The drums are sounding for war on Iran. The leading Republican presidential candidates pledge military action as soon as they cross the threshold of the White House. The Obama administration sharpens its rhetoric in accompaniment to imposing coercive sanctions. It strong arms its allies to stand with it in confrontation. Israel uses all of its formidable levers of influence to push the United States into war mode. All shades of the media work overtime to stoke fears in a manner reminiscent of the build-up to the Iraq invasion. Amidst all this noise and fury the one thing missing is a sober assessment of the problem and what are suitable approaches to addressing it. This unfortunately has become habitual in American foreign policy.
American foreign policy over the past 11 years has demonstrated a perverse genius for placing the United States in lose/lose situations. Navigating without a strategic gyroscope, and with maladroit diplomacy run by appointees who have skipped too many grades, we repeatedly have painted ourselves into a corner from which there is no escape other than by taking risky and highly costly expedient actions. That's true of Afghanistan, Iraq (where Mr. Maliki rubs our noses in our failure by inflicting enhanced humiliation techniques on us weekly), Bahrain/Saudi Arabia, Palestine and -- most dangerous of all -- Iran. Two successive administrations have presumed to set unrealizable objectives and to try reaching them by ill conceived methods in ignoring the fundamental givens of the situation.
One, Iran will never forego the option of developing a nuclear capability that is crucial to their objective security needs. It is militarily encircled by the United States, living with nuclear armed neighbors and -- in addition -- is a Shi'ite island in a Sunni sea. Moreover, the country still lives with the trauma of huge losses in its eight year war with Saddam's Iraq which was backed by Western and regional powers.
Two, therefore, sanctions and other means short of war will not work. The stakes are too high for the leadership while the suffering populace in these instances almost always directs its bitterness toward the outsiders who have inflicted the pain.
Three, the undeclared war by other means that we are conducting confirms the security imperative and solidifies a national consensus on the nuclear issue. A besieged country is acutely aware of its vulnerabilities and feels victimized as well. The paranoid streak in the minds of a political class that has experienced thirty years of conflict and tension prompts the question: why did the world accept the Pakistani "Sunni" bombs but will go to any lengths to prevent Iranians from acquiring a "Shi'ite bomb?" Since the very legitimacy of the Islamic Republic depends on its self identity as the expression of a Shi'ism that historically has suffered persecution by Sunnis, there is a powerful sense of discrimination.
Four, somehow neutralizing the potentially destabilizing effects of the Iranian nuclear program requires reaching a set of understandings and putting in place arrangements that satisfy the basic security interests of all parties in the Gulf region. Here is what Ephraim Halevy, former chief of Israel's Mossad and a native of Iran, has to say on this score:
It is not part of my vocation to stop water from flowing. Iran will have the bomb. If no one does anything Iran will have it in ten years (MB: estimate in 2006), In my capacity as head of Mossad, that is to say insofar as I am one of those responsible for the defense and security of Israel, the only thing that I can do is to push back this date enough by the most subtle means possible in order that we have the time to elaborate, among the West, Iran and us a regional security system which provides guarantees acceptable to everyone.
Five, talks on the nuclear question that ignore the above are doomed to failure. Insistence on a complete separation of the nuclear issue from broader security concerns can lead at best to a short term marginal slowing of Iran's predetermined course.
Six, to paint the Islamic Republic as the epitome of evil and to pursue a veiled strategy of regime change makes serious negotiation impossible. Iranians of all stripes find the country's depiction as an international pariah intolerable. They resent being treated as a rogue nation denied the rights that other states are accorded routinely while being singled out for the imposition of penalties and constraints.
Seven, this logic holds despite the Islamic Republic being a noxious regime that has abused its citizens.
Eight, consequently Washington's tiptoeing to the brink of conflict puts us in the position of either backing away and thereby losing face and credibility (along with votes for Mr. Obama in November) or taking military action whose effects would be disastrous.
Conclusion: if you feel it is imperative to deny Iran a nuclear capability, then get ready for a costly war and chaotic aftermath. More and more aggressive coercion short of military action has no hope of resolution; it could bring on war unintentionally, however. Let's be honest about what we want and the full implications of going after it.
American post-9/11 imperial ambitions have been driven by the belief in absolute and total security. That has meant military and political domination of the Greater Middle East. In reckless pursuit of this delusional goal, our schemes have founded against the harsh realities of international life. It would be tragic if the curtain falls on a scene of a cataclysmic failure of our own making.
i want to know what people think about the United States
going to another war. whats wrong with that?
Why is the media always threating us with the statement
of fear...NUCEAR BOMB? WHY?
No war or bombing will change their mind and I have to agree that all the consequence scenarios that have been mentioned are possible.
Let there be no illusion that one bullet fired at Iran, there be no more apposition to count on in Iran, no Arab nation will openly side with Israel or US and forget about the catch phrases we use such as ” Human rights” or “democracy”.
I must say time is for the wise to rise and save us from the armchair Evil Warriors.
I hope and pray to see someone from US side with foresight perhaps to take a trip to Iran similar to what President Richard Nixon did in 1972 when he visited the People's Republic of China that started normalizing relations with China.
Maybe naive but cost so great that no local politician in East or West should be allowed to change the dialog and fool us again… “Fool me once shame on you…….
The shame and tragedy in this is that as we and the “willing nation” have lost so much treasure and sacrificed thousands of lives and destroyed many thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives in two wars in the past decades not to mention one million lives lost during the Iran-Iraq War, there are people in Israel and US that find it once again it is time to drag the rest of the humanity in to the edge of the cliff, and in my view the justifications are similar to the past.....
Secondly, I don't think you understand the nature of war mongering. You mention "absolute and total security," "lose/lose situations", and some other concepts. Actually, the point of war mongering is to have a war. Even conquest is secondary. Security is not an issue because genuine security can mean a lack of enemy threats. If you don't have enemies you don't have war, and the people running US policy are war mongers so security is not what they want. Also, many of the situations I think you are labeling "lose/lose" are expensive and deadly protracted conflicts, and that's what the war mongers want. It's winning to them.
Our national security or Israel's national security would not, could not be affected by Iran. But by letting them affect us, we are preparing the way for the loss of our empire and falling into national vanity. Similar to Bin Laden, who although is now dead, - succeeded in destroying our economy and greatly weakening our country because our government loves and profits off of war, but the people always, always, always suffer.
We deserve bankruptcy. After the Civil War wreaked havoc on our nation - it was no wonder that we stayed away from ww1 and ww2 at first, we were isolationist in places not in our hemisphere, and we only went to war with a declaration from the congress. If anyone looks back, they will find that fighting wars only out of necessity, and having an American Public who truly understood the pain and cost of war - was what made us so great.
In order to keep control, the U.S. government/military has to constantly threaten countries with war that are resisting U.S. control, particularly oil producing countries. If they didn't produce oil, or weren't strategically important, the U.S. doesn't care. However, if there's a chance they can weaponize and build a nuclear bomb, then they become a potential threat to the U.S., because they have a means to fight back. Why would a country seek to weaponize and build a nuclear bomb? Because they have neighbors or other countries that are threatening them militarily.
The interests of the U.S. aren't based on the populace's interests. U.S. interests are specifically people who make money by waging war, selling weapons, controlling the flow and distribution of oil, distributing financial derivatives, financial speculation, mining interests and other corporate interests who may gain contracts, leases and other lucrative deals as a result of U.S. military action.
When one sees or hears the term "U.S. interests" or "national interests" or even "national security", remember, it's not your security, and it's not your interests.
It is also true that the United States is creating a situation where the outbreak of war is a possibility as a result of miscommunication or miscalculation.
It is also true that the Israelis and the Americans do not have the capability to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons via the undeclared war. With such an approach they can only slow down the Iranian program.
The problem is that it does not appear that an understanding can be reached between the US and Iran on the outstanding issues. Iran seems to be determined to dominate the Middle East and to push the US completely out. As you point out Iran is not going to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Even if one were to come up with a formula that compromises between the American and Iranian position before the Iranians develop nukes, there is little reason to believe that Iran will abide by its side of the bargain once they do develop nukes. This is one of those problems where agreements reached before a *major change* in situation has no meaning after the change takes place. The prospect of reaching understandings is doomed from the start.
The only remaining options are to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon or make repeated and persistent military efforts to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capacity. For Israel the former option is unacceptable.
material stolen from the USA. They have run extensive spying programs in the USA, stealing nuclear tech and trading it to the USSR. Guess who?
Iran on the other hand threatens the US on a regular basis and the Iranian government consistently see itself as fighting a war against the 'Great Satan' as they call the United States.
What sane country would not?
But if history has taught us anything, we will choose another C-average president with even less than a C-average mind and resolve who will go along with these drum beats and bring about a total destruction of the region, including Israel, not to mention the demise of our and Europe's economy.
Let's hope the cooler heads prevail.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-israel-very-far-off-from-decision-on-iran-attack-1.407953