Let France, Israel, the Saudis Deter Iran

According to Washington's latest conventional wisdom, France under President Nicolas Sarkozy has been steadily embracing a tougher approach towards Iran and is sounding now more belligerent than the Obama Administration in demanding that Tehran end its nuclear program. Indeed, Sarkozy seems to have been transformed into the "Scoop" Jackson du jour of neoconservative pundits who just a few years ago were bashing France as "our oldest enemy" and the French as "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and who now seem to be doing a lot of French kissing.

Hence, columnist Charles Krauthammer who had expressed "the particular satisfaction of seeing Anglo-Saxon cannonballs puncturing the [French] Tricolor," after watching the naval epic film "Master and Commander" in November 2003, is now contrasting "Obama's fecklessness" on Iran with Sarkozy's manly attitude towards Tehran's ruling clerics.

That Sarkozy has been expressing his growing concerns over Iran's nuclear program with an uncompromising language may have something to do with his prickly personality or it could reflect his reliance on alarming reports provided to him by French intelligence services. Or perhaps as some suggested, the French have been designated to play the role of the "bad cop" against the American "good cop" in the negotiations between members of the E3+3 group and the Iranian representatives in Geneva.

But instead of searching for a secret agenda to explain the French behavior we should take them at their word. It's more likely that Sarkozy's comments reflect real concerns in Paris about the possibility that the Islamic Republic of Iran is getting close to acquiring nuclear military capability. It may be difficult for American pundits who tend to subscribe to a world-view according to which the French and other foreign leaders either assume the role of anti-American bad guys, as former French President Jacques Chirac supposedly did in responding to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, or play the part of the pro-American good guys, the way President Sarkozy is allegedly doing now, to apply the following Realpolitik axiom: Decisions about war and peace are made in Paris or other world capitals almost always based on existing perceptions of national interest.

Chirac, reflecting the view shared by the French political elites was skeptical about U.S. allegations that Iraq had nuclear weapons or that it had posed any direct threat to French security interests (and he was right). Sarkozy believes that unlike the Iraq ruled by the bungling and secular Saddam Hussein, a resurgent Islamic Republic of Iran (thanks to the Bush Administration's policies) with nukes could pose such a threat to French national security.

In fact, Sarkozy's predecessor in office was also very apprehensive about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Without naming Iran, Chirac in an address he made in early 2006 warned that states which threatened his country could face the "ultimate warning" of a nuclear retaliation. The warning was followed by a French decision to modify its nuclear arsenal to increase the strike range and accuracy of its weapons, according to a report published by the French Liberation. Moreover, in an interview with American and French journalists in January 2007, Chirac suggested that if Iran were ever to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran. According to The New York Times, Chirac explained that it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country. "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked. "It would not have gone off 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground."

The deconstruction of Chirac's remarks suggests that French strategic planners, not unlike many of the leading U.S. foreign policy realists, have concluded that the most effective response to the threat of a nuclear Iran would be a robust containment and deterrence policy. Indeed, while they continue to publicly threaten a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear sites, the Israelis have been preparing for the "day after" - if and when Iran goes nuclear -- by developing a second-strike capability. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said recently that he didn't consider Iran's nuclear program an "existential issue" reflecting the assumption that Israel would be able to deter an Iranian nuclear attack by demonstrating that it could survive a first strike to retaliate effectively against Iran (as Chirac pointed out).

There is no doubt that the acquisition of nuclear weapons could reduce Israel's security margin if and when it tries to respond to potential threats from Iran's regional allies, like Lebanon's Hizbollah. Tehran's nuclear capability could become an element in the strategic calculation, in the same way that the U.S. was constrained in its ability to use conventional military force against Soviet's allies during the Cold War when the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) was in place.

Indeed, the utilization of a version of the same doctrine -- call is mini-MAD -- may explain why the two nuclear military powers of South Asia -- India and Pakistan -- have been able to preserve a stable balance of power in the region and refrained from going to war since they both had gotten the bomb. In fact, the notion that Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments could decide to join the nuclear club shouldn't cause us too many sleepless nights. There is no reason why Washington should not encourage the French, the Saudis, or the Israelis to protect themselves against a potential threat from a nuclear Iran. The French, working together with other members of the European Union (EU) have all the financial and technological resources they need in order to develop an effective deterrence strategy vis-à-vis Iran. At the same time, the Saudis and the other Arab governments and the Israelis should consider the notion that taking steps to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and create the conditions for regional strategic cooperation in dealing with Iran is in their national interest; after all, a nuclear attack on Israel will probably destroy most of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

In a way, by continuing to count on the Americans to protect them against a nuclear Iran, the French, the Saudis and the Israelis are trying to avoid making the very costly decisions involved if they are forced to assume the responsibility for their own security. From that perspective, a U.S. military strike against Iran that would probably retard the Iranian nuclear program by a few years would also allow the French, the Saudis and the Israelis and other governments to postpone making some hard choices about their security as they continue to free ride on U.S. military protection.

U.S. foreign policy makers and analysts who are calling on the U.S. to assume that responsibility by either attacking Iran or by providing a "nuclear umbrella" to Israel and the Saudis hope that such a costly American policy would allow the U.S. to continue maintaining its strategic hegemony in the Middle East. After all, if the Europeans and the Middle Eastern end-up demonstrating that they are able to protect themselves without the need to rely on U.S. leadership aka American military interventions, those who in Washington who benefit from securing that leadership could become the main losers.

 

 

Follow Leon T. Hadar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leonhadar

Comments

[Foxrun]

Iran is not a threat to any country, we have just made them out to be a threat. The fact is that Israel does not want another regional power in the Middle East - this will deter Israel from doing what it has been doing for 60 years toward the Palestinians with impunity. The U.S. wants hegemony in the rich resource based region - the only country left not a client state is Iran. The French can go and shove it they were the ones who helped Israel get its clandestine nuclear weapons and Sarkozy is not only playing the "bad cop" but he is also working on behalf of the Zionists.

Scott Ritter, Fmr. U.N. Weapons Inspector in Iraq (1991-98), discusses his London Guardian op-ed which challenges the idea that Iran is close to producing a nuclear weapon.
Washington, DC

http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/04/HP/A/23927/Scott+Ritter+Fmr+UN+Weapons+Inspector+in+Iraq+199198.aspx

[S1m0n]

Iran's already deterred. What they're looking for is the means to deter US.

[Leon T. Hadar - Huffpost Blogger]

To lightningbolt:
I wouldn't describe France as a "client state" of the U.S. But the term does apply to Israel and Saudi Arabia. But my point is that the U.S. should take steps to end its role of protecting these two states and encourage them to take care of their security, including vis-a-vis Iran. See my book: Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East (Palgrave Macmillan: 2005)

[Freenation]

mr. leon your article speaks volume but sadly a.ipac with its deep pocket and media contacts is trying to push US to another worthless war for their selfish interest...add to your article one more key point: a.ipac should be forced to register as a foreign lobby group...

[MajorKong]

The Saudis have Chinese CSS-2 intermediate-range missiles. These were purchased primarily for their ability to reach Iran.

[lightningbolt]

Given the fact that France, Israel and Saudi Arabia are all client states of the U.S., anything they do against Iran will be seen by Iran as an attack by the U.S., which would probably mean the U.S. will end up getting involved anyway.

[Leon T. Hadar - Huffpost Blogger]

Just a few follow-ups:
The main point of my post is that if governments like France, Saudi Arabia, or Israel perceive a nuclear Iran as a threat, then they should assume the responsibility for protecting themselves. The U.S. shouldn't be paying the costs of protecting them (in terms of life and treasury). Iran doesn't pose a direct threat to U.S. national security -- it does pose a threat to U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. But at this stage, we need to reassess this very costly strategy and begin what I describe a gradual "constructive disengagement" for the Middle East and provide incentives for regional and global players to start taking care of their security. With regard to Iran's "rationality." The same concerns were raised after communist China went nuclear.

[BiBiJan]

Couple of points.

How is about we Let France, Israel, the Saudis demonize Iran. We give our MSM and politicians a much needed break from fear mongering.

Also, it would be a sad day when the US (or anyone else) exists the Middle East (or anywhere else). We just need to exit the mindset that there is only profit (material or moral) in domination, hegemony and war. There is far more profit in cooperation, empathy, respect, and partnering in construction. Even in the worst situations people are coexisting, they just don't realize it. Look at Israel and the Palestinians. They are living together already like a dysfunctional family. They just need to stop dysfunctioning. The issue of incompatibility which some closet-rcists bring up is nonsense.

[BiBiJan]

Sarkozy with a meaningless piece of silk tied around his neck addressed a packed French parliament with folks dressed in clothes that have 10% utility and 90% exude status and said French Muslim girls with a meaningless piece of silk over their heads are second class citizens ....

Saudi Arabia, that bastion of tolerance and fastidious observance of human rights ....

And, last but not least, Israel ...

... this distinguised troika is going to aim nukes at a nukeless Iran. OoooooK.

Is this so Iran learns something it has been failing to learn these last thirty years, and/or is this for the rest of the world to smell the coffee.

Given that there are over 22000 nukes in the world, no one needs to be publicly reminded about what might happen if they cross a redline.

Listen, when we don't heed "talk softly and carry a big stick", all this bravado does not make us look strong. It makes us look scared, powerless and batty.

Continued ...

[BiBiJan]

Continued:

The best spin I can put on it is this.

usurp Iran's own stated reason for not intending to develop nukes, namely that it would make Iran weaker, because it makes Iran a legitimate target for others' nukes. Another words, we'll confront Iran with what it said it is trying to avoid to wring more concessions out of it.

Sanity check: Unless Sarkoszy imagines Iran is a potted plant, has he thought of the consequences of wreaking this much insecurity on Iran? Is this a policy guaranteed to force Iran go nuclear, and/or play an extremely detrimental role as a Russian proxy.

Sarkozy needs to think a bit harder -- or stick to headscarfs.

[stpmdn]

French are all talk. They will fold as soon as the first guns are fired just like they did during world war 2.

When was the last time France held its own during a war? Napolean?

[lightningbolt]

Go back to school and learn some history. France stood its ground in WW1 for example. The French didn't fold during WW2, they were overrun by much more powerful German forces.

[JohnFromCensornati]

That's a really nice Republican talking point, but this is about nukes. Presumably, "deterring" Iran will not involve guns firing. Once the nukes start flying, we're all skrewed.

[Wisdo]

When was the last time AMerica won a war?

[TheLonelyGod]

1991?

[MajorKong]

Well, there was this little spat from 1914-1918.

[ibsteve2u]

My conclusion after reading the article? It is not really a conclusion, more of a reinforcement of a pre-existing belief on my part:

America's conservatives are some duplicitous S.O.B.s with the loyalties of a snake.

We need another acronym for them, along the lines of DINO and RINO, for which I propose "AINO", or "Americans in name only".

[greatscot]

So what if Iran has nukes. The west would have to start taking them seriously instead of treating them like a red-headed step-child. Too much hegemony is involved in the relationship between the western nations and Iraq, and the President of France is looking rather buffoonish as he struts around , all puffed up like a little banty-rooster! Iran should only agree to negotiate away any nuclear arms program it has if Israel does the same, otherwise, any deal would not be fair.

[lightningbolt]

Iran is governed by lunatics. Lunatics with bombs are extremely dangerous.

[Wisdo]

what makes you think the leaders of Iran suffer from mental illness?

[wereeverywhere]

Is this sample of the Qods Day speech enough lunacy for you?
http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/ahmadinejad-spews-raving-lunatic-anti.html

"Before the Second World War, the noises and activities were intensified. In European countries, a complicated show started which was called anti-Semitism. Of course, some governments and their people have always abhorred the Jews because of indecent behavior by some of the Jews and they were willing to evict the Jews out of Europe. However, some European governments and statesmen and the Zionist network did the main plot of anti-Semitism. They produced hundreds of films. They wrote hundreds of books and circulated rumors. They started a psychological war in order to make them (the Jews) escape to Palestine.' " [Ahmadinejad]

For him to suggest, as he does here, that anti-Semitism was justified by Jewish "indecent behavior," is beyond despicable. He also appears to blame Jews for the Nazi crimes against them, saying that the Zionists spread around anti-Semitic books and films in Europe so as to make Jews hated and so as to cause them to be expelled to Palestine. These allegations go beyond simple anti-Zionism into a weird and creepy world of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.[Juan Cole]

[JohnFromCensornati]

Is anybody in Europe or Asia still afraid of the Germans and Japanese? Could we allow them to defend themselves as well?

[Khirad]

I think the Japanese had discussed it the past year. And Germany? I think it's been long enough. Also, after adding a few countries like India and Brazil (I'm sure Pakistan and Argentina might have a few words to say though) as permanent members to the UN Security Council (which I think should be done), I think Germany should be on there too.

[Wisdo]

You can NEVER let the germans have weapons. Fool me three times and im an IDIOT.