Dan, in an editorial, the Wall Street Journal makes the same points that I made on the Corner over the weekend, here and here. The only way to convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons is to convince it that the risks of pressing on are prohibitive. Almost certainly the only way to do that is to convince them that military strikes are coming if they don’t pull back. If the goal is to deter from getting the bomb in the first place, then we should be giving Iran the impression that we’re prepared for a showdown, with or without Israel.
But we’re very clearly doing the opposite. And this is why: The liberal pacifist Obama administration, along with a war-weary top brass, has decided that the short-term consequences of Israeli (or U.S.) strikes would be more of a headache than the long-term consequences of letting Iran have nuclear weapons. So the U.S. priority has become to deter Israel, even at the cost of failing to deter Iran.
Strategies that minimize short-term risks while maximizing long-term ones are by definition the most reckless in the long run. That is why General Dempsey’s appearance last Sunday on CNN was so worrisome. Tom Clancy fans (and I’m one) would be happy to learn that the administration’s real strategy is a good-cop/bad-cop tandem with Israel, meant to maximize deterrence. But that isn’t the truth. The truth is precisely what General Dempsey communicated on Sunday: That we’re so afraid of the consequences of strikes on Iran, that we want Iran to know they have nothing to fear from continued uranium enrichment. We might as well gift-wrap a nuclear warhead and send it to them as a goodwill gesture in honor of the Persian new year.
If you’re still not convinced, consider this: The current U.S. stance is actively increasing the political penalty to Israel in its confrontation with Iran. In other words, we are trying to defeat Israel’s deterrent threat in public. How can our publicly undercutting the government of Israel possibly strengthen its hand in the deterrent balance? This can’t be subterfuge.
This situation is not analogous to the 1991 Gulf War, which at its core had nothing to do with Israel. Here, Israel’s most vital interests are implicated — along with those of the Gulf Arab kingdoms. It may well be that Arabs there hate Israel more than anything, but their governments clearly fear Iran more than they dislike Israel. Sure, they would rather not find themselves in a tacit alliance with Israel, but a tacit alliance with Israel is precisely where they are, and they seem to be getting along quite well there. Saudi Arabia has made no secret of the fact that it would welcome strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and has even promised to make up for any shortfall in supply caused by the loss of Iranian oil, a declaratory policy that is overtly hostile to Iran.
As for military options, I’d refer people to Edward Luttwak’s excellent recent piece in the Wall Street Journal. As for how such a conflict would end, we appear to have lost sight of one very important fact. We have escalation dominance in any conflict with Iran, without having to resort to full-scale war. Under no conceivable scenario could such a conflict lead to “full-scale invasion.”
And, if Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons ... ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOooh, the Obama Administration is liberal and pacifist! Good ones Mario! You are so erudite and clever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's see, the last I checked, we just finished up our fight in Iraq, and are still fighting in Afghanistan and that theater has seen a three fold surge in troops since Obama's inauguration. I suggest you fly into Bagram and see how pacifist our troops appear there.
Al Qaeda has been decimated by drones and Bin Laden is dead, all under the liberal pacifist Obama. Special forces have been dispatched to fight Islamic terrorists in Yemen, Somalia and other exotic places.
But, that liberal Obama has had the temerity to criticize the Israeli hard-line Netanyahu administration that had disregarded long standing norms regarding settlements and that would have garnered the same response by a Reagan or Bush. Obama has the gall to consider American interests first instead of subjugating ours to the Israelis even though we continue to give them arms including bunker busters, etc. But all of a sudden, Israel with a nuclear determent of probably over 200 warheads is at risk from a faltering Iran that may one day in the next few years be capable of fielding one weapon. It reminds me of just 8-9 years ago when these chickenhawks advocated preemptive war with Iraq so they wouldn't use their WMDs. That was such a great time wasn't it? Where did those WMDS go anyway?
DrPalin,
Thank you! Finally! Someone with the courage to say what no one else can or will say.
My hat is off to you!
Vorpal
captcha: "push on"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThings no one can or will say? Are you nuts? People say that every freaking day! Just because they are wrong doesn't mean they aren't saying it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAhh, the ever-present and cute "Where are the WMD's?" nonsense. Check with the kurds.....the surviving ones.....they'll fill you in. Check with all your liberal friends in the House, Senate and don't forget Clinton.....who ALL spoke about the mortal dangers of Iraq's WMD's long before Bush was in any position to "lie" to them.
Thanks to Israel's operation in 1981, Saddam's nuclear hopes were stifled. But based on your post, such actions are pointless, right? You sound like those typical liberals who'd prefer to wait for something horrible to happen and THEN respond. Does preemption mean anything to you? Well, it clearly does since you're bragging about Obama's drone and covert actions. Aren't those also preemptive actions to prevent future attacks?
Oh, I get it. It's all about WHO is doing the preempting. If it's Bush, it's a lying chickenhawk starting wars for no reason (and not smart enough to cover his WMD lie by planting actual WMDs). If it's Israel, it's the evil little country who's {fill in the blank with the usual covert anti-semitism}.
If it's Obama, it's the wondrous assassin of Bin Laden and other terrorists. The magnificent non-pacifist who has increased troop levels in places he said we'd be out of years ago.
It's adorable to read that you consider Israel's weapons as some sort of deterrent and that should be good-enough. What B.S. You know that any detonation in Israel will be done via some terror proxy allowing Iran deniability. There's no way people like you will be advocating a nuclear response against Tehran. Nope, we'll be reading all the reasons Israel brought this on themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoesn't anyone ever stop to ask the basic questions?
Has Persia attacked us? NO.
Does Persia intend to attack us? NO.
How does Persia pose a threat to us? It doesn't.
So why are we rolling unstoppably toward war yet again? Because both Israel and Saudi want a war against Persia, for different reasons.
When Saudi says "jump", America jumps. When Israel says "jump", America jumps. And when both shout together, we go into orbit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI might take you a little more seriously if you knew, um, the *name* of the country involved.
But probably not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHas Iran attacked us? Yes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes Iran intend to attack us? They say that they do, over and over again.
Does Iran pose a threat to us? Once they posses nuclear weapons, they pose a threat to everyone.
Devils advocate: What if the Clancy good cop/bad cop isn't deterrence based? What if the plan is for Israel to strike and the US is working to identify every target, clandestinely aid the tactics, and delay Iran from protecting / spreading out the targets? I know - using Israel as a pawn would be hugely cynical and duplicitous - which makes it at least contemplatable knowing this administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be froody with your scenario. But it is much more likely that the Obama administration is merely buying time for Iran.
Astonishing that tiny Israel is becoming the focus of ire in the unfolding story of a nuclear Iran.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say: "The only way to convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons is to convince it that the risks of pressing on are prohibitive."
Can you offer one scintilla of evidence that Iran is producing nuclear weapons?
Can you offer one scintilla of evidence that Iran plans to produce a nuclear weapon?
Can you offer one scintilla Iran presently has the capacity to build a nuclear weapon?
I fear that the only way to convince neocons like you that Iran has not pursued nuclear weapons is over the dead bodies of Americans soldiers and Marines as in IRAQ!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvidence? Sure. The daily declarations of the anti-semitic lunatics who run the country. Good enough for you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNachum, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word "evidence". The rantings and bluster of a man are not evidence, just like they were not evidence in Iraq.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe IAEA says that they are producing nuclear weapoons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey are processing uranium to a purity that is not needed for power production, but is needed for bombs.
MarkW, please link to the report of the IAEA that says Iran is producing nuclear weapons!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne "scintilla" might be that the IAEA just left Iran after Iran's refusal to cooperate. Is that not evidence to you?
When a weapon is detonated in Tel Aviv via a terror proxy and Iran denies involvement, what will your position be on retaliation?
You don't know many soldiers who've served in Iraq, do you? I do. The vast majority are proud of their service and understand that the world is safer with Saddam gone. You "peace lovers" always seem to leave that part out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a veteran Vasago and I know a lot of Iraq/Afghan vets that KNOW their mission has nothing to do with US national security!
If a bomb explodes in Tel Aviv, my first thought will be "false flag" mision, my second will be, it's an Israeli problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery well said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe United States has decided to side with Iran and is actively deterring Israel from defending itself against an existential threat. This country is heading in the wrong direction as fast as humanly possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsrael has enough nuclear weapons to deter Iran from attacking it. It doesn't need our help. What has caused you to believe that the Iranian leadership is willing to see its own country destroyed in response to an attack on Israel?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse