It's hard to imagine anyone would come up with a worse idea for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue than this.
Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are pushing a Senate resolution that can be best described by words emblazoned on Lieberman's website: "All options must be on the table when it comes to Iran -- except for one and that is containment."
The senators elaborate in a joint statement:
The resolution we intend to introduce will put the Senate on record as opposing containment in the strongest and clearest terms, detailing why the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union.
Forget for a minute that there is no clear evidence that Iran has decided to build nuclear weapons, let alone even the slightest indication that Iran is prepared to commit national suicide by using any possible weapon it develops. Focus only on the fact that these senators are seeking to rule out all options other than war in dealing with the eventuality that the Iranians succeed in developing a bomb.
Containment, of course, is how the United States responded to nuclear weapons in the hands of every other unfriendly regime that has developed them.
Americans were stunned when, four years after the United States used nuclear weapons on Japan, the Soviet Union tested its own atomic bomb. For four years, the United States had enjoyed a nuclear monopoly and the idea that the Soviet Union (Stalin of all people!) now had a nuclear arsenal was met with horror.
The horror was even more pronounced when the nation then known as Red China tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964. The Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung was so extreme an ideologue that the Soviet Union had broken with its former ally.
The belief that his regime consisted of maniacal fanatics brought Americans and Soviets together in common terror at the prospect that he would have access to the bomb. In fact, just prior to the Chinese nuclear test, President Lyndon Johnson authorized government officials to contact the Soviets about collaborating on a military strike against the Chinese reactors. But to no avail.
In the end, with both the Soviet Union and the even more radical Chinese, the United States decided that there was no alternative to containment. Containment was not desirable, to be sure, but it was infinitely preferable to war.
For some reason, the Iranian case is different. In the senators joint statement opposing containment, they specifically assert that "a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be 'contained" like the threat of the Soviet Union. They do not explain why. As if the answer is obvious.
And to some, most notably neoconservatives and other Islamophobes it is. Their thinking is that unlike Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, the Iranian regime is suicidal. Although use of an atomic weapon would lead to its own annihilation by Israel (which possesses dozens of nuclear weapons), the hawks claim Iran would happily commit suicide for the sheer pleasure of taking Israel down with it.
But no nation has ever committed suicide and Persians, whose pride in their own culture and sense of nationalism knows no bounds, are clearly among the least likely candidates for the course of self-immolation. But, even assuming they hate Israel so much that they would happily self-destruct, there is also the matter of the Palestinians who would also die in any nuclear attack on Israel. It is hard to believe that in the name of Palestine, Iran would slaughter a few million Palestinians.
No, the fear campaign that surrounds Iran is about Israel's intense worry that a nuclear Iran would inhibit Israel's freedom of action throughout the Middle East, taking away its ability to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to. Israel fears precisely what happened to the United States after the Soviets got the bomb, that both countries would be constrained by fear of the other. A balance of terror, as it was called during the half-century that the two nuclear superpowers avoided war.
There is no alternative to containment.
After all, even if Israel and/or the United States attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, the attack would only set back the country's nuclear program by a few years. It would also probably end any debate inside Iran about developing a nuclear deterrent; having just been attacked, the regime would almost surely commit to building a bomb as soon as possible. And they would succeed. (Even Iranians opposed to the regime support Iran's nuclear program.)
Then what? Iran would have a bomb and we would have no choice but... containment.
So the only question is whether we adopt the policy of containment before a war or after. The answer should be obvious. Although, with neoconservatives pushing so hard for war, it isn't.
Of course, we might be able to avoid the question of containment altogether if we commenced comprehensive negotiations with Iran with a goal of preventing development of a bomb (while permitting enrichment for civilian purposes), normalizing U.S.-Iranian relations, calling on Iran to end its support of terrorism against Israel or anyone else and dropping the sanctions that largely punish ordinary Iranians.
That is, in fact, what we would do if policy could be made without heavy-handed input of a powerful lobby that fears diplomacy more than war -- and is so effective at hamstringing U.S. policy with devices like the Lieberman-Casey-Graham resolution.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Craig Martin: Why We Should Not Support an Israeli Attack on Iran
Peter Worthington: Why We Should Support an Israeli Attack on Iran
Go to warscreams.com and voice your opinion!
Tel them what you think.
Also Supreme Leader stated they must attack Israel by 2014
http://nmen.org/iran-must-attack-israel-by-2014/
It's comments like those that weaken arguments such as mentioned in above article. How does author reconcile such comments? I'm all for crippling sanctions but do you believe Russia or China would allow such sanctions? True containment at the present time would mean to prevent Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons. If they do develop them then containment in true sense fails, and then we have to believe and hope they can be deterred from striking another State/Country.
As far as reaching out to Iran, it's been out in the open now that Obama sent a letter to Supreme leader over couple months ago . And many attempts in past were made however Iran's responses were never about compromising on nuclear ambitions, instead they were evasive & deflective in nature.
For some reason, the Iranian case is different."
For some reason? What is the remotest similarity with containing Russia and China?
They were both huge, technologically advanced countries. Attacking either would have resulted in a nuclear counter-strike against the USA, with millions of casualties That seems to be a rather obvious and big difference.
Also, Iran does not yet HAVE nuclear weapons, and their quest to acquire them COULD be ended by a US non-nuclear attack. I'm not saying this is unavoidable, but am merely pointing out why there is no comparison whatsoever with the US's containment of nuclear-armed Russia and China.
Also, the author has great faith in the rationality of Iran's leaders. I would ask that he watches at least part of this chilling Channel 4 / UK news segment, wherein Ahmadinejad informs his mullah masters that the world leaders were frozen in time for 27 minutes whilst he addressed them at the UN in 2005. Ahmadinejad also believes that he was surrounded by an aura of "devine light" when he spoke.
The mullahs clearly thought it was all true. These people are not rational.
See http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=190_1191954149 Start at 3:00
-
Member Since November 2010
Comments (535) | Friends (0)
=========
I'm sorry I did not get to respond to your comment at the appropriate place, so I will try here.
In what way has "Revolutionary Islamism" burst out of its shackles since 1979?
===========
Muslim attitudes toward Hizballah and Hamas and al Qaeda:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/12/poll-reveals-frightening-popularity-of.html
In 2010: 55% of Jordanians favored Hizballah, 60% favored Hamas and 34% favored al Qaeda.
52% of Lebanese favored Hizballah, 49% favored Hamas and 49% favored al Qaeda.
49% of Nigerians favored Hizballah, 49% favored Hamas and 49% favored al Qaeda.
43% of Indonesians favored Hizballah, 39% favored Hamas and 23% favored al Qaeda.
30% of Egyptians favored Hizballah, 49% favored Hamas and 20% favored al Qaeda.
19% of Pakistanis favored Hizballah, 18% favored Hamas and no al Qaeda response.
5% of Turks favored Hizballah, 9% favored Hamas and 4% favored al Qaeda.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan and Iraq are not included in the poll, and there is considerable support for Revolutionary Islamism in all four countries. Somalia's Al Shabaab, and dozens of--nominal--American citizens, recently joined forces with al Qaeda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab
You are claiming the failure of a policy of "containment" on an idea.
Well, yeah, and how - and why - did you ever expect that to work?
After all, we can play that same game with those same countries by asking how many Jordanians favour democracy. How many Nigerians favour democracy. How many Pakistanis favour democracy.
I would argue that you would get much higher figures for THAT question than you are presenting in your post.
But does that mean that Jordan is a democracy?
No.
What about Nigeria?
No.
Pakistan?
No.
The i.d.e.a. of democracy in those countries can't be "contained", but those countries are not democracies.
The i.d.e.a. of Islamism in those countries can't be "contained", but those countries are not ruled by Islamism.
Heck, Jan, what are you arguing, exactly?
Is it that "the west" has failed in its efforts to "contain" Islamism because - gosh! - the people in Muslim countries have heard about that concept and aren't horrified by it?
Then dare I suggest that you have set the bar far too high.
The correct measure of "containment" is this: how many ruling regimes can be properly described as "Islamism"?
Answer: One. Iran.
And the reason why is because Iran has been about as successful in "exporting" Islamism as Che Guevara was successful in "exporting" communism.
Lot's of t-shirts. Very little regime change.
============
This is your question to which I responded. No goal post moving here.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and pre invasion Afghanistan (soon to revert) are all revolutionary Islamist regimes. My guess is that Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria and Jordan are heading in that direction and will join that list before the revolution is over.
You may raise an eyebrow at Saudi Arabia’s inclusion, but I consider the rise of Wahhabism to mark the beginning of revolutionary Islamism in the modern era, which has blossomed since 1979--my original point.
After all, "the west" would have no more chance of suppressing the i.d.e.a. of Islamism than the Arab dictators had of suppressing the i.d.e.a. of Democracy.
Look at the list you produced, and then ask yourself this simple question:
Q: If you asked the Jordanians (and Nigerians, and Pakistanis, etc. etc.) if they "favored democracy" then what sort of numbers would you get?
The answer: much higher numbers than you just quoted.
But both those numbers are meaningless in the context of "containment" e.g. no matter what the polls tell you, Jordan is neither "Islamist" nor "Democratic".
And the reason why is obvious: because both i.d.e.a.s. are being "contained" by the ruling regime in Amman.
No, neither do I. So why would we believe anything else they say?
==========
Iran us only one promoter of Revolutionary Islamism, the ideology of our opponents in this war.
We have been trying to contain Revolutionary Islamism since 1979, with very mixed results. At what point to we conclude that containment is an insufficient response?
Or is the status quo acceptable to you?
The issue is whether or not Israel believes they are. All indications are that the anti-israel rhetoric by the iranian president and the ayatollah promising the destruction of the jews have succeeded. Israel believes it and they have the capablity to damage Iran's nuclear capability though first strike military action.
As noted by the tit-for-tat assassinations going on between Israeli and Iranian targets, war at this point may be inevitable. the big questions are who will join in and who will sit on the sidelines. Eygpt? Palestinians? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Pakistan? The US? Syria? Also how far is Israel willing to go? Are they going to be willing to use nukes to prevent Iran from building nukes?
While the Communist regimes of old USSR & present-day North Korea represented extreme ideologies, these ideologies were secular. Secular extremists seek to achieve their purpose in this world, not the next. Hence, staying alive is an essential part of their strategy. Mutual Assured Destruction is an effective threat for this category of extremists.
Not so with religious fanatics such as the Iranian Islamists. In their extreme ideology, this world is but an antechamber to hereafter. In their own words, "becoming a martyr" is the supreme achievement in this world, as it secures what is really important -- rewards in the next.
Relying on "containment" (i.e. the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction) vis-a-vis the mullahs' regime is just as stupid as believing that one can deter suicide bombers by threatening them with the death penalty!
Jordan killed a few thousand Palestinians and Kuwait ethnically cleansed a few thousand more. Palestinians are useful in only 1 way for the Arab states, as a weapon against Israel.
They sign the Nuclear NonProliferation Agreement
This means inspections are made on their facilities to reassure the neighbours - which the UN Security Council are not. Rather those are the ones pushing arms and nuke tech.
Then they are punished for decades for adhering to the inspection program - though their money for supporting the inspecting agency is made unavailable by theft.The agency itself is burdened with new 'tasks' which do not conform to the agreement and its budget not met.
Finally Iran puts the world on notice by hosting disarmament conferences - not mere stasis but reversal of armament.
Apparently holding to ones treaty obligations is a terrible example.
WE TAEK CARE OF OUR OWN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Bz0d2xm7U