Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Sick: Give Obama a Chance!
Gary Sick, one of America's most experienced Middle East hands and proprieter of the Gulf 2000 list, has heard enough nervous nellies over the last few weeks to pen the following (reproduced with his permisssion). I will not comment as to my own nervous nelliness status, but since I'm in Charlottesville for the day and Drezner refuses to honor a perfectly reasonable cease-fire proposal, I hereby turn the floor over to the estimable Mr. Sick:
I keep reading comments that seem to declare that the Obama administration is simply continuing the failed policies of the Bush administration and that there seems to be no movement toward a different relationship with Iran. I think that judgment is terribly premature.
There is a flurry of signaling by the US -- both positive and negative: keeping pressure on Iran (Stuart Levey and restrictions on banks), reassuring Israel (appointment of Ross) & Arabs (Hillary's downplaying of expectations at Sharm el-Sheikh), providing some funding for the Palestinians while pressing Israel to relax entry into Gaza, renewing an opening to Syria, talking about cutting US nuke stockpiles (US Ambassador Schulte in Vienna), talk of including Iran in Afghan security discussions (Holbrook), willingness to remove (anti-Iran) missile defense in E Eur while cajoling Russia on Iranian missile development, nice words from Obama (sometimes), harsh words from Susan Rice (always?), tough words from Adm Mullen, more soothing words from SecDef Gates, unified declaration about Iran by all five UN veto powers at the IAEA (without threatening new sanctions or return to the UNSC), etc etc.
We've seen nothing like this for as long as I can remember. Almost none of this would have been possible under Bush. It's actually possible that what we are seeing is (gasp) diplomacy, or preparation for it. It includes pressure on Iran, which I think was inevitable, but it potentially allows for much more.
At the same time, Iran is sending some positive and negative signals of its own. Could it be that both sides are trying to maximize their leverage and keep the other side off balance in preparation for serious discussion? Can they really walk and chew gum at the same time?
We are so accustomed to what Bush called diplomacy (hit them over the head with an axe; if they don't respond, repeat) that we may have forgotten that parties engaged in international negotiations are not required to eschew subtlety or to commit themselves in advance to a simple position (otherwise known as a red line) which is then defended to the death. Are we really restricted to a single, simplistic narrative prescribed by advocates on one side or the other?
Maybe nothing will come of all this, but I'm not ready to dismiss the current flurry of mixed and ambiguous signals as merely more of the same or to declare failure. Steady nerves - it's only six weeks (and in the meantime there happens to be a REAL threat to all of us -- world economic meltdown, not Iranian hypothetical nukes)!
Comment away.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
What is
Abu Aardvark?
Writing under this pseudonym, Marc Lynch began his influential Middle East politics blog Abu Aardvark in 2002...
Contact me at:
abuaardvark [at]
gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, @abuaardvark
Follow me on
:
@abuaardvark
hit them over the head with an axe; if they don't respond
Not serious, but hell it's 11 o'clock at night!
Eddie Izzard & Bush Diplomacy [from a Brits perspective] -- Acted out on stage... [without the frilly pink knickers - Thank God!]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7wQfdW16eQ
Question
This is for Marc and for Mr. Sick,
What precise combination of policies will prevent Iran from aquiring a nuclear bomb?
'No bomb for Iran' should be the bottom line. How do we follow a step-by-step diplomatic approach to achieve this goal?
Here is an approach that has
Here is an approach that has a good chance of success:
1. Agree that if iran accepts stringent verification to make sure they don't get nuclear weapons, israel will give up their nuclear weapons and accept stringeng verification also.
2. Agree that if any nation nukes iran, both the USA and russia will make a nuclear counterattack that will each do at least as much damage as iran suffered, proportionally if it is a larger nation, or absolutely if it is a smaller nation.
I tend to think that iran would accept this. All that's needed is to get the USA, russia, and israel to go along.
Are you kidding?
1. Get Israel to give up their nukes so that Iran will give up theirs? No way. I can't fathom an Israel that would give up its final deterrent given its testy (at best) relationship with its neighbors, even if it is now the big dog in the region militarily. Furthermore, given that Israel does not officially acknowledge even having nuclear weapons, how does one know whether they've actually given them all up? You're going to ask the Iranians to trust the Israelis in good faith when no party has ever had any definitive answer to how many nukes the Israelis have? "Well, we had 200. That's it. We promise." No.
2. Ahh, yes. The nuclear umbrella. I can't say that I'm much of a student of game theory--though I dabble as best I can--but I'm skeptical that the US and Russia would risk nuclear retaliation if someone were to nuke Tehran, forcing us to respond. It only takes one warhead (attached to what is an admittedly long-range ICBM) to vaporize much of Manhattan and level the rest. If we put Iran under a nuclear umbrella and someone nukes it, the US and Russia would have to pour significant missiles into the retaliatory strike to make as certain as possible that the enemy's second-strike capability is destroyed. Either way, an at least half the society is being vaporized and the other half are refugees. And there's still a possibility that we lose Manhattan.
Sure, we can pray the other side doesn't call our bluff. But knowing that neither the US nor Putin & Co--in fact, certainly not Putin & Co.--would risk losing New York/Moscow to avenge a leveled Tehran, the other side should call the bluff: goodbye Tehran, sans nuclear consequences.
Get Israel to give up their
Get Israel to give up their nukes so that Iran will give up theirs? No way.
Well, that sort of says it right there, doesn't it?
Israel has threatened to nuke at least one of its neighbors, and they leaked battle plans that involved nuking iran to keep iran from getting nukes.
Under the circumstances I'd say that iran needs a deterrent and we should encourage iran to get nukes.
Either that or try to arrange a nuke-free middle east. Israel gives up their nukes and every nation in the area also gives up any attempt at them.
Furthermore, given that Israel does not officially acknowledge even having nuclear weapons, how does one know whether they've actually given them all up?
Thorough inspections, just like for iran and all the other middle east nations. We wouldn't trust iran that gave up the nukes that we have no proof they're making, just because they say so. They in fact say they are not making nukes at all but only nuclear power fuel. If we weren't calling them liars there would be no problem. So, thorough continuing inspections in all the nations involved.
I'm skeptical that the US and Russia would risk nuclear retaliation if someone were to nuke Tehran, forcing us to respond.
Well, if israel didn't have nukes, who else would nuke iran? India? I don't think they will, even if nobody does deterrence. India just needed nukes because china has them. and pakistan needed nukes because india had them.... Give iran a good excuse not to have nukes and I think they'd go for it. The fact is, nobody wants to get into a nuclear war. I mean, nobody wants to do it. They only want nukes so that nobody will nuke them. As far as I know, the only nations that have ever threatened to nuke anybody are the USA and israel. (Plus I guess india and pakistan made some mutual threats, and the russians argued about a surgical strike on china to get rid of the first chinese nukes.... But only the USA and israel have threatened to nuke somebody to deter them from something other than nuclear attack.)
But if israel and india have nukes, whyever shouldn't iran have nukes too? Their name starts with the letter I just like the others....
the other side should call the bluff: goodbye Tehran, sans nuclear consequences.
Who wants to nuke Teheran? Who wants to be the leader of the first nation in 60+ years to nuke anybody, the first nation to use a nuke after the world found out what nukes do, the second nation to use a nuke against a country that didn't have a deterrent?
Reason with me here. Imagine that you're the Decision-Maker for a nation and you decide to nuke the other nation's capital. They can't hit you back because they don't have nukes, and the USA and russia won't hit you because they're too scared. What happens next? Well of course the world media says you're a Monster. That's par for the course. But you can ignore them! You have nukes and you're ready to nuke people!
So isn't the world going to do a great big economic embargo on you? You can nuke them back if they nuke you, will you hreaten to nuke them unless they sell you wheat and oil and uranium?
We eventually put an effective embargo on south africa. It wouldn't take long for a nuker.
And on the side we'd get an effective disarmament program. Right now we don't have that because first, nobody really believes there's going to be a nuclear war anywhere, anywhen. And second, the people who do kind-of believe there might possibly be one don't trust their enemies to disarm without stringent inspections, and don't trust their enemies enough to let them do stringent inspections back. All it takes is one egregiously stupid nuclear war, and the whole nuclear game is over. Nobody wants to play.
One more thought. Would you nuke Teheran and leave the rest of iran intact? Look what iran went through during their war with iraq. They haven't been very aggressive for a long time but when somebody starts a war with them they fight real hard. Nuke one iranian city and what does it take to stop them from spending the next 30 years looking for a way to get back at you? You can't just nuke one city. If you want to nuke Teheran you pretty much need to genocide iran. And I expect it's that way with a lot of countries. It's sure that way with the USA. Who's ready to commit genocide? If it's a nearby country they wind up with a nuclear wasteland near them. Farther away and they still annoy all the neighbors. If you can't just nuke one city, you also can't just nuke one country. It's kind of interconnected. There's usually somebody downwind or somebody downstream.
The whole nuclear logic is poorly thought out. But I claim the fundamental reason there hasn't been a second nuclear war isn't that national leaders don't trust the logic of it. It's that in reality nobody wants to get into a nuclear war.
Get in a nuclear war and even if you win, it spoils your whole day.
Whaaaaaa....?
J Thomas, your recommendations are more than a little looney!
J Thomas, your
J Thomas, your recommendations are more than a little looney!
Osmanliette, my proposals are sensible and reasonable.
It's the world as it's currently understood that's loony.
Think about it.
I agree we're seeing very
I agree we're seeing very promising developments in the diplomacy department, and we should give it perhaps just a little more time to see how the Obama policies actually come to fruition in specific actions. Somehow I doubt we'll end up with the agreements advocated by J Thomas, above.
On another note, Mr. Lynch--it was promising to see the FP crew lined up at the Miller Center today at UVA, and I was commensurately disappointed to note that no one seemed particularly interested in answering questions. I would have asked you, what's your take on the role of Arab media in Arab public opinion of the U.S.? The recent Obama/Clinton interviews on al-Arabiya certainly seem to imply that there is something at stake.
Somehow I doubt we'll end up
Somehow I doubt we'll end up with the agreements advocated by J Thomas, above.
I agree. Why would israel agree to give up nuclear weapons just on the certainty that none of israel's enemies would get nuclear weapons? As long as israel has nukes and nobody else does, israel is in good shape. And they can do whatever it takes to bomb their enemies to keep them from getting nukes, rather than accept a peaceful solution.
And surely the USA would prefer to bomb iran rather than negotiate something unpleasant for israel.
So it really makes sense that we'll take the second-best approach. We'll "negotiate" with iran until it's clear they refuse to give up their plans for nuclear electric power production. And then we'll bomb them to spread their nuclear material around. Israel will be happy. We'll be happy. The rest of the world will have certain reservations, but they can't do anything about it.
BECAUSE WE ARE THE WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER!
WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT.
And nobody can do a single thing to stop us.
AIPAC won't allow it
The pro-Israeli lobby will prevent any US-IRan rapprochement because it is contrary to Israeli interests. Obama and other US presidential candidates swore fealty to AIPAC already. After all, IRanian don't vote in the US, pro-Israeli jews do.