Tag: Latin America
On course for war with Iran
Ilona Gerbakher reports from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies:
Yesterday’s Middle East Institute panel at SAIS presented a report on “Prospects for US-Iran Relations on the Nuclear Issue in the Year Ahead.” The predominant mood was tempered pessimism. War is a real possibility, so it behooves us to redouble diplomatic efforts.
Alan Keiswetter (a scholar at the Middle East Institute, senior consultant at C&O Resources and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland) thought the nuclear negotiations stalemated and likely to remain that way until after the U.S. election. The parameters of a possible agreement are clear: enrichment allowed up to a low level (3.5-5%) combined with strict safeguards and shipment out of Iran of its more highly enriched uranium.
But it is unclear whether Iran wants a negotiated solution or is just stringing along the negotiations to gain more time. Sanctions alone are unlikely to force agreement, as Iran is ready to hunker down as necessary. Some kind of meatier inducement is going to be needed.
Calls in the Israeli government for military action are growing louder and more strident. Israel perceives an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat. The debate among Israelis is no longer “will we strike” but “will the strike be effective enough.” It would be a serious mistake to dismiss the possibility of a unilateral Israeli attack. Some Israel watchers say Prime Minister Netyanyahu thinks he can do what he wants without U.S. concurrence; others feel he is bluffing, to force the U.S. to take a hard line and scare Iran into concessions.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is more united in fear of Iranian pretensions in the Gulf than the Iranians imagine.
Next year will be a real turning point in US-Iran relations over the nuclear issue. Without significant diplomatic progress, the trajectory we are on will lead to military confrontation.
Geneive Abdo, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, contrasted the current tense diplomatic situation with Iran-US relations in 2003, when Tehran cooperated on Afghanistan and was more open to negotiation but Washington was not. Supreme Leader Khamenei sent a letter to then-President Bush proposing a diplomatic breakthrough. Today even a minimal goal of building trust with Iran seems hard to reach. Iranian leaders are convinced that the ultimate U.S. goal is regime change. Khamenei’s hardline conspiratorial beliefs about the U.S. are self-fulfilling prophecies.
The Revolutionary Guard, which has grown powerful under Khamenei, no longer bothers to hide its regional interventions in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Although arguably they stand the most to lose from sanctions, a military attack on Iran would serve their interests by reaffirming their ideological position.
Also troubling is the decline of Iran’s educated middle class. Those who once called for reform and might have questioned the nuclear program are marginalized. They were our best hope for breaking three decades of hostility but their voices have been silenced. An attack led by the U.S. or Israel would stifle prospects for democratic reform even further.
Israel is not helping matters with its increasingly hardline rhetoric. The way is being paved for it to appear that all options except an Israel-led attack have been eliminated. Don’t expect President Obama to take action until after the election. The best diplomatic option for the moment seems to be to buy more time.
Roby Barrett, the president of a consulting firm specializing in defense and security technology applications, was dismissive of the possibility of a diplomatic solution because “Iran is not really interested in negotiation.” For Iranian leaders and citizens the nuclear program has become a point of national pride. Iran sees nuclear capability as a part of its destiny as a regional power in the Gulf.
The GCC has resigned itself to the fact that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons capability and that the U.S. will need to do something about it. The alternatives are either a nuclear Iran or war. Despite the consequent global economic disturbance, the GCC wants the Iranian nuclear program stopped by hook or by crook. The idea of a nuclear Iran is a redline issue for most Arab states.
We should “never say never,” but diplomatic efforts will probably not stop the march towards war. Given the calcifying hardline between the Israeli and Iranian positions and the distance between America and Israel on this issue, there is a high probability an Israeli attack will go forward. It is unlikely that the U.S. will initiate a strike or engage cooperatively with Israel.
Israel knows they don’t have the military capacity to cripple Iran’s nuclear program. If they strike, it will be in desperation, with the objective of bringing the U.S. into the conflict. That is possible if Iranian retaliation makes the mistake of striking back at the U.S.
In closing, Genieve Abdo raised a vital point: what will happen the morning after? What will be the economic and military fallout of an attack? Will an attack have to be repeated to prevent an intensified Iranian effort to gain nuclear weapons? What are the implications of repeated attacks on Iran?
Daniel Serwer, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and a senior research professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, acted as moderator. He noted that some countries have stood back from nuclear programs, including Brazil and Argentina. Iran is a more difficult case, because Israel will not give up its nuclear weapons and there are several other potential nuclear powers in the region. But if Iran thinks hard about what nuclear weapons might mean for its own security as well as long-term regional and economic stability, it may conclude they are not a good idea.
PS: The video of the event can be downloaded from C-Span.
PPS: Bennett Ramberg comes to similar conclusions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The joke is on us
The temptation to do an April Fool’s post is great, but the barriers are greater: how can anyone joke about Bashar al Assad murdering Syria’s citizens and managing nevertheless to stay in power? Or about nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian theocracy? A war we are losing in Afghanistan? A peace we are losing in Iraq? A re-assertive Russia determined to marginalize dissent? An indebted America dependent on a creditor China that requires 7-8% annual economic growth just to avoid massive social unrest? I suppose the Onion will manage, but I’m not even one of its outer layers.
Not that the world is more threatening than in the past. To the contrary. America today faces less threatening risks than it has at many times in the past. But there are a lot of them, and they are frighteningly varied. Drugs from Latin America, North Korean sales of nuclear and missile technology, Al Qaeda wherever, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the wrong hands, bird or swine flu… Wonks are competing to offer a single “grand strategy” in a situation that does not permit one. Doctrine deprived Obama has got it right: no “strategic vision” can deal with all these contingencies. They require a case by case approach, albeit one rooted in strength and guided by clear principles.
American military strength is uncontested in today’s world and unequaled for a couple of decades more, even in the most draconian of budget situations. A stronger economy is on the way, though uncertainty in Europe and China could derail it. All America’s problems would look easier to solve with a year or two, maybe even three, of 3-4% economic growth. The principles are the usual ones, which I would articulate this way:
- The first priority is to protect American national security
- Do it with cheaper civilian means as much as possible, more expensive military means when necessary
- Leverage the contributions of others when we can, act unilaterally when we must
- Build an international system that is legitimate, fair and just
- Cultivate friends, deter and when necessary defeat enemies
My students will immediately try to classify these proposition as “realist” or “idealist.” I hope I’ve formulated them in ways that make that impossible.
There are a lot of difficult issues lying in the interstices of these propositions. Is an international system that gives the victors in a war now more than 65 years in the past vetoes over UN Security Council action fair and just? Does it lead to fair and just outcomes? Civilian means seem to have failed in Syria, and seem to be failing with Iran, but are military means any more likely to succeed? If the threats to American national security are indirect but nonetheless real–when for example North Korea threatens a missile launch intended to intimidate Japan and South Korea–do we withhold humanitarian assistance?
America’s political system likes clear and unequivocal answers. It has categories into which it would like to toss each of us. Our elections revolve around identity politics almost as much as those in the Balkans. We create apparently self-evident myths about our leaders that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
The fact is that the world is complicated, the choices difficult, the categories irrelevant and the myths fantasies. That’s the joke: it’s on us.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Unworthy would be a kind word
Last night’s CNN-sponsored Republican candidates’ debate is still ringing in my ears. It is certainly not a surprise that the overwhelming focus was on domestic issues, except for a few international issues with domestic resonance. In Florida, this above all means Cuba and, for Rick Santorum, the threat of Muslim extremism installing itself in socialist countries in Latin America. It also means immigration and of course Israel (and Palestine).
So what did they say? Except for Ron Paul, they endorsed a strong embargo policy on Cuba. This is the policy we have kept in place until very recently. For more than 50 years, it has produced no results. Newt Gingrich went a step farther and endorsed bringing down the Castro regime (I guess we can still call it that). I’m for that too. But he gave no hint how he would do it. Arguably increasing person-to-person contacts, which is what the Administration is doing, will move things in that direction.
Santorum’s concern with Latin American jihadis is laughable, even if it is impossible to exclude that a suicide bomber may some day make his way from Mexico or Venezuela into the U.S. Santorum’s fix is even funnier: he advocates more trade with Latin America, which is pretty much what Obama has pushed by making free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.
On immigration, there was a strong consensus in favor of enforcing current laws, without the government deporting anyone. This is a significant weakening of current policy–Obama has deported a lot of people. But the candidates claim enforcing existing laws could provide an incentive for undocumented immigrants to go home because they would not be able to work. The trouble of course is that repeated efforts to enforce the ban on undocumented immigrants working have not been successful. So the bottom line is no deportations and no effective incentives for people to “self-deport.” The candidates have managed to offend many Hispanic (and non-Hispanic) voters without getting any credit at all for suggesting a major weakening of immigration policy.
A Palestinian questioner–on Twitter someone suggested he was the only Republican Palestinian in existence–got it between the eyes from Newt, who claimed “Palestinian” was an identity invented in the 1970s. This is worse than inaccurate: before the founding of the state of Israel, all residents of Palestine were known as Palestinians, including Jews. I know this in part from a visit to the Irgun museum in Tel Aviv, which is hardly the place to find perspectives sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative. Newt’s line about the non-existence of Palestinians is a common line among right-wing Jews both in Israel and the U.S. No self-respecting history professor would repeat it unless there were a few $5 million checks in the bargain.
Romney was hot last night, effectively wiping the floor with Gingrich, who at times seemed uncharacteristically at a loss for words. But Mitt was also disingenuous. His defense of Romneycare, the Massachusetts health care scheme he put in place, applies word for word to Obamacare, which he said he would repeal. But the only part he disapproved of was the Obama part, not the scheme itself. Romney also claimed that Obama had thrown Israel under the bus and that only the Palestinians are standing in the way of a two-state solution. I can’t buy either of those propositions.
Wolf Blitzer, who used to be a serious guy, was spotty at best. Asking candidates why their wives would make good First Ladies is unworthy of him. But in a funny kind of way that was consistent with the tone of the whole evening: unworthy would be a kind word.
Gingrich’s poor showing last night should enable Romney to exploit his advantages in money and organization to win the nomination. It would be ironic if the most polarized political atmosphere in many years leads to a contest between Romney and Obama, both of whom are regarded as excessively moderate in their own political camps. If that happens, it won’t be the worst result the American political system has generated.
RSS - Posts
