And now for something completely non Philip Blond related….
A foreign policy rant. (I don’t know what Blond’s foreign policy views are anyway).
Veteran readers of mine (both of you) will recall that David Rothkopf typically drives me up the wall and ends up being a favorite whipping boy of mine. I’m trying very hard to be charitable here (it’s my Lenten discipline), but the man did write the following sentences and hit the publish button (my emphasis):
In the same vein, on Iran, the administration has tested many avenues. Based on a widely (although not universally) held view within the U.S. government that military action against the Iranians to stop their nuclear program was an undesirable option, there has been an effort to craft meaningful sanctions. This effort, while earnest and possibly producing a near term sting for some in Iran, is almost certainly likely to be a failure. Which then leaves us with containment. While some argue this will work with any rational actors in the government, the problem lies with what happens if weapons were to fall in the hands of actors like Hezbollah, Iran’s state-sponsored terrorist group or were it to trigger an arms race in the region that increased the likelihood of arms falling into the hands of a non-state actor? Containment can’t stop this threat. Multilateral talks aimed at a more effective international arms control regime are a worthy idea, but unless there is broad consensus about effective enforcement mechanisms with teeth — and there won’t be — this too will be useless. So where might this bring the Obama team?
Back to the idea of taking some kind of military action to slow the development of the Iranian nuclear program. Not a war but some meaningful strikes — ideally ones that suggest to the Iran people the danger in which the current regime is putting them. (While walking the fine line of not strengthening the regime through such action.)
How is it that one can hold a view where the US is supposed to deal with all problems in the world, have policies for every crisis, every state, every region, every issue, while being beset by enemies and rogue nations all around (including ones that sponsor terrorists) AND those states are also at the same time simply reactive to our policies and will bow in the end to our “muscular” foreign policy?
In other words, how is Iran in two paragraphs both a state-sponsor of terrorism AND a state that won’t retaliate to “meaningful strikes” on their country?
And what in the name of Allah does he mean by strikes that would suggest to the Iranian people the danger their current regime is putting them in? Presumably (I’m going out on a limb here as I can’t claim to know the mind of the Iranian people writ large in such a hypothetical situation), they would be more concerned by actual bombs falling on their country–those might “suggest” the danger they are in from (I don’t know) the country/army dropping said payloads on their faces.
I know, I know they are supposed to be “surgical” strikes on military targets, but at the end of the day strikes inevitably cause civilian casualties. e.g. People work at military facilities who are civilians.
How in the world does Rothkopf imagine the US ever sending “meaningful strikes” on Iran and the Iranian regime not taking that as a declaration of war and responding in kind? How in the world does he imagine that if the US were to drop such strikes, the Iranian regime would not retaliate by any and possibly all of the following options:
1. Shutting the Straits of Hormuz (sending oil price shocks throughout the world and possibly initiating a 2nd Global Recession)
2. Attacking US soldiers in Iraq (either through their own special ops forces and/or through proxies/mercenaries)
3. Attacking US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan (see above)
4. Hamas and/or Hezbollah attacking Israel
5. Ramping up funding of the Shia-led Houthi Rebellion in Yemen potentially spilling over into Saudi Arabia
The US sends some bombs over and somehow that is not going to rally the country around a despicable regime, blaming the evil Great Satan? I mean one photo of a one civilian killed (especially if it’s a woman or child) and that is all you need if you are the Iranian regime.
What does Rothkopf think, the US unloads some meaningful strikes on Iran and somehow the people are going to blame their government rise up (how exactly?) and overthrow a regime that has shown no qualms with executing its own citizens and crushing dissent through paramilitary thugs and has an overwhelming military advantage?
I’ve said for a long time I think the Iranian regime already has de facto deterrence capacity and will either acquire nuclear weapons or will reach a Japan-like level where they in essence have them but don’t officially build them but could tomorrow kind of thing.
Rothkopf needs to ask and show why exactly Iran would be interested in giving nuclear weapons to Hezbollah anyway? Or why the Iranian regime would ever want to use any future weapons? Because they’re crazy? Because they’re evil? Because they’ve supported bad guys in the past? I think the Soviet Union and Maoist China would qualify on all those points and they never used nor gave away nukes. Why are these guys different exactly? Because they believe they’ll go to heaven when they die so they don’t care about earthly consequences? Why then did they spend so much time worrying about overthrowing clerics in a military coup, essentially destroying the Islamic Republic (now a Military Dictatorship I would say), in other words, spending so much of their energy on gaining and holding power in this earthly realm?
I’ll go so far as to agree that revolutionary dictatorial regimes tend to go (historically) on foreign adventurism as a way to shore up domestic support. The French Revolutionary regime comes to mind. I know the current Iranian regime would love nothing better than “meaningful strikes” on their country because it will prove their anti-American worldview and bolster them domestically. Such strikes would give them the cover they need for more adventurism in the region.
Which is not to deny the current Iranian regime’s actions in the region. Nevertheless, their actions to me–working through proxies to attack US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, align themselves with groups seen opposed to the Israelis and for the Palestinians in some sense, in other areas backing Shia resistance over Sunni domination–all point to their desire to be recognized as a, if not the, regional power. The nukes are just part of that trend. Desire for “great power”, big boy club status.
As long as the US sees the Middle East through a pro Iran or anti Iran lens, then this seems the inevitable trajectory of events. Each side playing closer and closer degrees of chicken, driving towards a possible war, the more hawkish side in each country bolstering each other in a negative zero sum game. In the meantime fighting each other through proxies and covert ops on the margins/borders.
As worrisome as it is in many regards, the Iranian regime in the near term is going to have to be dealt in and containment is going to have to rule the day until (as I think very likely if not inevitable) the regime crumbles from within under the weight of its own corruption and illegitimacy.
you’ve forgotten your historical analogies. Don’t you remember WWII? The will of the English crumbled under the Blitz, Churchill negotiated an armistice that Hitler broke with a massive invasion, the US was forced to island-hop from Greenland to Iceland to Ireland to Britain, the Bomb was completed, the airplane carrying it was shot down on the way to Berlin (wasn’t that quite the revelation in 1973 as part of the Pentagon Papers!) and the Russians finally stopped at the old Maginot Line, facing Patton’s tanks.
what, your version of history is different?Report
point francis.Report
Honestly, I don’t think dead civilians would be necessary to enrage the Iranian populace. Imagine if Iran launched an attack on a US military base and killed only enlisted soldiers. Do you honestly think that would incline us towards restraint?Report
excellent point.Report
“In other words, how is Iran in two paragraphs both a state-sponsor of terrorism AND a state that won’t retaliate to “meaningful strikes” on their country?”
A good question. The thinking seems to be that “those people” cowardly. They support terrorism because it’s “the coward’s way,” and so they will turn tail and run like cowards when we bomb the shiite out of them. Funny how it rarely works out that way. Perhaps the only example where it did was when we bombed Libya, but in that case were were deliberately targeting Kaddahfi, so it became a personal, rather than a political choice, for him. But in general, these right-wingers have a hard time understanding that Iranians, Iraquis, Afghans, etc., are pretty much just like us–they aren’t cowards and they’ll fight back just as we would.Report
well said.Report
There’s also the wishful thinking that the Iranian people hate their regime and, given half the chance, would rise up to overthrow it and install in its place a secular government that would happily become an American client state. After all, that worked at the Bay of Pigs.Report
I’m especially tickled by his blasé assumption that dropping a few bombs on Iran would do something (hell anything) to set back their nuclear program. Why in reality’s name does he think that they put their facilities under entire goddamn mountains and then plopped quite capable anti air systems on top of them? Does he really think that it’s going to just be a matter of strolling a few F-22’s over Persia, dropping a heavy through a tin roof onto a centrifuge, dropping some leaflets on the population centers and then strolling out. If it was this easy doesn’t he think that Israel would have already done it?? Or is this all just “Jonny Arab will turn tail and run as soon as he gets a taste of American steel” jingoism?
Frankly I haven’t read a plausible plan for an air based campaign that significantly sets back the Iranian nuclear program that doesn’t use a nuclear weapon(and no, we will never deploy a nuclear weapon without being engaged in total war or being hit with one first).Report