Is Iran 2012 the New Iraq 2003?

There is a lot of talk about Iran, its nuclear program, and whether Iran and / or the US will attack. I agree with Glenn Greenwald that the talk is one-sided and reminiscent of the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And that is a shame. I do think the costs of such an attack are getting some good attention though. That isn't the same as airing whether Iran really is getting a weapon or why they might want one.

Before I go into my views, I will say the President's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic was helpful in understanding his position better, though I don't necessarily agree with all of it. One of the takeaways that I hadn't been thinking about enough was the danger of an arms race in the Middle East if Iran gets a weapon.

Before reading the article, I had been comparing Iran to North Korea. Since we are using sanctions, but otherwise using containment with North Korea, my position has been we can also use sanctions and containment for Iran. In comparing Iran and North Korea, North Korea seems like the more dangerous country to have a nuclear weapon. North Korea is still at war with South Korea, with only a cease-fire armistice having stopped hostilities. Iran is supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, I think the hostilities are an order less than is the case with North and South Korea.

The question is whether there is a regional difference with North Korea and Iran. There isn't an arms race in Asia over North Korea it seems, with South Korea and Japan content with our protection. However, we need to ask whether we could convince the other countries in the region not to seek nuclear weapons even if Iran has one, like we must have done with South Korea and Japan.

The main antagonist with Iran is Israel. However, I think it is assumed that Israel already has a nuclear weapon. So who else are we talking about, since President Obama doesn't mention any names? Probably Saudi Arabia for one. Though I am convinced that we could prevent them from going nuclear since our protection is well-assured.

Who else? I haven't seen a list so I can only guess. Maybe Egypt who might now be harder to manage. Iraq has a close relationship now with Iran, so I don't think they would be scared into getting a weapon. Maybe Lebanon, though I don't know how much they fear Iran. Of course in some of these scenarios, there is more chance of terrorists or other rogue groups getting a weapon.

I guess where I am coming down, while I lack more complete information, is that I am still unconvinced that containment won't work, though I am a little less sure. I do understand the president's long fight against proliferation and I see how this fits into that, especially around rogue groups in the Middle East.

There is also the very important question of whether military strikes would have the desired effect. I think it would cause the regime to be even more determined to get weapons (more than they currently are where attacks are only a threat) and would set them back at most a few years. In addition, it could have big economic effects, not least being much higher gas prices and a stalled economy. It seems Obama gets all of this.

Having said all that, the question of whether Iran is actually seeking a weapon is still open. They are seeking nuclear capabilities, but not yet weapons, which I think gets lost. And that distinction is critical.

I also wonder if talks of attacks encourage or discourage their developing weapon capability. It seems to me that the threat of an attack, the talk of regime change, and the possibility of a full war, would encourage weapon development. Unfortunately, we don't have the liberal president we thought we were getting - or at least wish we had. He refuses to turn down the temperature.

One last point: it really feels like Israel is driving the process instead of us. I find it completely strange that people (McCain, Romney, et al) are saying there should be no daylight between us and Israel. To me, that sounds like our position is that we do whatever Israel wants us to do.

I have never thought that American policy was to be dictated by a foreign government. I assumed that we would do what is in our interest or what we thought was right, and in the end we didn't care so much if close allies disagreed. Saying there can be no daylight means whatever Israel says, we cannot disagree with (otherwise there will be daylight). You can say that it means we need to agree, but it leaves no room for what happens if we can't agree except to say that we will need to defer to Israel.

Whatever we decide, it has to be done based on what is good for us and what we think is right. President Obama seems to get this. The GOP definitely does not.

Update on 2012 Election

I just want to give my latest thoughts on the upcoming presidential elections. First, I want to say that I actually think President Obama will get a second term. There are two reasons I have changed my mind.

First, the economy seems to be on the mend. And if you'll remember, one of the main reasons I thought he would lose was because the economy wasn't doing well and there was nothing he could say he wanted to do but was prevented. With the economy improving, that goes away and he can instead take credit for it.

But second, the potential GOP challengers are a mess. It looks like Romney will probably get the nomination, though this is no sure thing. Santorum is doing surprisingly well and Gingrich is holding on. If Romney wins, he will do so not by articulating a better vision, but by making his opponents look even worse.

It is clear that Romney is using quite a bit of negative advertising when his opponents start to do well. I'm not saying I oppose this - I don't love it - but my point is more that it shows the weakness of a candidate that has to rely on negative advertising so much.

Romney is also spending quite a bit of money and not raising quite so much. At this time during the elections in 2008, Obama and Hillary were beating each other up, but they were also raising a ton of money and building strong ground operations for the general. None of the GOP candidates are doing this. All, including Romney, are spending on advertising and not on organization.

But I also want to note the possibility that Romney does not win the nomination. If it is Santorum or Gingrich, the party will be sending far right candidates to the general election (though you can call the current version of Romney far right as well). Santorum holds some really crazy positions, not the least of which that a man and a woman should not have sex unless married and trying to conceive. And therefore contraception is wrong. Gingrich is now far right, but also just a lose cannon.

I don't think either of them could win a general election - though it is scary to consider it and to know that it is possible if unlikely.

There is the potential, though also unlikely, for a new GOP candidate to come in through the convention. Whoever that would be would start with a huge disadvantage in money and organizing. Although I will say, I might prefer someone like Jeb Bush if it would lead to a good debate about issues.

Lastly, I just want to express real frustration over GOP attempts, including by Romney (who never ceases to amaze me in his ability to say things that are not true and that I don't think he believes), to paint Obama as a far left liberal. But I am even more frustrated over Obama letting them do that.

The GOP has been attacking Obama's foreign policy, though it is not markedly different from Bush and Cheney (I wish it was). Romney said Obama wants to talk about the poor instead of the middle class even though he doesn't seem to (I wish he did). His attempts to balance the budget are center-right. And his State of the Union seemed to talk only about tax cuts.

I wish we had a president that was liberal and defended liberal values. But at the least, he should really defend his moderation and attack Republicans for lying.