November 5, 2007
A weakened America’s choices on Iran
My Monday column for the print FT:
The best course in dealing with Iran is not hard to see. The difficult thing is having to accept that its chances of success are poor. If the US and others do all they sensibly can, Iran will probably acquire nuclear weapons anyway. This prospect, much as one might prefer not to think about it, is terrifying. How can such a policy be right in that case? All one can say is that the alternatives are worse.
The right thing is to increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranian government, to make the threat of military action if that fails more credible and to offer Iran more attractive exits from the confrontation. The right policy, as the cliché has it, is a bigger stick and more carrots.
A diminished but still vocal group of American hawks (including Norman Podhoretz, who advises Rudolph Giuliani) wants to bomb Iran right away. This policy has almost no chance of success. Air strikes would not destroy Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. The country has had years – ever mindful of Osirak, the Iraqi nuclear facility destroyed by Israeli aircraft in 1981 – to disperse its nuclear-weapons infrastructure. One imagines with dismay the press briefings after the first strikes, the aerial photographs of buildings taken out with stunning precision, and the rolling of eyes in the US and around the world at the claim that the right things had been hit.
Strikes could strengthen President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad’s position as sub-supreme leader, rather than helping the “moderates” who oppose him. A man who calls for Israel to be wiped off the map is not one to shy away from conflict. “Attack them now” leads, with high probability, to an Iran with nuclear weapons that is more not less united behind an extremist leadership and more intent on humiliating America. Air strikes might delay that outcome, but before long, the west would probably find itself in an even worse position.
If the war in Iraq had succeeded – if Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction and reconstruction had worked – the calculations would be different. The threat of war against Iran would then have been credible, and maybe enough by itself to get results. At a minimum, it would have complicated Iran’s calculations.
Because the war in Iraq has gone so badly, leaving the US militarily politically weakened, a single-stranded policy of threats is not merely questionable, as it would have been in any case, but almost nonsensical. To be sure, if Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is calculating that the chance of American air strikes is zero, he is wrong. They might be as high as (who knows?) one in three – and higher still if you weigh the odds of an Israeli strike. But when it comes to threats that you hope not to carry out, perception is what counts. Post-Iraq, America is much less menacing. When you look weak and your only policy is to keep making threats, in the end you have to carry them out – and then what? The largest cost of the failed war in Iraq (which is saying something) may yet turn out to be a nuclear-armed Iran.
To make its stick bigger, and therefore less liable to have to be used, America needs a more popular president, braver allies and a wider sense of outrage at Iran’s flouting of the international nuclear weapons regime (to say nothing of its conduct in Iraq). More carrots requires the US to offer Iran’s leaders what they crave most: respect. Talks on help with a tightly monitored civil nuclear programme, without forcing Iran to back down first, would serve that purpose. If the offer was spurned, so much the better for mobilising international opinion against Iran. But the Bush administration is unpopular and untrusted at home, reluctant (with reason) to rely on feckless allies and the United Nations, and repelled by the idea of offering cosmetic victories to enemies. All that and stubborn, too. To put it mildly, it is badly equipped to advance the needed agenda.
Rather than leading a tough diplomatic effort, the US has preferred to stand aside from Europe’s vacillating initiatives, as if content to show they will not work. Proving that point has done little to advance American security. Europe’s governments, for their part, have been slow to acknowledge the failure of their toothless diplomacy. All of them need to think much harder about what they have at stake if Iran realises its nuclear weapons ambitions. The same goes for Russia, which is not lacking in restless and rebellious Muslims. The writhings of an isolated Bush administration have been pleasant for Europe and Russia to watch. Are they worth the price of a nuclear-armed Iran?
The Bush administration might be blind to its own past mistakes, but on the threat posed by Iran its eyesight is good. Tacitly, at least, it must now acknowledge its weakness – by reaching out to allies for help in toughening sanctions and by offering to reward Iran for co-operating. But, make no mistake, Europe and Russia have an even more daunting adjustment to make. They must recognise that they need George W. Bush’s help in this at least as much as the White House needs theirs.
Even if a tougher and more concerted diplomacy happens, Iran is likely to end up with nuclear weapons. But it would still be inexcusable for governments to do less than their best to stop it.
1. What you are proposing are more carrots without any enhancement in sticks - that definitely will not work.
2. Why do you pose yourself as a military expert? I think you can trust American military planners that any attack will be well-planned (as was the campaign in Iraq, as opposed to the post-operation planning). US forces have the technological capability to destroy underground targets (eg bunker-buster bombs); furthermore, it might only be necessary to disrupt vital linkages in the chain, as per example the above-ground reactor in Bushehr.
Posted by: XYZ | November 5th, 2007 at 5:57 am | Report this commentThere is one unilateral diplomatic initiative that would work for the US: declare the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone - and then force Israel to comply. But obviously that will never happen - it is easier to bomb and kill Muslims than to upset religious constituents in the US.
The stench of hypocrisy precludes any diplomatic solutions for the US. It will need to end militarily, just as the Bible requires I guess.
Posted by: Pessimistic | November 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm | Report this comment1) as most experts agree on, Iran needs hundreds or thousands of centrifuges running extremely precisely and for a long time to produce one small bomb material, so that’s at least 18 to 36 months, then that small material must be mounted and ready ,and the rockets to send it somewhere need another 48 to 72 months, and since we are sky-tracking the first centrifuges possible locations, what’s the hysteria? and even so, what would Iran do with one missile ? the EU and Russia “right now”, today, have about 300 ready and able missiles and jets on the ready, loaded, so if the Iranians are foolish enough to launch one rocket, they would get a rain of nuclear fire that would turn their country into a wasteland of radioactivity for the next 3.000 years, where is the logic? they are not stupid! so why don’t Europe and Russia start talking trade with Iran ? oil for trucks and roads and trains and building materials,gas for chemicals and crops and farm machinery,oil and gas for water desalination units, hospitals,schools, computers,mobile networks and tv’s, why are we not talking trade? why not get to know the democratic forces inside Iran ? why not help them get paper-trail voting machines? why not ?
2) Sarkozy will push the confrontational choices with Bush this week,he is a good neocon and we know that, but Merkel and the rest of Europe (including France) and Russia can push the smart options: talks,trade ,commerce and democratic links,we got 36 months at least to do it, we know every step they take,lets deal and meet the democrats inside Iran.
Posted by: blogger | November 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm | Report this commentReal actual illegal nuclear weapons in “attacks all of its neighbors including the UN and the USA every couple of years or so” Israel induces no comment from anyone at the FT.
No evidence of nuclear weapons at all in “never attacks anyone” Iran but maybe possibly nuclear weapons in many many years induces gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth from everyone at the FT.
I wonder why this can be?
Regards
Steve
Posted by: steve jennings | November 5th, 2007 at 7:02 pm | Report this commentReal actual illegal nuclear weapons in “attacks all of its neighbors including the UN and the USA every couple of years or so” Israel induces no comment from anyone at the FT.
No evidence of nuclear weapons at all in “never attacks anyone” Iran but maybe possibly nuclear weapons in many many years induces gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth from everyone at the FT.
I wonder why this can be?
Regards
Steve
Posted by: steve jennings | November 5th, 2007 at 7:04 pm | Report this commentWhy?
Well, polite people in the west don’t talk about that elephant in the room, and Mr Crook is doubtless very polite. However, this does make his and his fellow polite journalists’ observations on the topic as useless as a Victorian sex manual.
Still the elephant is real, and things will play out in a real world, with real people, some of whom are not polite but most of whom are simply innocent - they will die anyway, of course, as we saw in Lebanon.
Posted by: pessimistic | November 5th, 2007 at 8:31 pm | Report this commentAn (militarily) aggressive policy towards Iran will only further weaken the United States as a superpower. There is much concern about America’s power status these days. Steve Levine discusses it on his blog:
The book tour took me yesterday to Austin, where I was on a panel called “American Empire.” Its driving theme was: Is America Rome, meaning has it peaked out and begun an irreversible descent as the world’s superpower?
Levine’s analysis in full: http://oilandglory.com/2007/11/its-technology-and-immigrants-stupid.html
Posted by: Andrew | November 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pm | Report this commentClive Crook makes some interesting claims to support his belief in the futility of using force against Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.
First he claims that the US military is weakened. Measured how? The political will of allies to support the US has mostly diminished, and the political skepticism of US voters has increased healthily, but the military is not weakened. If anything this occupation has strengthened the tactics, material and strategy of the fighting force.
Furthermore, Iran is surrounded. Also, the strikes and follow up containment of Iraq, while costly, weakened the regime there - and lo and behold - Iraq got rid of his WMD on their own (so hats off to the Clinton strategy.)
Clive Crook claims US – and/or Israeli - strikes could strengthen the Iranian leadership. The vulnerability to violence will not necessarily strengthen the Iranian dictators, and if it does how much and to what ends? In a dictatorship, the ruled people know the story. The regime’s rhetoric may go up, the rabble rousers will be out, but the people know better.
He goes on to claim Iran must be mindful of Osirak. But being mindful is not the same as finding a solution to aerial bombardment designed to hit nuclear facilitates. He claims to know airstrikes will miss. But how eager will Iranian – and other? – nuke workers be to return to work and get hit by a missile. Yes it will be violent and awful, so are nuclear bombs. The bombing has a goal, as the Iraqi no-fly zones had a goal. It was achieved.
Clive Crook’s real howler is that the US should offer Iran what it craves most, respect. Frankly dictators do not crave respect, they crave power. If the corporate mullahs wanted respect, they’d end the autarky, take their corporations public, and shower their four wives with the fruits of IPO riches. No, they want to maintain and grow their power. Respect doesn’t even make their top twenty.
He claims waiting for European equivocating has not made America ’stronger.’ But that’s not the goal, the goal is to prove to those in reach of Iran’s missiles that the US resolve is indispensable, that they can’t do it themselves, and that diplomacy is useless, which is ironically Mr. Crooks entire premise, that Iran will get nukes inevitably unless there is use of force. Fortunately, American’s resolve, threat of force and potential use of it will assure that Iran will in fact not achieve those ends.
Posted by: VennData | November 6th, 2007 at 1:14 am | Report this commentYesiree, VennData, bomb ‘em back to the stone age. Make those cinders dance. Works every time as US policy. Like shock and awe in Iraq. Gotta have resolve, though, because it isn’t always obvious that it’s working…
Violent and awful - surely that doesn’t apply to Israeli nuclear bombs?
Posted by: pessimistic | November 6th, 2007 at 7:45 pm | Report this commentwe need to discuss the what ifs and take it beyond Ahmadinejad saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map. What if he gets his hands on one or two atomic bombs that could be successfully dropped on targets in Israel. He surly knows Israel and USA will retaliate. Also how does one drop an atomic bomb on Israel and at the same time protect the Palestinians he is supporting. Is it possible to drop an atmic bomb with surgial accuracy to only take out Israelis (non palestinians). It is not technicaly possible to wipe out Israel without killing hundreds of thousands of Palistinians. Case closed.
Posted by: Shawn | November 7th, 2007 at 1:40 am | Report this commentShawn, allow me to reopen the case: killing their own was never a hindrance on Palestinian suicide-bombers during the dark days of the second ‘intifada’. They solved their moral dilemma, if ever they had one, by declaring that any Palestinian bystanders caught up in the maelstrom had become holy martyrs.
Such an attitude is common to all Islamic fundamentalists, including those of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, the holy site of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is probably a greater hindrance than the one you have suggested: for these people, mere human lives do not count.
Posted by: Realist | November 7th, 2007 at 8:26 am | Report this commentWhat’s scarier - Ahmadinejad’s (mistranslated) rhetoric or a US presidential candidate singing ‘bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’?
Why is it a literally mortal sin to criticize Israel while it is acceptable to joke about killing Muslims?
Perhaps because for ‘these people’ - the US and Israel - those ‘mere human lives do not count’?
Posted by: pessimistic | November 7th, 2007 at 2:40 pm | Report this comment1) Ahnadnejad is definitely the scarier, if only because Iran’s political system lacks effective checks and balances.
2) For examples of ‘literally mortal sins’: ask British novelists, Belgian film-makers or Danish cartoonists.
Posted by: Realist | November 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm | Report this comment1) You mean, for example, in the way that the US Democratic congress is an effective check and balance on Bush’s war policy?
2) Is the Iranian government threatening to bomb British novelists and Danish cartoonists? Does the Iranian goverment have a recent track record of armed agression, including aerial bombardement of cvilian centers? With over 1,000 civilans killed?
Posted by: pessimistic | November 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pm | Report this commentYes, you’re right. There’s never been a fatwa against Salman Rushdie - it’s all part of his novels.
Posted by: Realist | November 8th, 2007 at 6:51 am | Report this commentClive Crook’s argumentation is characteristic of a western armchair liberal who does not have his family at risk from nuclear weapon. His final conclusion is pathetic - Iran will get nuclear weapons, but still, others must try to srop it, BUT using “diplomacy”.
So, if diplomacy will not stop Iran, why try? I just cant understand how such a shallow analysis is allowed at FT.
But i can understand some bloggers here, eg “pessimistic”. He does not care about Iran, Lebanon or Palestinians, despite what he will tell everybody and perhaps what we thinks to himself. What he wants and craves is the detruction or humiliation of Israel and the US. For this end, he tries to bring cynical arguments about “double standards” etc.
Well, “pessimistic”, I am Israeli, and I dont give a toss about who is wrong and who is right, now or in the past. I am NOT gonna take the risk that Iran will nuke me first, cos Israel will cease to exist, whereas Iran will not, even after a nuclear strike. Therefore, we WILL stop Iran getting nuclear and spoil your little fantasy about Israel annihilation.
I wish you all Israel haters long long life, cos every day of your life, Israel will be the sore in your eyes, a successful, prosperous, liberal country.
God bless America!
Posted by: Asher Pat | November 11th, 2007 at 12:03 pm | Report this commentWell now - that pretty much speaks for itself.
With friends like these, is it any wonder that the US has little diplomatic scope in the Middle East?
Just tragic.
Posted by: pessimistic | November 11th, 2007 at 11:19 pm | Report this commentDear Mr Pat,
I wouldn’t be so sure Iran itself would survive a nuclear counter-atack — after all, what is Iran without Tehran, Shiraz and a few others? A vast expanse of desert? Mere geographical size doesen’t matter; it’s the vital urban centres of a country which are the most important.
pessimistic, did you read what HRH Juan Carlos had to say to that inane clown Chavez? Excellent words!
Posted by: Realist | November 12th, 2007 at 8:12 am | Report this commentWhy yes, the king’s comment clearly applies to Mr Pat’s sad rant. Actually, it applies even better to Bollinger’s incontinent rudeness at Columbia: both Chavez and Bollinger showed crude and inappropriate disrespect to a head of state.
Why is it that defenders of Israel always seem to resort to ad hominem attacks? Yes, I know it is hard to defend double-standards - but could you at least try?
Or if you must get personal, upgrade the wit a little. Screaming about ‘Israel-haters’ etc. does not intimidate anymore, outside the US anyway, but it does degrade the dialogue.
By the way, in pointing out that Iran is mostly desert, you seem to be suggesting that the nation can in fact be annihilated by nuclear means. What is your point?
Posted by: pessimistic | November 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am | Report this commentIsrael and Iran are not on a par, so any talk of “double-standards” rings hollow: Israel is encircled by Islamic nations who, sixty years after its establishment, still deny its very right to exist. Iran’s existence as a nation-state is not in question, rather what Iran is seeking is strategic dominance of the region (Persian history is telling in this respect).
As proof, Pakistan is in a very different strategic situation, and the world understands and accepts this — so there is nothing inherently anti-Islamic about opposing Iran’s ambitions.
Posted by: 12 November | November 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pm | Report this commentThank you, 12 November, for a reasonable response.
I agree that Iran is seeking dominance in the region (though not sure ancient Persian history is too relevant) - and I also agree that those ambitions should be contained. The US would have far more non-military options if its policy to Israel were more even-handed. Israel is not a Little Satan, but nor is the country a pure beacon of light and hope. Rather, it is actually not unlike many of its neighbors (in terms of religious/ethnic-based nationalism, latent military agressiveness, xenophbia, etc.). The tragedy is that US policy is so slanted, without any real moral basis at all (in contrast to the cold war, or if Israel was non-nulcear), that its actions in the region are vastly and directly destructive - the neo-con war in Iraq being the main (though sadly not the last) example.
If fair criticism of Israel was allowed in the US media (the primary locus of double standards), this might change - to the benefit of everyone, including Israel itself.
As things stand, Ahmadinejad is doing an excellent job of playing the neo-con strategy against itself.
Posted by: pessimistic | November 12th, 2007 at 5:35 pm | Report this comment