Skip to main content

The Waterloo Room

Matthew Bondy

And on the pessimistic side of the ledger...

By Matthew Bondy - 5 months ago

A dire (shrill?) warning about impending conflict in the middle east from the Washington Time's Jeffrey T. Kuhner

(President Obama's) peace-at-any-cost diplomacy (in respect to Iran) guarantees military conflict. It is no longer a question of if this will happen, but when and on whose terms. Mr. Obama is sleepwalking into disaster. America and the Middle East will pay the price.

Interesting piece. But is the argument plausible?

Tony Karon says no.

In a nutshell, Kuhner's argument is that the Iranian regime is both morally decrepit (he refers to it as a "Nazi" organisation. Is this one of the few times when it's ok to invoke that association?) and politically weak, and that the US should encourage "internal regime change" immediately.

Failing that, war, he says, is inevitable for this reason:

Washington now has two choices: Sanction an American or Israeli military attack to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities or allow Tehran to go nuclear. Either option means war.

(Setting aside for a moment that it drives me nuts when people say "X has two choices"; in fact, X has a choice consisting of two options. But I digress.) Kuhner has concluded that Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear armament will not be suspended by the regime, making the aformentioned dichotomy the operative principle of Washington's decision-making. What do you think? Is Iran just hoping to get as much leverage as possible before dealing away its nuclear programme? Or is it actually hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons. If the latter, why? Is 'prestige' the most plausible answer? Insurance against invasion? A (possible) veto against further coalition military actions in the region? Nuclear blackmail? Or does it actually want to start annihalating cities?

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday,

M

Labels: Arms Control, Security

Article Rating

Average: No Rating Available (0 votes)  

2 Comments

 
Post #1
nazia hussain nazia hussain - 5 months ago

Hi Matthew. Interesting post and useful links. What do you think? Do both American options lead to war?

 
Post #2
Matthew Bondy Matthew Bondy - 5 months ago

Hi Nazia,

I'm not sure. I don't necessarily believe that diplomacy can't work. It has to be given a fair shake, and though I join those who believe Iran must not be permitted to aquire nuclear weapons, I think the public campaign to explain the nature of the relevant issues has been weak. For example, everyone loves talking about Iran's envisioned nuclear armament, but no one spends any time discussing either Iran's right to certain nuclear technologies/activities, nor where exactly Iran is on the wrong side of international law. I believe all options should remain available to western policy makers, including military action, but that this must indeed be a last resort.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, I think the international community should have spent - a long time ago - a lot of energy emphasising a willingness to assist Iran and other states in the pursuit of lawful nuclear technologies and activities. This should have been strongly emphasised early on in the unfolding dilemma, so that by this point in time the world would recognise that the west tried in good faith to uphold international law whilst ensuring Iran would not achieve nuclear armament. That ship may have sailed at this point, leaving Iran with much less space to gracefully pull back from its confrontative posture.

So I don't agree with the author that diplomacy will necessarily fail. It may well fail, but this is not a sure thing.

As to why Iran is apparently pursuing nuclear weapons. I think there are a combination of factors. I think part of it is prestige, part of it is that they would like a credible retaliatory capacity in light of further US/coalition military activities in the middle east. I think also the present odious regime would like to have nuclear weapons to provide new political avenues for the consolidation of domestic support by driving further controversy and confrontation between the west and Iran.

Would you like to comment?

You must be a member. Sign In if you are already a member.

Viewed 153 times