aviv directly could come later.
“But it’s a stretch to think that they are really indifferent to the consequences of, shall we say, nuclear incontinence.”
And that’s why I don’t assert they are. I have no idea. All things being the same, I’m inclined to give some small benefit of the doubt to the assumption that they want to live.
But it’s a true fact that plenty of people are perfectly willing to martyr themselves, and fervently and sufficiently believe in life-after-death, and are willing to act on that belief, so I certainly can’t exclude that fact from weighing the possibilities, either.
If history has one great lesson — and it doesn’t, it has a bunch, and that’s a meta-great-lesson — it’s that assuming that other people Will Think Like Me/Us is a common and frequent Great Mistake. Most particularly people from different cultures and polities.
On the other hand, assuming they’re going to live up to some stereotype is also a not infrequent error.
Assuming one may not be able to really know is, unfortunately, pretty unhelpful, but it does at least tend to start to dispel some of the illusions.
“The Taliban might qualify as, not irrational, but operating on a value system that makes deterrence impossible. They were willing to give up their hard-won control of Afghanistan….”
For a while; remember, their assumption is that we’re going to be a repeat of the Russians; no matter how many decades it takes, or if it will take a century or two.
That’s not irrational, I agree; it’s just determination and willingness to play for the longterm. I mean, from their point of view, what else are they going to do? It’s not as if they’d rather be playing video games.
“But I don’t think Iran’s leaders are Taliban-like.”
I don’t know. I don’t think you know, either.
“And yet now we’re supposed to believe that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the first thing it’s going to do is drop it on Tel Aviv, or give it to a proxy to do the same (or use it in the U.S.).”
This is certainly orthognal to my thinking, anyway. As I keep chanting, I don’t know what they’ll do. But I don’t worry remotely so much about immediate attacks (once they have a few “devices” in their pockets), or immediate transfers of them to Revolutionary Guards or the PFLP-GC, or whomever, but obviously the “marginal” effects won’t be all that marginal.
On the other hand, the Cold War really sucked, too, but most of us survived it (not that everyone was so lucky) without even being mussed.
“Why would they all-of-a-sudden change their behavior in such a way?”
Well, that’s an unfortunate way of putting it, given their history of blowing up Jews on other continents, and all.
(In case any newbies are reading this, let me repeat for the umpteenth time that I do not support any attacks on Iran in the near/mid-future; I think that would be a horrible idea.)
Sebastian – you make a more rational argument, but from what I read on the more rabid right-wing sites, it is “Nuclear Iran = Nuked Israel.” I certainly don’t think that a nuclear Iran is a good thing, but what someone thinks the consequences of a Nuclear Iran are affects how far they think we should go in preventing it from happening. If the consequences are that Iran feels it has a freer hand to wage its proxy-wars, well yeah, pretty bad, but not bad enough, at least IMHO, to support a U.S. bombing campaign to stop the program.
OTOH, if someone thinks Tel Aviv will inevitably be nuked, a bombing campaign may well be worth it to them, especially if the same person thinks bombing will stop the program and Iran’s response will be muted (no one ever seems to discuss on those sites what Iran might do if we started a full scale bombing campaign to stop their nuclear program).
In any event, I was merely suggesting that the fact that Iran currently has chemical weapons and has yet never used them on Israel is at least some evidence that they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons either, were they to acquire them.
Gary – yes, that could have been put a better way.
There may be an element of ethnic cleansing in Israeli tactics.
Who knew Lebanese were a different race?
“Who knew Lebanese were a different race?”
Actually he seems to be implying that Israel thinks Hezbollah is a separate race from Lebanese.
Or something.
Beats me, but, then, I’ve pointed out for years that reading Cole on anything having to do with Israel is counter-productive and misinformative. (On Iran and Iraq he’s at least worth throwing into the mix with a dozen other opinions.)
One data point to the contrary: possessing chemical weapons, Iran knows that they cannot wipe out Israel with them, though they could do hideous damage. With nukes, it is conceivable that they could have the capability to kill every living thing in Israel. Doing grave damage to Israel might not, in the eyes of a genocidal leader, be worth sacrificing his country. Obliterating it might.
That said, I don’t buy into the notion of Iran’s leadership being willing to sacrifice himself and his entire country to take out Israel. The religious mumbo-jumbo is not, in and of itself, evidence that he is not a rational actor–if you set that standard, you’re also arguing that George Bush is not a rational actor, for he is quite fond of the mumbo-jumbo himself.
Sebastian’s point about deterrence giving Iran a freer hand to support terrorism, OTOH, is quite within the realm of believability for me. Even likelihood.
popped? translate?
The color was very vivid, in a good way.
I guess I ought to have been more clear: the “different race” comment was directed at Cole’s “Western racism” comment, which is only visible on the other end of the link.
“With nukes, it is conceivable that they could have the capability to kill every living thing in Israel. Doing grave damage to Israel might not, in the eyes of a genocidal leader, be worth sacrificing his country.”
Now I’m a bit of a nuclear-Iran alarmist, but “every living thing” is pushing it a bit. With only two targets they could destroy 2/3 of Israel’s population–which is probably enough to end a country. Expand it to 5 targets and you can get about 4/5 of Israel’s population. The difference between having chemical weapons and having nuclear weapons is immense in this context. Chemical weapons aren’t generally much more destructive or effective than similar-sized conventional weapons. To get a similar level of devestation out of chemical weapons you would need to use thousands of them. A nuclear armed Iran represents a very different capability because it could really destroy Israel with a very few weapons.
(Special note, in my assumptions I’m assuming that they don’t target Jerusalem. This may or may not be a good assumption. But it is important to realize that Iran could effectively destroy Israel while leaving Jerusalem untouched. I mention this only because ‘they wouldn’t destroy Jerusalem’ seems to be an important point to some who express less worry about a nuclear-armed Iran)
no one ever seems to discuss on those sites what Iran might do if we started a full scale bombing campaign to stop their nuclear program
nobody has to; it’s clear: Iran, and all their neighbors, will be so impressed and cowed by our mighty display that they’ll never make another sound without asking us first.
(the fact that this didn’t happen after Iraq or Afghanistan is irrelevant)
“With nukes, it is conceivable that they could have the capability to kill every living thing in Israel.”
Destroying al-Aqsa might not be considered by them to be entirely a good thing.
No argument there, Gary, but as usual you’re missing the forest for the trees. My point was that it isn’t quite as apt to look at Iran’s reluctance to use their chemical arsenals or give them to terrorists, and conclude that they wouldn’t do the same with nukes–since with chemical weapons they could at best cause mass casualties, whereas with nukes they stand a very good chance of effectively wiping out Israel. These require different cost/benefit formulations.
Sebastian, I think you and I are actually in agreement. Feel free to disregard the hyperbole (though with enough nukes of appropriate size and quality, it wouldn’t even be that).
Slarti: Who knew Lebanese were a different race?
Uh, was there not ethnic cleansing in Servia/Croatia and in Rwanda by peoples of the same “race” as the victims?
Ethnic does not mean “race”, it means a grouping basesd on ancestry, culture, religion, linguistic, or religious belief.
And religious belief. Oh, and religious belief.
Sorry. Department of Redundany Department.
$#%@#!! RedundanCy.
“…but as usual you’re missing the forest for the trees.”
No, as usual I’m talking about the trees because I find trees intrinsically interesting. I wasn’t disagreeing with your larger point; if I was, I would have said so.
“racism” usually does imply race, dpu.
“racism” usually does imply race, dpu.
In this case, it’s obviously shorthand for a belief that those who differ from us matter less. What’s the word for that again?
Regardless, my comment was in reaction to your “ethnic cleaning” remark.
cleaning == cleansing. Stupid fingers aren’t working today.
cleaning == cleansing. Stupid fingers aren’t working today.
Nor apparently is the preview button, dpu.
Oh for freak’s sake. ObiWi people, your anti-spam blocker is haywire and posting comments twice.
“In this case, it’s obviously shorthand for a belief that those who differ from us matter less.”
Obvious problems with this aside:
Which group that are different from us? The Israelis who are different from us, or the Palestinians who are different from us? Or are we racists toward the whole lot? I have a couple of Asian daughters who are emphatically different from me; they’re so different that they’re actually a different race. Do I harbor racist tendencies toward them? Or is it possible that I somehow have escaped Western racism, and only achieved Midwestern racism?
Or perhaps it’s possible that Dr. Cole has discovered idiocy so dense that information about its interior cannot be extracted; a kind of singular stupidity.
Which group that are different from us?
Are you suggesting that we love all humanity equally, Slarti?
You have a great heart, my friend. Sadly, I note that unlike yourself, most human beings have a tendency to relate more to and empathis with those more like themselves (and no I’m not talking necessarily about “race”). For example, being distracted by the horror and sadness of a small war in Europe while willfully ignoring a much greater genocide in Africa.
Now, this may occasionally be based on pigmentation, but to my mind
“…they’re so different that they’re actually a different race.”
Only via counter-scientific 19th century European racial theories, actually. We’ve done this one to death, haven’t we?
… to my mind, I am incapable of writing a meaningful post today that isn’t riddled with errors.
See you tomorrow, folks. Enjoy the veal.
I’d like the fish, please, if it’s fresh.
“Only via counter-scientific 19th century European racial theories, actually. We’ve done this one to death, haven’t we?”
Sure, I guess that you can always collapse the entire argument by pointing out that the word “racist” no longer has any widely agreed-on meaning.
That’s been done to death, certainly. And of course I can be done with it as well.
And of course, dpu, what’s happening in Africa is horrible, just as what was happening in Africa a dozen years ago was horrible. What to do about it, though, is unclear.
“…by pointing out that the word ‘racist’ no longer has any widely agreed-on meaning.”
“Race,” not “racist.”
Plenty of meaning left to “racist.”
My dictionary has something like “one who believes that one race is better than another”.
Leaving that aside, though, as something that might have meaning if one is allowed to have race mean anything at all, I’m left wondering what different races might be represented in Palestine versus Israel. Or, if I have to abandon _that_ line of thought, what “Western racism” could possibly mean in the context of Palestine vs. that of Israel.
“My dictionary has something like ‘one who believes that one race is better than another’.”
Sure. People believe in endless numbers of non-existent things, and those people still exist. Astrology is bunk, but astrologers are real. There are even still some flat-earthers.
Racism is entirely real. So is creationism.