Awhile back, I wrote about the Iran deal. I do not see a sanctions program as stable, so I took a positive view of the deal. However, reading this piece by Amir Taheri, on a recent book by a key Iranian leader, gave me pause.
“The solution is a one-state formula,” he declares. That state, to be called Palestine, would be under Muslim rule but would allow non-Muslims, including some Israeli Jews who could prove “genuine roots” in the region, to stay as “protected minorities.”
Read the whole thing. All I could think was, “Another Mein Kampf.”
I do not know what one does about such a regime. I still think that sanctions are not a good answer. They are an act of war, and much of their pain is inflicted on innocent civilians.
But sitting down and negotiating does not seem like a solution, either.
I suppose that Taheri’s piece could be misleading (I have not read the book myself). If not, then I think that the probability of a real war is quite high, and I do not see the deal reducing that probability.
“An alleged nuclear state wants one-state solution where the dissenting minority is “protected.”
That’s would apply to Isreal too right? I grant that the Islamic tsunami are crazier. But are Iranians really Islamists or is that just Sabre rattling?
“We must keep the crazies from having an opportunity to use The Bomb.” I may be referring to Iran, Israel, or John McCain.
Wtf autocorrect, really?
Iranian leadership has actually promised to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. Now that may be exaggeration and their real unstated target is probably Saudi Arabia, but I don’t think Israel or even John McCain are valid comparisons.
Israel did drive the Palestinians into Palestine. McCain would attack Iran given a,choice. If I am right that Iran doesn’t really care about Palestine and is just jaw boning then you are correct that there is no comparison.
Everyone wants to destroy their rivals. Some even boast about it for various reasons. (Good) Foreign policy and military intervention is about figuring out actual intentions and capabilities without making self-fulfilling prophecies.
That is, indeed, unnerving, but perhaps the way to think about this is that an Iranian leader, having just made an agreement with the Great Satan, has to be able to justify it in some way to his own people or needs to step up the nationalist rhetoric to defend himself against accusations of having gone soft on Satan or what have you.
Then again, I think a lot of what our own Neoconservative ideologues have to say is mere rhetoric, as well, but I suspect that they would, in fact, follow through on some of it if they found themselves back in the halls of power again, if only to avoid being accused of dishonesty.
But I’m not sure the “annoy the Israelis until they decide to leave” strategy is going to be a winner, even assuming he is serious about it. That strategy works against, say, an occupying force which cannot stop paramilitaries from blending in with the civilian population and which is not prepared to inflict heavy casualties on those civilians. If a large number of Israelis really did bolt for the US/Europe, I imagine the first ones to go would be the conciliatory peacenik types, leaving a more united, hard-line group which would likely be all the more aggressive in retaliating.
The Zionist enterprise has survived and prospered during these last hundred years of ceaseless harassment. There is little that the Ayatollah can do to intensify the pressure on Israeli Jews, now that the nuclear threat has been denied him. Maybe he can hold another festival of antisemitic caricatures.
I don’t think the nuclear threat has really been denied by the deal — Israel’s sub-based second-strike capability is what guarantees that Iran won’t use the nukes they’ll probably get in time.
I also don’t think that removing the sanctions is going to give Iran that much of an economic boost. Low oil prices are hurting already, and it remains a pariah nation led by unpredictable religious fanatics (not exactly an inviting place for global capital investments).
Why do libertarians dislike the Iranian deal so much? There is only one way the US can avoid Middle East wars and that is negotiate peace and not bomb them. And the deal is a reasonable, not perfect, way to block Iran to getting the bomb over the next 10 years. And listen to strongest anti-deal voices like Tom Cotton who is stating a strategic bombing is necessary here. (So the US makes a little war that could lead to their final solution.) I with Eli Lake, the Iran deal is Middle East Exit Strategy which I think is a good thing. And it appears libertarians want to complain about the military state and government but they are unwilling to do anything about it. Also add that Iranian sanctions are artificially keeping the price of oil up a few dollars.
Also, look about Iran’s actions compared to other Middle Eastern nations. Saudia Arabia is making war everywhere (Yemen is their Iraq War and I wish Obama would stop giving aid to them), burning through foreign currency, giving (private & public) money to various terrorist groups and is the main funding source of Hamas. So why aren’t we calling them out on any of these but hyperventilating on any Iran pronouncement.
And finally, how much of Saudia Arabia opinion against the deal is a weird protection of their dominance over the oil market?
Also, why can’t we be like Reagan? Make deals with Middle Eastern nations sounds good to me!
Arnold makes the point that the agreement doesn’t reduce the probability of war. Of course it doesn’t, because the war already exists. It will continue to exist until people in western nations realize that the war exists, and that the war has gone on for centuries. Even if the Iranians comply with the agreement, 10 years makes up a tiny fraction of the total time of the war. In the meantime, Iran can build up its wealth to continue the war. The leaders of Iran realize that a pause will help them in the long run. They have gained from this agreement. Our government has gained from this agreement, because it can claim progress in the Middle East, while the real results of the agreement don’t come home to roost until after this government has left power or until the memories of this agreement have faded.
Israel loses in the agreement as do supporters of Israel.
My question s whether war truly exist? Right now I don’t see a formal war with Israel and rather a version of a Cold War. And Iran is part of it as well as many other Middle Eastern nations like Saudia Arabia whose citizens have more involvement with terrorism than any other nation. Why aren’t calling Saudia Arabia part of this war with Israel? In fact most anti-deal proponents include the importance of Saudia Arabia as an essential Ally in which the US is turning its back on. In ways I don’t love the deal but if we going to avoid our military participation in actual wars, it seems reasonable to make to avoid our troops involved.
Realize most of the government spending increases during Bush administration were in military and war spending which did improve our national security. So if libertarians want to lower spending, start with the military and other areas can fall as well.
Perhaps you should look at the Wikipedia entry on Amir Taheri. He seems to be a conservative crackpot who is fond of inventing conspiracies and nefarious plans. Maybe, this time, he has found a genuine nefarious plan. But shouldn’t you check to make sure?
To be kept in mind:
What were the factors and forces that brought the present regime to power and control in Iran?
How has that power and control been consolidated, maintained and extended?
What are the indicated objectives of the exercise of that power and control and the actions for its extensions?
How do we determine those indicated objectives?
Are there any conditions within the composition of that regime and its evolution that offer possibilities to block any of those objectives?
While I do not agree with it yet, there is one argument I’ve come across which has come to closest to persuading me to change my mind and salvage a presumption in favor of the wisdom of this deal, and I continue to mull it over with an open mind.
Let’s say an administration thinks the current Iranian regime is indeed pretty nasty and has to change and become less unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel. Say, at the Jordanian level (which is not exactly a high bar). At the very least, the current regime cannot be allowed to both survive intact with its current outlook and also have an operable, tested nuclear device. But the administration also knows that the sanctions scheme is unstable, and wants to avoid military intervention in all but the most justified circumstances.
So the plan is just the beginning of a ‘by hook or by crook’ process that buys time for three possibilities:
1. Iranian attitudes shift over time and hard-line Islamism – especially in the regime – gives way to a more ‘international mainstream’ outlook. The people of that nation – under our own cultural version of ‘relentless patient assault’ – and their government eventually converge to the progressive norms of other states and Iran stops being a member of the ‘rogues’ gallery’ axis, and presenting these kinds of terrorist / existential threats to its adversaries.
Already, the trends in many of these states are moving in remarkably rapid and progressive direction, it just doesn’t seem that way from a typical Westerner’s perspective and given his typical media diet. Look up the details on the Iranian birth rate, or their female education and abortion programs. And yes, they have oil money, but they also have a massive population, and when you spread the wealth around, it doesn’t amount to much.
A more progressive Iran probably silently slows its covert nuclear program activities to a practically frozen pace.
2. If the regime’s attitudes do not change, but they keep nuclear work to a minimum and despite a lot of bluster and bad behavior otherwise, decide rationally that it is not within their interests to do anything so provocative as test a device, well, that is still a tolerable situation and continuation of the status quo.
3. If however the regime goes full throttle on the bad behavior and does conduct a nuclear test, then the U.S. and Israel (and probably a lot of international partners, and even reluctant sanction-participants) have the justification they need to bring down the hammer. At the very least, an immediate resumption of the strictest sanctions regime possible.
Probably next an ultimatum for CVID (real CVID, this time – which, as it happens, it what the hawks demanded by part of a deal anyway. In this way, it is part of the deal, in a way, as a kind of ‘springing interest’ implied, instead of explicit, conditional contingency.) And if the ultimatum is not agreed to in, say, a week, then John McCain sings the Beach Boys song.
All this assumes that (1) we will actually know what Iran is doing in its nuclear program, which seems doubtful, and (2) that the Iranian regime is influenced by the country’s general population. I tend to think that the mullahs hang more than a 1000 people a year so that they don’t have to worry to much about what the populace thinks.
I am mystified by Arnold’s view that sanctions are bad because they are an “act of war” (so what, if they work – maybe they don’t, but that’s a different question) and that they hurt ordinary Iranians (true, but I’d rather hurt ordinary Iranians than enable their despicable rulers). Also, the sanctions were put on the road to falling apart by the Obama administration’s obvious intent to get rid of them, which has been obvious for some time. It’s quite clear that Obama never wanted any leverage over Iran.
The most reasonable approach may be to seek to delay the possibility as long as possible as the future is not set in stone, people and the world change, and the longer it is avoided, the more difficult it is to imagine. War never solves problems, only creates different ones, so should always remain the last resort.
If sanctions are an act of war, and a particularly dishonest and cruel act of war, then it would be both more honest and humane to actually wage war the more conventional way. If we are already at war, which we must be if sanctions are an act of war, then our options are not “start a war with Iran” or “Negotiate to avoid war.” Our options are “Make the war that already exists official” or “Sue for peace.”
I don’t follow your entire premise. Some guy quotes an Iranian leader on what should be done with Palestine, and then you think a nuclear deal might be bad? Really? The deal should be evaluated on its own merits. What does it do for the US. Please bear in mind that Iran has never threatened to nuke Israel. If you oppose a deal, and really think they want a nuke, the only logical option is to advocate for war. Always, jaw, jaw, jaw as someone famous once said.
Steve