Dan Drezner is skeptical about trying to convince Iran to forego its nuclear program, and asks us realists: "Why on God's green earth would Iran ever accede to an agreement whereby it gives up any autonomy in its nuclear program?"I'll take the bait.To begin with, at this point I don't think it is possible to persuade Iran to give up full control of the nuclear fuel cycle. They've committed a lot of money and prestige to acquiring this capacity, the program is popular domestically, and it is legal within the confines of the NPT. So if our bottom line is for them to abandon enrichment, etc., we're almost certainly going to fail.Our goal, instead, should be to convince Iran that it is better off not developing nuclear weapons, because that's the issue we really care about. This means not enriching uranium to weapons grade, not reprocessing spent reactor fuel to extract bomb-making material, and not building or testing an actual device. Obviously, Iran would have to agree to sufficiently thorough inspections to ensure compliance.  I don't know if it's possible to achieve this goal, but here's how I'd try. First and foremost, the United States has to take the threat of military force and regime change off the table. Why? Because that's the main reason why Iran might like a nuclear deterrent in the first place. From Tehran's perspective, they have three nuclear powers in their neighborhood (Pakistan, India, and Israel), and U.S. troops on two sides (in Iraq and Afghanistan). U.S. naval forces patrol the Iranian Sea and Persian Gulf, and it is the stated policy of the U.S. government -- the world's strongest military power -- to seek the removal of the current Iranian regime. Indeed, we are reportedly engaged in various covert operations there already. Iranians can see that Saddam Hussein is dead and buried but Kim Jong Il is not, and they know one of the reasons why. They also know that Muammar al-Qaddafi agreed to give up his own WMD programs only after the Bush administration agreed not to try to overthrow him. Under these circumstances, it would be surprising if Iran wasn't interested in its own deterrent. This means that the Obama administration's likely approach ("bigger carrots and bigger sticks," as outlined by special envoy Dennis Ross) is wrong-headed. We may need to think up different inducements, but bigger sticks (e.g., stronger sanctions) sends the wrong message, and repeated statements that military force is still "on the table" only gives Tehran additional incentive to master the full fuel cycle and then proceed to weaponize. If we are serious about diplomacy (and not simply looking for a pretext to use force later), Step 1 has to be reducing Iran's perceived need for a deterrent capability of its own. And as a number of Iran experts have already argued, the best way to do that is to pursue a comprehensive settlement of the key security issues that presently divide us.Second, we need to explain to Iran that possessing a known nuclear weapons capability is not without its own costs and risks. Today, if a terrorist group somehow obtained a nuclear weapon and then used it, we would not suspect Iran of having provided it and they would face little risk of retaliation. Why not? Because we know they don't have any weapons right now. But imagine how we might react a decade hence, if we knew that Iran had built a few nuclear weapons and some terrorist group whose agenda was somewhat similar to Iran's managed to explode a bomb somewhere in the world, or even on American soil? Under those terrible circumstances, Tehran would have to worry a lot about U.S. retaliation, even if it had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. Nuclear forensics is hardly perfect (or so my physicist colleagues tell me) and the United States has been known to shoot first and ask questions later in the past. (I'd remind Iranian officials that former Deputy Sec/Def Paul Wolfowitz recommended attacking Iraq less than a week after 9/11, and we eventually did invade that country, even though it had no WMD and had nothing to do with al Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon). So Iran should not be confident that we'd act with precision and restraint in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist attack, and that concern ought to give them pause about whether joining the nuclear weapons club is a net plus. I'd also point out to them that acquiring nuclear weapons will encourage other states in the Middle East to follow suit. Given that Iran has a lot more latent power potential than its neighbors in the Gulf, it should prefer to confine the competition there to the conventional realm, where its larger population and considerable economic potential will inevitably give it considerable influence.  Thus, from a purely realist perspective, Iran might actually be better off with the "Japan option": possessing the latent capability to build nuclear weapons if circumstances required, but avoiding the costs and risks by refraining from exercising that option. If we want to convince Tehran to forego nuclear weapons, therefore, our diplomatic efforts ought to focus on explaining this situation to our Iranian counterparts, instead of merely brandishing bigger sticks or waving bigger carrots.It is impossible to know if this strategy would work, but it is worth remembering that as far as we know, Iran has no nuclear weapons program today. Iran has signaled on several occasions since 9/11 that it was interested in a negotiated settlement with the United States. There have also been several other moments when the two states managed to cooperate in more limited ways. And if diplomacy doesn't succeed, the United States and its allies in the region can always fall back on deterrence. By saying that the United States should "non-violently" prepare for an Iranian nuclear weapons capability, I take it that Drezner recognizes that preventive war won't solve this problem and could easily make a lot of other problems worse. We've deterred bigger and tougher adversaries in the past, and while I'd strongly prefer that Iran decide not to become a nuclear weapons state, I'm not going to panic if it does cross that line at some point down the road. And neither should anyone else.
Majid Saeedi/Getty Images
It is a prospect, though strained, that the US might establish a "talk first, shoot only at last resort" relationship with Iran.
It is NOT a prospect, without a radical change in Iranian foreign policy, for Israel to do so.
Iran unconditionally rejects and opposes Israel. Its policy is not constructed as a reflection of how they are treated, but is cardinal.
And, although Israel is not a member of the non-proliferation regime, not subject to inspections (like India), and can only be suspected (not known) how many warheads they possess. Its not knowable for any of us even if they have nuclear weapons, regardless of the testimony of an individual whistle-blower. Even a "slip" from Israeli officials, may not be truth, but intentional deterrence.
I know you define this as one example of where Israeli relations with another state, might conflict with the US relations.
I'm not so sure if the appropriate response to an exageration of alliance (to the level of unconditionality), is rejection of that alliance. I believe that as there are CONSIDERABLE real relations between the US and Israel (economic, cultural, intelligence, families), that it is in the US interests to insist that Iran cease proxy military threats on Israel.
It would not be in the US interest to risk REAL relations with Israel for the gamble of prospective tense and less involved one with Iran. (Economic relations between Israel and the US include companies like Microsoft, Intel, Motorola, Sun, photovoltaics, water-preserving agricultural research, desalinization, electric vehicles; all forward thinking relationships guided by positive motivation). There is no similar prospect even with Iran.
Iran has the capability of being a collaborator with the US. There are brilliant and effective individuals and companies in Iran.
Ironically, they would have a natural relationship with Israeli, if they weren't committed to Israel's removal.
"it is legal within the confines of the NPT."
Thank you so much for not letting this falling under the table.
What if they have considered your points and concluded that a policy of ambiguity is in their interest? It could be that they want to master the fuel cycle and develop delivery systems without ever technically breaching the NPT - simply maintaining the capability of weaponizing relatively quickly if the strategic situation required it in their view. I am not sure if this is truly practicable without salting away some material for quick use, but it seems to conform to their public statements.
I think the real issue for them submitting to effective controls is that they would want an effective security commitment which we are not in a position to credibly provide.
how do we justify a nuke first strike on russia, i wonder? boris berezovsky is a mathematician and game theory guy, or more specifically, a "decision theorist", with lots of heavy duty computer expertise. So he's a psychohistorian"¦. the tricky part is figuring out whose side he's on. He's definitely against putin, he's an israeli citizen, although he's a little too classy to hang out in israel. But his citizenship gives us a hint of his leanings. Other than that, he may be just another run-of-the-mill psychopath who has only one side: his own. we know berezovsky helped install the drunk yeltsin so he could help himself to russia's assets as the soviet union collapsed. Some russians believe berezovsky was a major cause of that collapse. We know he's a crook who faces russian charges of tax evasion, fraud and grand theft. we know he's been mixed up in murder cases --being boris' buddy is one of the most hazardous occupations on earth-- and we know he was displeased with paul klebnikov, the american editor of forbes' russian edition who wrote a book about berezovsky's criminal behavior, including the murder of one of russia's most famous television personalities... so we got listyev, klebnikov followed by politkovskaya and litvenenko... all murdered, all connectied with mr. berzovsky. berezovsky supported putin in the 2000 elections in russia, but started calling for violent overthrow of putin once putin cracked down on israeli russian oligarchs... israeli americans and the zionist media are also gunning for putin, because he threw a monkeywrench into neocon plans to use russian oil while they remodeled the middle east oil patch. we know berezovsky is associated with bunnypants brother, neil bunnypants, in business, and lord knows how those boys define "business". So that's another indication of berezovsky's leanings. we know boris is involved with chechens, and he paid chechen terrorist leader shamil basayev millions of dollars... basayev was the great white hope for driving russians from the north caucasus and chopping off that chunk of russia that hangs down to the caspian and black seas...which would clear the way the PNAC pipelines, and would further isolate russia by blocking russian access to its southern european export port. map 3309 x 3408 we know boris backed yulia, yushchenko and the "orange revolution" in ukraine, which supposedly would be more favorable to the PNAC european pipeline. yulia's had her ups and downs, but is currently back in power, up to her eyeballs in the continuing shootouts between russia and ukraine over gas supplies... but that's what the "orange revolution" was about: installing PNAC puppets to block russian access to european energy markets. we know boris has made secret trips to kyrgyzstan, site of the "tulip revolution" that was supposed to give israeli america another foothold in central asia, block russian access to markets and block chinese access to energy. and you got to wonder how berezovsky's "decision theories" dovetail with good ol' doc aumann's "game theories", dont you? and we got to wonder why there was such an uproar about aumann getting the nobel prize.... there must be lots of people who are beginning to understand the role of psychohistorians like berezovsky and aumann in planning wars, and incidents that trigger wars, and tiny applications of force that cause massive changes in the course of history. but the most worrisome thing about berezovsky is his statement that chechens acquired nukes as the soviets union collapsed...
he's planting a legend that can be used in a nuke false flag operation.
if america's been built from the ground up dependent on cheap oil, and if israel is dependent on america for its survival, and if america is threatened by peak oil, that means israel is threatened by peak oil at one remove.
since oil produces co2, and israel is threatened by sea level rise caused by global warming caused by co2 caused by burning oil, an effort must be made to curb co2 production by curbing use of oil, especially seeing as how china recently overtook the US as the world's biggest producer of co2...
curbing chinese use of energy means grabbing control of enough oil to forcibly restrict chinese access to oil... not to mention these PNAC dreams of global hegemony through control of energy, enforced, as a last resort, by nuke first strikes on russia and china.
.
...the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield.
If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy From CFR Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006
. i have to admit that all this sounds so loony that it's probably nothing more than scare tactics intended to provide cover as america's looted.
if america's been built from the ground up dependent on cheap oil,
It has.
and if israel is dependent on america for its survival
It appears to be.
and if america is threatened by peak oil
Read Full Article »