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.
No comments:
Post a Comment