Posted on 11/30/2004 9:07:17 AM PST by yonif
"There are three species of creatures who when they seem coming are going, when they seem going they come: diplomats, women, and crabs," said John Hay, secretary of state during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. Women have been freed of this dated, chauvinistic stigma, and crabs never protested anyway. But as far as diplomats are concerned, it appears that Hay was frequently right.
For example, there is now an ongoing process to find a solution to the problem of Iran - the hottest problem on President Bush's desk. It appears that attempts are being made to extinguish the flames by means of a pile of reports, recommendations, and position papers. Yet paper, as we know, is not effective in fighting fires. Not even high quality paper, like Kenneth Pollack's new book, "The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America," although the author has become one of the U.S.'s most influential foreign policy experts in recent years.
Pollack wrote an important book in favor of the war in Iraq just before the war began. Now, during a process in which the timing is similar but his conclusion is different, Pollack declares that war must not be waged against Iran. What should be done? Pollack suggests several solutions, but he understands that they far from guarantee success. To summarize, it is not clear that the bomb can be stopped without paying an intolerable price.
The same Pollack recently participated in a mock "war game," mounted by The Atlantic magazine, to examine various options available to the American president in Iran. The players concluded that there is no reasonable military option on the table at this time. They examined three alternatives, including various shows of force, destruction of the nuclear installations, and an all-out war to topple the current regime, a plan objected to by all five participants. They added that diplomats must be given a chance to work, whatever that means.
Senator Hillary Clinton, while in the presence of an Israeli guest, recently made a similar statement, with the addition of an explanation for the limited options: What is happening in Iraq prevents us from taking effective action in Iran. On the other hand, as one of the participants in the game, former chief UN weapons inspector David Kay said, "If you say there is no acceptable military option, then you end any possibility that there will be a non-nuclear Iran. If the Iranians believe they will not suffer any harm, they will go right ahead."
The Atlantic war game, like every other piece of paper written on the subject in the last year, presents another military option: "The Israeli option." According to this plan, Israel attacks, and America remains silent. This option was rejected because players believed that America's reasons to avoid an attack were even more crucial in the case of Israel: There are no appropriate targets, there is inadequate intelligence, the response will be severe, etc.
Similarly, the war game's "Task Force" of the "Council on Foreign Relations" concluded that Washington would be blamed for any unilateral Israeli military action, and that the U.S. must make it clear to Israel that American interests would be harmed.
This brings the decision makers back to the original problem: How to block Iran without using American or Israeli military force?
This question has many answers. As an outgoing member of the government who will apparently return in the next government admitted this week, all the answers are tainted with the bitter taste of inevitable failure. This is true of solutions which emphasize necessary European collaboration, solutions which depend on the participation of the UN Security Council, solutions which rely on financial incentives to achieve the longed for result, and for the solutions which present the most ambitious option called by some "The Grand Bargain."
Geoffrey Kemp of the Nixon Center suggested in his monograph - "US and Iran The Nuclear Dilemma: Next Steps," that making a deal of this type would mean the end of the "regime change" as part of the "mantra for U.S. foreign policy." Iran would meet the immediate strategic needs of the U.S., the relinquishment of nuclear weapons and assistance to terror organizations, in return for many financial benefits.
The downside: This deal would abandon the Iranian people to the continued Muslim regime led by the Ayatollahs. Moreover, who said that Iran would agree? There is currently no sign of such an agreement, and many Americans do not believe that an agreement of this type has any chance to succeed.
In private, sobering discussions, it becomes clear that there are not many in the upcoming Bush administration who believe that any diplomatic deal will succeed. Nor do they believe that it is possible to block an Iranian bomb by means of warnings, discussions, or punishment. A senior member of the administration told an interested colleague last week that nations determined to develop nuclear capacity, and willing to pay the price of such developments, were never stopped without force.
In the absence of a convenient, accessible alternative to use force, and in light of existing circumstances, President Bush is left with only two real options: To accept the existence of an Iranian bomb, or to wage an "unfortunate war" with imperfect opening conditions. Any other option presented in the next two months, any international diplomatic process, will be little more than an optical illusion: When it seems to be coming, it will be going.
If at first you don't succeed, bomb,bomb again...
Can you say bunker busting nuke? Sure.
It seems there is no desire for regime change since people of Iran are not considered as an option. If all stands, Islamic Republic will stay the course of their guessing game for the world and successfully put down any internal opposition. There is no mention of organizing internal resistance with any kind of leadership. So this Iran thing will continue for the next 25 years since England and such got their oil contract. I wonder since people of Iran must decide, would it be conceivable for them to switch sides since their desire for change is lost due to abandonment. A nuclear Iran is the dream of all Iranians, so Mullahs might take even a bigger prize of popular support if they supper size. Just a thought since the window seem to be closing.
"A nuclear Iran is the dream of all Iranians" .. Uh, that is the dream of all Islam, to have a weapon for blackmailing the rest of the world into bowing before their moon good.
Can't we just nuke 'em?
I would love to see President Bush and soon-to-be SecState Condaleeza Rice dust off the "Good Cop/Bad Cop Rules of Diplomacy and Gamesmanship" used and perfected by President Nixon and Henry Kissenger when dealing with North Vietnamese Dignitaries in the 1970s.
Condi could be the Good Cop discussing the future of North Korea. Or Iran. Or Syria. Persuading them to de-escalate. Dial back and eventually trash their nuclear adventures. Lest "The Crazy Cowboy in the White House" decides to turn their landscapes to glass.
Jack.
rogue, excuse me.
"rouge country"
LOL. You were thinking of potential enemies. Maybe you had France on your mind.
I am not particularly worried about Saudis or other Muslim Arab nation desires. I speak from my desire for free Iran. Our pussyfooting around this issue might cost the world dearly because Persians are the brains of the ME and nothing like Syria or Egypt or…, I fear Iranians are succumbing to mullahs pressures and persuasions and a partnership is forming. Periodic surveys are indicating shifts in Iran’s populous. Today’s mullah has more supporters than the one last month!
War or bomb, guns or butter, why all these decisions? Why can't we have it all? In fact, since we have the bomb, why can't we bring war upon all those we wish to? I decide not to decide but rather to have it all!!! ;>)
"a partnership is forming"
Between whom?
I don't want to see a nuclear armed Iran either, but remember that Iranian power, while antagonistic to the west and supportive of Hezbollah, is somewhat welcomed by the Israelis (yup the same ones that may becomed threatened by a nuke armed Iran) as a counterforce against Arab hegemony in the region. Its not all cut and dried there... But clearly its the mullahs that want the bomb, to blackmail the U.S. and to destroy Israel. The mullahs are threatened by the Jewish state, however any reasonable regime in Iran, regardless of its actual relations, are in the interest of the Israelis, because by them dealing with the Arab powers and competing for who controls the destiny of Islam, they both are not coming together to go after Israel.
In the end, I think we need to act to curtail Iranian nuclear ambitions, because a democratic regime would likely respect world opinion and be counted on to be believed, but the mullahs don't care about lying to the west. We already control their eastern and western borders. Lets take out the mullahs and dismantle the nukes...
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
"Of course, a blockade would result in oil market disturbances with economic consequences, not to mention diplomatic problems with the Europeans (as if. . .)"
This is actually the best possible option in my opinion. The more Iraqi crude now flowing out of the gulf the less we need Iran's oil.
Mullah’s support from Iranian people is at about 30%. Introduce the Bomb into the survey and it flips. I figure once they get the bomb, well …
I completely agree. There never is a cut and dried anything in that region’s politics. I don’t even see a treat to Israel from Iran as evidenced in your conversation. Opening and developing markets in the region does not even compare to a single arms sale if there is a perception of a rogue state. Therefore I am pessimistic in this regime change ideology and I am accepting it more and more everyday. An abandoned friend (the Iranian people) could remember it 25 years from now and armed with nukes and a superpower mentality, the next Dr. Mosadegh will perhaps not be toppled or bought and his loyalties will be very uncertain.
Islamism makes strange bedfellows ... Iranians are not Arabs. Perhaps the religion of pieces causes some rational people to become irrational. Our history with Iran is not something to be proud of, what with our support of Pahlavi and his murderous dictatorship. It must be hard for the world at large to comprehend that the current political power in America is radically different from what has come before. Or is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.