Some Straight Talk About Iran

After reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s lengthy article in The Atlantic about Israeli calculations on whether to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, I’m left with an observation and a judgment.

First, the observation. We’re being ushered into an unusual conversation here. Months before the destruction of the reactor outside Baghdad in 1981, PLO headquarters in Tunis in 1985, the “uncompleted military facility” in northeastern Syria in 2007, or the arms convoy from Iran in the hills of northern Sudan in early 2009, there were no magazine features full of Defense Ministry types discoursing about timelines on a not-for-attribution basis. What’s more, if the Israeli government ever seriously contemplated sending its very capable air force against Saudi Arabia’s ballistic missile fleet in the late 1980s or (who knows?) perhaps Algeria’s nuclear reactor in the early 1990s, the decisive meetings of the inner cabinet weren’t exactly held at an al fresco table on the Tel Aviv promenade. Still less did the minutes appear on newsstands outside the UN. One senses this is not how or when real decisions of this sort are made.

It is, on the other hand, one way to inject urgency into the broader discussion about Iran policy. In fact, it’s how Israeli officials have tried to keep the Iran nuclear question high on the agenda in foreign capitals for some time now — and not just in Washington, either.

Let's stop the BS.

There are three questions that need answered:

1. Is there any reasonable probability of compromise or agreement, or are we out of the “span of probable agreement?”

If we are out of the span of probable compromise, then all these negotiations, meetings, talks and speeches are eye candy for the media by politicians, stalling techniques by a nation or bad guys like Sadr years back trying to avoid sanctions etc..... Then these things are just games that like the Israeli/Palestinian issue are a big joke where they have road maps, talks, treaties, etc. more and more nice names for having talks which everyone knows will lead nowhere.

2. Is the issue where we can't agree upon something of such significance that it requires escalation to the level of: political public chastising, isolation, economic sanctions, military intervention?

Not every issue is important. Most issues are in actuality solved without any sort of negative action by just appealing to convention, morals/humanity, international laws/treaties. However, if this should fail, then we begin the game of escalating the issue, i.e. political and economic pressure and finally military action.

3. Do we have the means to take the necessary action and have an effect, may that be to politically isolate, economically sanction, or inflict damage through military action?

It's possible that as with Iraq you can take direct military action but not effectively economically isolate them because of their bordering nations and the fact that they have something that everyone wants. You might be able to more effectively use a high or lower order approach to a problem nation. We also might not want to deal with the repercussions of taking action, that's why every little tin pot despot today is trying to develop a delivery system and WMD. It's a “life insurance.”

If the answers are:

Yes
Yes
Yes

The most logical answer is self evident, unless of course you're a politician. You escalate and take action as appropriate.

With Iran, we have an issue where we will not reach compromise, where the issue is significant, and where we have the means to take action, yet we don't. This is illogical and must be political in nature because you can't explain it otherwise.

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.