The Iran two-step

L. Jayasooriya

The nations against Iran have never talked to Iran. They have only talked down at Iran. When President Dr. Ahmadeenjaad was asked whether he would talk to President Obama he replied he would as long as it is based on mutual respect but the offer of talks from President Obama came with a threat probably on the advice of the President’s Republican advisors. There has never been anything to talk about in the first place.

If Iran could have been blown to dust with impunity it would have happened long, long ago. It did not happen because the credibility of what Iran says she would do in case she is attacked is at the highest rating in the eyes of her enemies. They hate the guts of Iran but deep inside they fear Iran. The world order in West Asia today with the deep involvement of Russia is such that Iran will continue to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and build them together with the means of delivery and nobody will be able to interfere militarily without risking disaster for the one that interferes.

porkbelly

"if you were an Iranian policy maker, what short of a belief that you would be bombed would make you give up your nuclear programme?" And that's the problem with the soft approach - it allows them to buy time while they complete their nuclear weapons program. If the West could unite behind a credible threat of military action now we stand a chance of not having to take real action later when the stakes are higher. The grovelling approach has been tried before by Jimmy Carter and it only convinced the mullahs that the U.S. was weak and nothing to be feared. Why the obsession with "what will people think?" anyway - what will they think when a nuclear Iran starts levying threats (or worse) against Europe and the U.S.? And to those who pooh-pooh the idea of a lesser power like Iran attacking the U.S. or Europe - remember 1941? Pearl Harbor?

Conservative Cabbie

Bob Kagan's two possible outcomes are fine, and if Obama can make it work then good for him, but my worry is that the second outcome happens. Iran, despite all Obama's approaches doesn't play ball, but Obama (and his code pink, moveon supporters) doesn't have the courage to take the second outcome to it's full conclusion, namely military action.

Austin Barry

According to Israel's military intelligence director, Maj. Amos Yadlin, in evidence to the Knesset on 25 March, Iran is just months away from having the capacity to make a nuclear bomb. Iran also has a warhead delivery system which sent its first satellite, Omid, into space on 3 Jan. 2009. Which means that sometime this year Iran could deliver a nuclear warhead anywhere on the globe - or via terrorist proxies into the West's cities. As Iran perceives Obama to be a swaggering weakling and Europe is preoccupied with placating its Islamic Fifth Column and ensuring its oil supplies, Israel will have to deal with the problem alone, and soon.

cuffleyburgers

"If Iran could have been blown to dust with impunity it would have happened long, long ago".

That, my dear Jayasooriya, is where you're wrong.

Nobody really could give much of a toss about Iran (where the pistacchios come from ?).

"They hate the guts of Iran but deep inside they fear Iran".

No, no no. They don't particularly think about Iran.

We admire the great artifacts of Persian culture, lament the fact it has been taken over by a bunch of religious maniacs determined to keep their people in the 12th century, and move on.

The problem is when the president of Iran goes around making stupid speeches about annihilating Israel, and over a number of years lies systematically about nuclear ambitions in contravention of Iran's obligations under treaties she has voluntarily signed up to.

That is the problem, and any dispassionate observer would agree that we are right to be worried.

We don't want to keep Iran in a box. Nothing would make us happier than a peaceful Iran hapily getting fat from selling oil, having her own domestic nuclear power. Unfortunately, that is not what we are geting.

I know you won't see that because I suspect you are a government agent.

However, that is the view from the west.

Nicholas Hallam

Since Bob Kagan is "one of the smartest foreign policy thinkers around", I must be missing something, but it seems to me that it is very much in Tehran's interest, and, it hardly needs be said, not in ours, to *pretend* to engage with Obama. This is a game they have played before with some success.

RMH

@ L. Jayasooriya

Merely saying about talks with Iran is a bitter pill to swallow. And they would know the rhetoric required to frame that to sell it domestically.

You cannot have it any other way.

JONNY

There is one other issue still unmentioned and unresolved.
And equally vital for peace in that region.
The unarming of Israel's illegal nuclear capability.

JONNY

Israel will have to deal with the problem alone, and soon.

Well it's only a few weeks since they last vandalised Gaza, Austin Barry.
Time for a new bellicose initiative.
And they've now got Netanyahu the Peacemaker.

Peter

I'm still trying to get worked up about this.

An arms race is threatened - but by whom? Neighbours like Pakistan and near neighbours like Israel already have the bomb. Who else wants one?

Secondly who are they going to bomb? Israel? They know that the Israelis or the US will convert Iran to glass if they even try to launch. Plus millions of Palestinains could die and one of the holiest places in Islam (Al Quds)could be desecrated. Instead of MAD - AID(Assured Iranian Destruction)!

So they could threaten the Gulf but similar strictures apply.

Conversely one can see why, given their near neighbours (including the US in Iraq), Iran might want a bomb.

The possible implosion of Pakistan and the nutters in
North Korea are subjects for real worry.

The Masked Marvel

Even the smartest thinkers around can get things wrong. Kagan is only half right. Rahm Emmanuel may have dual loyalty to both the US and Israel, but he's only on the White House staff to be a pit bull on domestic issues, not foreign policy. Last time Israel got in trouble, he left the US to join them.

So, if Iran seriously threatens Israel, he'll leave again, and the President will be able to do what all Democrat Presidents do, which is let Israel deal with it, and then suck up to the Palestinians and Hezbollah some more.

Further, in case Kagan and James F. haven't been paying attention, the President spent 20 years attending a church which not only condemned Israel time and time again, but preached that the dreaded Israel Lobby had too much power, and that Israel was the real danger in the world. Perhaps it's worth considering that the President can see an advantage to his own political goals if he allows Iran to fester until Israel gets nuked. Many of his followers would breath a sigh of relief.

Ian C

The problem with the strategy is that it is not without risk: -

a) That time is what the Iranians seek to complete their attainment of Nuclear weaposn and

b) Political risk that something intervens to give further appeasement the upper hand.

Few of us trust that a Democrat US gov't will actually make the hard choice, soon enough; will not allow the stakes to get so high that politically it becomes impossible to 'take them out'.

I am surprised that Kagan, of all people, does not see the Obama approach as high risk as this. It seems an uncharacteristic and trusting of not just Obama but hsi left wing support, which will never go with him if he does say enough is enough and press the 'bomb Iran' button. It will very probably bring Obama down if he has to do it (so the Iranians can rule it happening out between now and 2012 at the very least).

Ian C

Peter

You have clearly not done your homework. For victory the Mullahs need Armageddon. With that comes the second coming of the 12th Imam and by that definition Islam has won.

What better way to 'win' than to have Iran 'glassed', as you put it, and the whole of the Middle East a nuclear desert for the next 50 years. That would also constitute a 'win' becuase the west would be defeted by being denied its lifeblood of oil and Israel would be annihilated. The fact that half of Islam goes up in smoke too is not part of their calculation.

Can you get worked up now?

Peter

Must admit that I had heard some mullahs thought that it would be worth the death of 100 million muslims (one assumes that includes most
Iranians) to obliterate the state of Israel. I recall also that Chairman Mao made a similar statement about 100 million chinese vav the US.

Whilst the mullahs may want Armageddon - we should beware getting bounced into pre-emptive strikes by the Israelis, neo-cons and flakier elements of
US christianity (who also crave Armageddon).

The same cabal who talked us into Iraq - destabalising the region and thus strengthened Iran.

Verity

Conservative Cabbie - Is Move On the American chapter of Common Purpose?

JONNY

'For victory the Mullahs need Armageddon.
Thanks a million Ian C.
You learn something every day.

Cillit Brown (Bang, and the wealth has gone!)

JONNY: It's been an open secret for years that Israel has nuclear capability. Yet only now, when Iran is on the verge of joining the nuclear club, do the other Middle Eastern and Arab countries suddenly get concerned about developing their own nuclear programs.
Funny, that.

Conservative Cabbie

Verity

Don't know anything about Common Purpose so can't speak to that. I do know however that Code Pink are the collective of ugly socialist lesbians - in other words, the typical Democrat base.

Verity

Conservative Cabbie - Ha ha ha ha! Look up Common Purpose.