Comments on: Engagement: The Breakfast of Champions

By: North

North — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:07:17 +0000

Perhaps so and in America’s case the cost of underestimating them is (comparatively) small; a lost city or so. For the Israelis the cost would be pretty much their entire country so one can understand why they would be less sanguine at the prospect. Even if they did believe that the west would nuke Iran in retaliation (an interesting question in of itself, would we really retaliate on Iran nuclearly for the crimes of it’s government or even just a rebel wing of it’s government.) I doubt that would be of much consolation to their vaporized populace.

And yes, maybe there’s too much ceding of fear to Iran. But considering the stakes I think the best way to prevent an Israeli attack would be to have some credible non-violent solution to offer. If we just mumble about the cycle of violence and all we have to fear is fear itself then I wouldn’t be surprised if they go in with planes and special forces (though I doubt they could completely wipe out the Iranian nuclear project).

By: BCChase

BCChase — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:17:44 +0000

This is where I am most curious: how insanely religious do we think the Iranian government is? Because sponsoring religious terrorism on a small-scale versus nuclear scale has drastically different outcomes. A nuclear attack on Israel, even via Hamas or Hezbollah, would almost certainly bring war on Iran, maybe nuclear conflict. That could seriously weaken the Iranian government, or at least the current regime’s hold on power. And if Iran were the ones to strike first, they would get less support, from inside the country and outside, than if Israel attacks first. So to me, to assume Iran would attack first, you must assume either their religious insanity re: Israel’s existence overrides their need for regional power, or that they are willing to bring war on their own country to try and create a common enemy in Israel. But if they were going to do the latter, it would be far easier to stay the course, develop nukes and then wait for Israel to attack them. So basically we are down to religious insanity. I can understand Israel’s fear of this. But overestimating how far the Iranian government is willing to go grants them more power.

I don’t say I have a solution, just that I worry that as long as America or Israel’s primary motivation is (possibly) irrational fear of Iran, they have ceded them too much.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:29:27 +0000

So much for “engagement,” the Iranians announced that they are going to build more enrichment plants.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iran-To-Build-10-New-Uranium-Enrichment-Plans-State-Media-Has-Announced/Article/200911415478325?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15478325_Iran_To_Build_10_New_Uranium_Enrichment_Plans%2C_State_Media_Has_Announced

By: North

North — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:23:51 +0000

I agree to a certain extent. But what we have to keep in mind is that for the Israelis the calculations are very different than they are for Americans. There’s no reason for Iran to be sponsoring anti-Israeli militant groups right now; but they are. So that then makes the arguement “there’s no reason for Iran to nuke Israel.” a rather weak one. I agree that from our standpoint in America the ideal situation is to hope that the revolutionaries liberalize Iran before a nuclear device is functional. If they don’t then we shrug and move on. But the Israelis don’t have that kind of strategic depth. Though I’m skeptical that they are capable of actually neutralizing the Iranian program I do think that they have good reasons to try. If we want to encourage them not to try then we need an alternative to convince them. Personally I’m hoping Obama goes for some serious sanctions.

By: BCChase

BCChase — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:13:27 +0000

I think the rhetoric coming out of Israel and the knowledge that Hamas and Hezbollah are client organizations would lead to an attack on Iran fairly quickly. And assuming the Iranian government’s primary motive is to hold onto power, I don’t see how attacking Israel unilaterally helps that. Having nukes, sure, but using them, not clear to me.

By: North

North — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:30:53 +0000

Do you think they’d be similarily hesitant to hand such a device over to one of their client organizations? Hamas or Hezbollah? Or maybe just radioactive bombs? I doubt that any of the usual suspects would support turning Iran into glass just because some militant group rendered an Israeli community uninhabitable with such a hard to track device.

By: BCChase

BCChase — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:23:22 +0000

I largely agree with the point here. It is a difficult situation to grasp because I think we are largely powerless to speed the changes we want to see in Iran. In that respect, I think the best thing to be done is try to defuse some of the fear motivating calls for military action. I have never heard a convincing account of why Iran would unilaterally deploy a nuclear missile on Israel, given the existing deterrent.

By: Mr. Prosser

Mr. Prosser — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:10:23 +0000

Although the present regime may be experiencing “rapidly vanishing legitimacy,” what is the alternative? I think you ore overly optimistic if you believe there will be any immediate (within the near future) liberalization. In fact I read somewhere, sorry no reference, that the Revolutionary Guard is consolidating power because its commanders are well aware of the floundering of the civilian government. I am absolutely against any military action in Iran (at least overt conventional attacks) but how does one deal with a theocratic military/industrial/scientific complex which has consolidated power and refuses even a facade of democratic government?

By: North

North — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:18:30 +0000

So do you think we should be vigerously persuing sanctions now?

By: Scott H. Payne

Scott H. Payne — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:50:23 +0000

I would offer that Obama should be pushing Iran around everything on which they are reneging. Engagement doesn’t mean rolling over and it doesn’t mean appeasement. It does mean; however, maintaining some form of a relationship, even if said relationship is predominantly of a prickly nature. That relationship can be a sort of “on the record” means of tracking what a country is doing and this is, I think, what Bahari means in terms of maintaining engagement to demonstrate the consequences of actions. It’s hard to hold someone to account when you refuse to have any engagement with them whatsoever.

And I think if/when things boil over in Iran vis-a-vis the protests, it gives Obama an ability to go back and say that while he didn’t want to become involved in another country’s internal affairs, he did keep at Iranian officials as a means of cataloging various issues through discussions. Discussion of human rights violations wouldn’t, obviously, be unmarked territory for a US president, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable for it to be a a point of contention for Obama to bring up.

But, as mentioned in the post, I think walking the tight rope between responsible engagement on the issue and unnecessary intervention by an outside country is a trickier tight rope to walk than my explanation let’s on. Especially as regards the perceptions of dissenting Iranians.

At the end of the day, though, none of that is available to you if your attitude is “bomb ‘em”. You just wipe that whole field of play off the map altogether. I don’t know how any Iranian looks at the decision to bomb the country and doesn’t see that as reason for mistrust, even if the targets are military in nature.