The combination of Iranian aggressiveness and Western diffidence has consequences for how a containment strategy would play out against a nuclear Iran. Behavior, after all, is largely a function of experience: why would a nuclear Iran, emboldened after successfully defying years of Western threats and sanctions, believe that the U.S. was seriously prepared to enforce this or that red line for the sake of containment? More likely, the U.S. would be at continual pains trying to restrain its allies, Israel above all, from responding too forcefully against Iranian provocations, lest they “destabilize” the region.
Consider also the red lines that Lindsay and Takeyh say would be essential for a policy of containment to work. Washington, they believe, would have to “publicly pledge to retaliate by any means it chooses if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel”; it would have to tell Tehran that it “would strike preemptively, with whatever means it deems necessary, if Iran ever placed its nuclear forces on alert”; and it “should hold Tehran responsible for any nuclear transfer, whether authorized or not.”
Merely to list these conditions underscores the risks the U.S. would be required to run to enforce a containment policy. And given its habits of provocation, Iran would almost certainly be inclined to test America’s mettle at the earliest opportunity, probably by finding ambiguous ways to transgress America’s red lines. What would the U.S. do, for instance, if Iran found ways to transfer components of a nuclear program, perhaps of a dual-use variety, to Syria? Would that suffice as a casus belliagainst a nuclear Iran as far as the Obama administration was concerned? Or, as so often has been the case in the past, would the administration be content to express “grave concern” and perhaps refer the matter to the International Atomic Energy Agency?
One might also ask why Iran shouldn’t consider making wholesale nuclear-technology transfers to other parties if that suited its needs….
Some people really want WWIII to happen. And who, pray tell, will pay for it? Surely not the prosperous.
Maybe some people are thinking that had the world stood up to Hitler in the 1930’s WWII could have been prevented. As it is the world is decidedly unwilling to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. So maybe John you will get your WWIII.
A [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/israel-3/]prayer[/url] for the peace of Israel.
Perhaps if we knock out their one and only refinery we would get their attention and they would believe that we are serious when we tell them to stop making nuclear weapons. If not, a systematic site by site destruction is not out of the question. Finally, if there are sites so far underground as to be impossible to destroy, we could use low yield tactical nuclear weapons to seal them in forever.
A nuclear armed Iran is not an option.
If any country had the “right” to possess nuclear weapons, then all do. I was not aware that the USA had claimed sovereignty over the whole world, so as to be enable to demand all other coutries kowtow to its will.
anyway, why don’t we start by demanding that Israel own up to its own possession of nuclear weapons — the more so, as they stole the technology to make them, decades ago, from us?
I don’t expect WWIII. I just don’t know if this country can take or afford another Iraq/Afghanistan. Because this article is ultimately preaching regime change, and that means the long haul when we haven’t finished the long hauls we have already started.
But containment, against a country that has no trouble funneling aid to Hezbollah and Hamas? That’s a gamble I’m not sure Israel can make, and I’m not sure we can either.
I am glad I do not have to figure this out, and I pray fervently for the people who do.
#5 Perhaps we don’t demand “Israel own up to its own possession of nuclear weapons” because Israel isn’t openly advocating the complete elimination of another nation state. Have you ever watched an Iranian political assembly? A speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
I would like you to view these videos and then come back and say with a straight face that it is just hunky-dory that Iran have nuclear weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1jEKUBhiz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9zcElqetqk&feature=related
Well, it didn’t take very long to invoke Godwin’s law. Sometimes I wish there were less hyperbolic analysis.
Sick, if Iran were merely the rantings of the President, that would be one thing. But Iran believes a couple things:
1) Israel runs US policy.
2) US won’t negotiate with Iran about broader geo-political interests.
3) Israel intends to bomb Iran, which it has stated.
Does Iran have a right to defend itself against Israel?
Anyway what would happen if Israel invaded? Iran would attack American soldiers in Iraq. And the Muslim world would rally around Iran, creating thousands of people who believe that Israel is an aggressor nation. It feels good short term, but the American Military, at least, believes differently.
Hey, I agree that Ahmedinijad is quite a negative player. I also think that Iran should open itself up first. I don’t think it’s the only way to go. And I don’t think Israel is being smart either. It is suffering from the Icarus Syndrome….
Iran’s stated intent is to destroy Israel, not to “defend” against an attack from Israel. Iran has already actively financed and armed the enemies of Israel to conduct a proxy war against Israel. Did you view the videos, especially the first one where the Iranian military is acting out a precision drill team interpretation of missiles being fired at the USA and Israel (and I think Europe – the swastika thing is confusing) from Iran? What part of that do you fail to understand? They wish us ill. They wish us dead. They symbolically demonstrate what they will do once they have achieved the technology to do it, when they act out the missile strikes against the USA and Israel.
How can you not see that?
In the face of that, you and others like you want us to just do nothing? Did Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement teach you nothing? Do you not understand that the thinking of Iran is shaped by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Definition of Terminal Insanity: not realizing the stakes get higher and higher.
The preservation of Israel, just like that of, say, Nepal, Eritria, Swaziland or Tannu-Tuva, is not worth the life of one American soldier.
#10 – well, I agree with that. Which is why, perhaps, we might want to begin having different conversations with Iran, and perhaps do something different, like challenge Israel.
#9 You assume I believe what Iran says. I don’t. I’m surprised you trust them. You don’t trust them when they say they want nuclear plants for peace, but when they say other things. It’s not consistent.
Do you think they haven’t considered the consequences of a first strike? What do you think would happen? Well, I’ll give you a hint. Israel has nuclear weapons for a reason. I think Iran knows this. However, there is another principle in political analysis you might remember and that is “all politics is local.”
I think the Revolutionary Guard has a tenuous hold upon a modernizing country where millions of people want to get rid of theocratic rule. One rule about politics: if you want to get rid of internal enemies, have an outside enemy. That is what Iran did in its war against Iraq: destroy the internal enemies left over after the revolution. By misleading the Iranian public about its enemies, it is easier to control internal dissent.
What it does want is to become the big player in the region. Israel – and Saudi Arabia – do not want this. There is an easy way for Iran to replace Saudi Arabia and Egypt as the moral compass in Islam: get invaded by Israel.
Last, Iran wins if Israel bombs. Why? It solidifies Muslim opinion against Israel. Muslims already think the Saudi Government and Egypt are in the US pocket. Think this is a big surprise? Who has the most power in Iraq? Not us. Iran.
Look, Chamberlain is a bit different than this. Iran has a fairly weak army, compared to Hitler. We’ve started sanctions. Israel isn’t exactly the Sudentenland. And if you’re raising the issue about the Protocol’s of the Elders of Zion, you have a very short memory. You may have forgotten Cyrus the great, but most Iranians haven’t.
#11 Iran is claiming two different purposes for their nuclear program. They are saying that they want nuclear plants for peaceful power generation and they are also saying that they want them for nuclear weapons development. Perhaps they want a nuclear program for both reasons. We cannot tell for sure.
However, we do know some other facts. First, they have been developing Intermediate Range Balistic Missiles with a range of 4,163 miles and capable of carrying nuclear warheads. This makes them a threat from Eastern Europe to most all of India.
Second, we know that they have been involved in a direct and indirect (personnel, material, and finances) proxy war against Israel despite no Israeli aggression toward Iran. The actions of Iran have also been in support of terrorism. Further, they have also been actively engaged in smuggling arms and munitions into Iraq and also insurgents.
Third, their political rhetoric (both domestic and international) has been consistently inflammatory and hostile to both Israel and the United States.
Fourth, Iran is fully aware that they are perceived by both Israel and the United States (as well as many other nations) as being an actual threat, yet they continue with their hostile and belligerent acts and rhetoric.
These facts lead me to conclude that Iran is in fact a threat. If I am wrong, Iran will have invited misery upon itself and suffer for a foolish lie. If those that believe Iran is actually a peaceful nation are wrong, other nation states and the entire world may suffer from the fallout of a nuclear attack from Iran.
There is one other piece of the picture that needs to be considered. The president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, and most of the military and political leaders of Iran all share a common religious faith in the Hidden Imam, a Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam. They believe that this Mahdi will appear at the End of Days and are actively working to bring that about. This belief is tied to war and bloodshed and the notion that they can speed his coming, which will bring about world peace. This belief system, coupled with nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems, as well as their track record of active proxy war and insurgency, poses an unnacceptable risk. Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1507818/Divine-mission-driving-Irans-new-leader.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2006_rpt/iran-report_060822v2.htm
#12 I think that the US has also made Iran a spiritual threat, to some extent. By and large, over the last 30 years, we’ve had little contact with them.
I’m not disagreeing with the facts. Iran, for example, in my view was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing (perhaps in retaliation for our attack of an Iranian airliner). They do fund Hezbollah and Hamas.
What’s missing from your state is any kind of analysis, except a spiritual/religious one. My view is that Iran really thinks that the USA wants to destroy it. Do we? Or can we live at peace with, even, a government we don’t approve of. We’ve lived with plenty of dictatorships who were our friends.
And if Iran were to offer a peace offer [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6274147.stm](which they did in 2003)[/url] what would the guarantee be that we would accept? We probably wouldn’t.
The consequences of bombing Iran would be horrible for our soldiers in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, and for the many innocent people in Iran. The opposition in Iran would be silenced (killed by the revolutionary guard who would consider them traitors) as they would have to come together to oppose the US and Israel. We say “don’t have nuclear weapons” and they hear “we want to destroy you.”
Politics is hard, Sick. War tends to create more problems than it solves.
“War tends to create more problems than it solves.”
Tell that to Iran. Maybe they will stop their proxy wars. Maybe they will stop trying to develop nuclear weapons. Maybe they will stop trying to instigate war through inflammatory and hostile public statements by their highest officials.
Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons.