SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Are We Sliding Toward War With Iran?

POLITICS JANUARY 18, 2012

Are We Sliding Toward War With Iran?

BY KENNETH POLLACK

With so much alarming going on in the Middle East, it’s hard to keep track of everything that seems to be going wrong. No sooner had the Libyan civil war ended than another erupted in Syria. Iraq appears determined to follow, and perhaps overtake their Syrian neighbors. Egypt remains locked in a multi-sided struggle among the military, the Islamists and the secular liberals. And disturbing reports of low-level, but growing unrest in Saudi Arabia have begun to emerge.

Amid all of this, the one place that the United States has resolutely marched forward—or perhaps been dragged by the Congress and our European allies—has been in applying ever greater pressure on Iran. But if the Obama administration’s forward progress is clear enough when it comes to its Iran policy, its ultimate destination is not. The sanctions against Iran may well succeed on their own terms while producing regrettable, if unintended, consequences.

The latest salvo against Iran came a few short weeks ago, when President Obama signed into law the new Defense Appropriations bill, in which Congressional conservatives had tucked new, draconian sanctions prohibiting transactions with Central Bank of Iran (CBI), or anyone else doing business with the CBI. The importance of these sanctions is that prohibiting transactions with Iran’s Central Bank would preclude long-term oil sales contracts. If no country were willing to deal with the CBI, Iran would be forced to sell its oil either only to countries and companies willing to buck such U.S. sanctions, or rely on spot market sales for cash—an extremely inefficient method that would cut heavily into Iranian oil revenues. Some analysts, in fact, estimate that this could lead to a reduction of Iranian oil revenues by as much as one-third—and since Iran is heavily dependent on oil revenues, this could have a major impact on the Iranian economy.

Now that would seem to be a good thing, right? Maybe, but maybe not. Certainly the Iranian regime has shown absolutely no inclination to halt (let alone give up) its nuclear program in the face of previous sanctions, which are already having a serious impact on the Iranian economy. The hope is that going after Iranian oil revenues in this fashion would apply so much pressure on Iran’s economy, causing rampant inflation and even economic collapse, that the regime will have no choice but to compromise and accept international demands related to its nuclear program.

The problem is that these sanctions are potentially so damaging that they could backfire, creating at least three sets of consequences that would leave the United States in a worse position, whatever the impact on Iran.

Backfire I: The Impact on the U.S. Economy

One of the interesting things about going after Iranian oil exports in this fashion is that it is likely to simultaneously hurt Iran’s economy and our own. The bet is that it will hit the Iranian economy much harder and faster than our own. The sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran have already caused a sudden increase in inflation and a drop in the value of the Iranian rial as Iranians race to dump their rials in favor of dollars, pounds and euros—hard currency that they expect to both hold their value over time and be more easily traded internationally.

But limiting Iranian oil exports is likely to drive up the international price of oil. There is little slack oil production capacity left in the world. The Saudis have said that they would offset any drop in Iranian oil by increasing their own, but many analysts question Riyadh’s capacity to do so completely or for a sustained period of time. In addition, there has been significant, if low-level, unrest across Saudi Arabia—enough to prompt to prompt the Saudi government to indulge in massive domestic spending to try to buy-off popular grievances. Consequently, Riyadh might be willing to tolerate price increases to bolster their own revenues as well.

To the extent that Iranian oil is truly off the market for the U.S. and Europe, it will increase the price for what remains. Even to the extent that Iranian oil finds its way back on to the market in various ways—legal ways, like the spot market, illegal ways, like the black market—the inefficiencies and increased transportation costs will also create a price increase. Estimates of the amount of this jump in price vary, but at least one source has projected a $20 increase in the price per barrel, which is roughly a 15 to 20 percent increase. 

In case you missed the past 40 years of American economic history, there is no commodity on earth that affects the American economy faster or more profoundly than oil. A 20 percent increase in the price of oil would result in a very significant increase in American gasoline prices, with a concomitant impact on prices (i.e., inflation) across the board. It’s worth noting that virtually every U.S. recession since the Second World War was preceded by an increase in oil prices. Indeed, our current economic problems were preceded by a tripling of oil prices between 2005 and 2007.

Backfire II: Eroding Sanctions

Another potentially fatal flaw in these sanctions is that they turn up the heat on Iran so much that they may well be unsustainable diplomatically, and that is very problematic because sanctions rarely work quickly. Historically, sanctions work very slowly, and when they do work—against South Africa in the 1980s or Libya in the 1990s, for example—they work because of the perception that they will simply keep getting worse and worse over time. Sanctions have a poor track record of suddenly shocking the targeted government into reversing course, and if the targeted government believes that the sanctions will erode over time, it usually resists, and this often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Our experience with Iraq in the 1990s ought to be an important warning about what may well happen with Iran. In the case of Iraq, the United States—and the entire international community, acting under the auspices of the UN Security Council—imposed draconian sanctions on Iraq in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. Sanctions so severe that it was universally expected that Saddam would be forced to accede to all of the U.N. demands in a matter of a few months because no one, not even Saddam, would allow his people to starve to death. But that is precisely what he did. He refused to comply in full (he did not give up the last of his WMD programs until some time after 1995, and of course even then he refused to come clean about this in his self-defeating determination to convince his own people and the Iranians that he retained a covert WMD capability.) In Iraq, exactly as predicted, inflation soared, the dinar collapsed, the economy came to a near standstill. No one knows how many Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions and Saddam’s manipulation of them, but 200,000 is a fair estimate.

The death of so many innocents was not only a humanitarian catastrophe—it also directly undermined the sanctions regime, precisely because it appalled people across the world. Over time, international opinion turned decidedly against the Iraq sanctions because of what was happening to the Iraqi people. It became harder and harder for the United States to enforce the sanctions, to the point where by 2000, the sanctions were hemorrhaging and Iraq was taking in over a billion dollars (and growing) in illicit payments.

Similarly draconian sanctions on Iran could follow a similar trajectory. In the near term, they would doubtless do tremendous damage to the Iranian economy, and with it, the Iranian people—as they already are. However, this regime has shown absolutely no inclination to allow economic hardship to sway their nuclear intentions. Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that those who rule in Tehran are very different from the more divided groups that ran the country in the past. Amid the 2009 Green revolution, Iran’s hardliners purged the government of its more moderate elements, such that today those running the Iranian regime are more homogeneous and more hardline than at any time since the early days of the Iranian revolution. They appear determined to resist all international pressure, they are famously indifferent to the plight of the Iranian economy (having ignored the impact of economic sanctions for virtually the entire lifespan of the Islamic Republic), and they have shown tremendous attachment to their nuclear program. All of which suggests they will continue to stand firm, as Saddam did, amid economic ruin. And over time, there is a high likelihood that other countries will come to see the misery of the Iranian people as being the fault of the United States, not of the Iranian leadership, exactly as happened with Saddam. At that point, we may find that with Iran, as was the case with Iraq, overly harsh sanctions will become self-defeating and will crumble where more gradual and moderate sanctions might have been sustained and more likely to achieve their goal.

Backfire III: Inadvertant War

It is hard to miss the signals from the Obama Administration that it is not looking for a fight with Iran. Administration officials have kept dutifully intoning that “all options are on the table” with Iran, but then immediately enumerating why the military option is a terrible one. The President himself has made clear that he wants to reduce the number of wars that the U.S. is waging in the Middle East, not increase them. Unfortunately, its moves toward Iran may push us into the war that the Administration is seeking to avoid.

It’s important to try to see the world from Tehran’s perspective. What the Iranians see is a concerted, undeclared war being waged against them by a coalition of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and some European states. The fact that all of these countries are not necessarily always coordinating their actions is doubtless lost on the Iranian leadership. They are under cyber attack like the Stuxnet virus. Someone is killing their nuclear scientists in the streets of Tehran and blowing up their missile facilities. The United States and Europeans have ratcheted up their contacts with the Iranian opposition. The Iranians believe that foreign elements are also making contact with dissident groups like the Kurds, the Baluch, and the Arabs in Khuzestan. The United States has ratcheted up its efforts to broadcast into Iran to undermine the regime’s control over information. Washington is building up the military capabilities of states in the Gulf Cooperation Council. The Saudis are funding proxies to fight against Iran’s proxies from Bahrain to Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen. And the Americans and Europeans are waging economic warfare in the form of increasingly crippling sanctions.

From the vantage of Iran’s leadership, it would be easy to see an all-out, undeclared, covert (but multi-pronged) offensive being mounted against them. And the Iranians seem to be fighting back however they can. While I have no independent confirmation that the Iranians really did try to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States last fall, U.S. government officials at all levels appear remarkably certain that they did, and claim that it was one of only several operations the Iranians were developing. It would certainly make a lot of sense that given the campaign they see being waged against them, the Iranians would strike back in exactly that fashion—going after a symbol of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, and doing it in the American capital in retaliation for the assassinations taking place in their own.

What’s more, it seems unlikely that that will be their last such effort. Their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are not serious—they know full well that doing so would be horribly counterproductive to their own cause—but they were undoubtedly an effort to panic the oil market, driving up prices which help them and hurt us. It was a bid at economic warfare of their own. We should expect more.

The great problem is that at some point, the Iranians might succeed in one of their retaliatory gambits. Imagine how the American people would have reacted had they succeeded in blowing up a restaurant in the heart of Washington, D.C., killing dozens and injuring scores more? Of course, Americans would have seen it as an unprovoked attack and there likely would have been a public cry for blood. In short, the more we turn up the heat on Iran, the more Iran will fight back, and the way they like to fight back could easily lead to unintended escalation.

Doubtless such a war would leave Iran far, far worse off than it would leave us. But it would be painful for us too, and it might last far longer than anyone wants because that is the nature of wars, especially wars involving this Iranian regime. Thus, if we continue down this path, we had best be ready to walk it to its very end. And if we don’t have the stomach to countenance the possibility of such an escalation, we may want to reconsider our current course.

Kenneth M. Pollack is Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 56 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

56 comments

I look forward to "The Threatening Storm, Part 2: This Time I Promise I'm Not Full of Crap."

- DC Spence

January 18, 2012 at 7:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An intelligent article on the Middle East in the New Republic! No wonder "DC Spence" was amazed! I don't think the Obama Adminstration's hands are at all clean in this matter. The "plot" against the Saudi ambassador strikes me as a gross fraud, a complete lie, and it's deeply distressing that the Obama Administration is willing to push it. Obama has also declared that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons when in fact a nuclear Iran would not be a disaster. It is the U.S. and Israel who are the disturbers of the peace in the Middle East, not Iran.

- AlanVann

January 18, 2012 at 8:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it a coincidence that Pollack's article is posted the same day as the GOP audience's repeated cheers for the guillotine (for enemies at home and abroad)? It's clear that they have become today's equivalent to the mob in the streets of Paris during the reign of terror. While it's true that the GOP audience represents only a fraction of the US, the same was true of the mob in Paris. Policy makers, here and abroad, cannot simply ignore such sentiments, and neither can the governments in Iran and in other nations that may be targets of those sentiments. Fanning the flames of war can have catastrophic consequences, and those who do it are no less traitors than Aaron Burr. Guillotine!

- rayward

January 18, 2012 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/01/17/iran_the_us_and_the_strait_of_hormuz_crisis_99847.html is a necessary, more nuanced, counterpoint from George Friedman at STRATFOR. Now that I have digested both analyses, I only want to remind Kenneth Pollack that history did not start in 2009, or 1989, and that Saddam's secular Baathist Iraq has zero lessons when it comes to Iran. 1) Iran's Twelver Shi'a theocracy has been at war with the USA since 1979. One reason why the USA sided with Saddam in his war against Iran in the 1980's. 2) The Sunni and Shi'a schism has been unresolved for fifteen hundred years. There are no good options, but no one should believe that sanctions that hurt Iran's people will be blamed on those who impose the sanctions. World opinion about Twelver Shi'a who celebrate their martyrdom with public, bloody scourging, and want to seize control of Mecca and Medina from the Sunni, is quite different from world opinion about any ruthless secular tyrant. Personally, I prefer a final battle wherein the Sunni go Genghis with the Shi'a. Solve that schism and let the rest of the world deal with all the other disasters that await us. Failing that, we can just wait for Mother Nature to finally realize that New Zealand does NOT deserve so many earthquakes, and the Teheran is the epicenter of earthquake faults in the world. Come on Mother Nature! Enough target practice - Teheran is overdue for the BIG one :)

- K2K

January 18, 2012 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pollack: " we may find that with Iran, as was the case with Iraq, overly harsh sanctions will become self-defeating and will crumble where more gradual and moderate sanctions might have been sustained and more likely to achieve their goal." There is the crux of it. This statement is, practically speaking, a preliminary ground work for shifting blame from the leadership in Iran to those evil imperialists in Washington and their Israeli proxy. We had better hope that Obama is reelected. Otherwise there will be a sympathetic US domestic constituency ear to the likes of which demonized W. Bush as the war criminal and Saddam as the victim.

- jacko

January 18, 2012 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have one simple question for Kenneth Pollack - would he rather see a nuclear Iran? If not - he offers absolutley no alternative policy to pursue.

- jneuberg

January 18, 2012 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "I prefer a final battle wherein the Sunni go Genghis with the Shi'a. ... Come on Mother Nature! Enough target practice - Teheran is overdue for the BIG one :)" The rest of your post was an irrelevant channelling of Bernard Lewis at his most theocratically-determinist, but it's entirely predictable to see a sensible TNR article on the Middle East followed by a wish for the deaths of millions of Iranians.

- SMacEachern2

January 18, 2012 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The US has no business with Iran. It is AIPAC and the neocons that are trying to make this an issue. Just like in Iraq, they have very little to loose but America as a whole has lots to loose.

- MSA70

January 18, 2012 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSA70 as usual blames it on the Jews. Spence, MacEachern and MSA70 are drooling at the possibility of Jews in Israel being "wiped of the map." These are the modern day pogromists.

- arnon

January 18, 2012 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Indeed, our current economic problems were preceded by a tripling of oil prices between 2005 and 2007." Nothing like concluding your point with the ol' confusing correlation for causation logical fallacy. They could be related, but little is done to advance that argument. Likewise for stating that increase in gas prices (inexorably) lead to inflation, except in say, the last decade or so.

- Nari224

January 18, 2012 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is just another smear piece on Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't believe in sanctions on any country and wouldn't do a thing to stop Iran from going rogue on Israel or Saudi Arabia. If the US wasn't controlled by a fascist, Jew controlled, muslim black president right now, we wouldn't have these problems. Vote Ron Paul 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024 and then again when he comes back as a disembodied head ala Futurama.

- singlspeed

January 18, 2012 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nari. Quite correct. Look on the bright side. A good old fashioned non-nuclear war is a Keynesian stimulus, which we sure could use. Building tanks and dumping them in the ocean or overseas does not have the same multiplier effect as building (needed) bridges at home (that dont go to nowhere)- - - but it sure beats no stimulus spending.

- drofnats1

January 18, 2012 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Spence, MacEachern and MSA70 are drooling at the possibility of Jews in Israel being "wiped of the map." I am certainly not drooling at the possibility of anyone or any place being "wiped off the map." If you were actually interested in carrying out a rational and honest conversation, you would not instantly and absurdly ratchet the rhetoric to accusations of hoped-for genocide, and acknowledge that DC Spence and SMacEachern are not either (MSA70, I'm not so sure). Furthermore, if you had any interest in being fair, you would acknowledge that K2K, who is consistently one of the most revolting individuals I encounter on a regular basis, actually is salivating at the prospect of Tehran being leveled by a major earthquake with the concomitant death and suffering of tens of thousands of people.

- bunthorne

January 18, 2012 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it highly likely that the Russians and Chinese will be more than willing to buy Iranian crude and natural gas (a few years back China signed a massive natural gas contract with Iran). The sanctions will have some bite, but more like a chihuahua bite than a pitbull. As to war, Israel will likely strike Iran after they test fire a nuke, Iran will go nuts and lash back with terrorism everywhere, and then the US will be dragged into the war. For that reason I don't see Iran test firing their nuke anywhere near Iran and will likely us North Korea to do the testing for them (for a price) but this is a big if as well since it is going to be a few years for Jung un to come anywhere close enough to risk that.

- blackton

January 18, 2012 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bunthorne “"Spence, MacEachern and MSA70 are drooling at the possibility of Jews in Israel being "wiped of the map." I am certainly not drooling at the possibility of anyone or any place being "wiped off the map." If you were actually interested in carrying out a rational and honest conversation, you would not instantly and absurdly ratchet the rhetoric to accusations of hoped-for genocide, and acknowledge that DC Spence and SMacEachern are not either (MSA70, I'm not so sure).” I didn’t say you were drooling, bunthorne. (Feeling guilty?) And, just as you are not sure about MSA70, I am not sure about the other two posters mentioned. K2K is not a poster I agree with much of the time and have given up respoinding to his nonsense, but I see little difference between K2K and MacEachern who has never met an Islamist he couldn’t defend. In any case, what is “irrational” here is the idea of not taking seriously Iran’s threat to annihilate the Jewish people in Israel (they also don’t seem to mind murdering a few million Arabs (Iraq) if in the process they will kill off the Jews. This is what antisemites like to do: kill Jews and whoever gets in their way of killing Jews. If that is not irrational I don’t know what rationality is or is worth.

- arnon

January 18, 2012 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are not easy solutions and just as it was unthinkable to allow Hitler in the closing months of WW2 to get nuclear weapons (remember the rockets they fired at London) so it's unthinkable to allow the Ayatollahs to get hold of a nuclear arsenal.

- arnon

January 18, 2012 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: "Spence, MacEachern and MSA70 are drooling at the possibility of Jews in Israel being "wiped of the map." Join the reality-based community: it's a much more interesting place to be.

- SMacEachern2

January 18, 2012 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe a dark and mordant satire can claim a legitimate place on TNR discussion boards. Given that Iran, like the Republican candidates but unlike the United States of America, inclines to regularly trumpet the obliteration of another country, it seems a little over-reactive to pick on K2K's quite observant remark about the universally ironic fact that harmless places get to feel the destructive power of nature. On the more substantive issue, I think blackie has it: Iran will try to make the steps in militarization obscure, despite all the political posturing, and will probably assess that it gains more in the long run from keeping its opponents a little uncertain. Whatever about Israel, the U.S. will be loathe to risk a strike if there is only ambiguous evidence that Iran has a real capability. This is a real conundrum -- nobody wants to be responsible for attacking another country on suspicion, but the moment we are certain that they have it, it becomes moot. Incidentally, I've been struck that nobody has been talking about Shibley Telhami and Steven Krull's piece in the NYT a few days ago in which they point out that the most productive road to go down is the one almost nobody ever mentions: a nuclear-free Middle East. The response might be that Israel will never give up its tool of last resort, but it is intriguing, as they point out, that their recent poll -- conducted by an Israeli opinion research center -- revealed that even now only 43% of Israelis (!) respond with 'yes' to the question of a pre-emptive strike on Iran and a startling 65% would consider the best longer-term option a nuclear-free zone for the ME.

- ironyroad

January 18, 2012 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are not easy solutions and just as it was unthinkable to allow Hitler in the closing months of WW2 to get nuclear weapons (remember the rockets they fired at London) so it's unthinkable to allow the Ayatollahs to get hold of a nuclear arsenal." Absolutely I agree. What I don't know, and what no one else truly does, is how to go about that. What I like about this piece is that it acknowledges that the Iranians have a national interest to defend and are rational actors. The attainment of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of the annihilation of Israel is not a rational goal. However, the development of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to what the Iranians perceive as endless antagonization and undeclared war is rational, whether we like it or not. I am of course not excusing the ayatollahs for their rhetoric nor for their antisemitism, but simply acknowledging, as is Pollack, that if we do not recognize the fact that the Iranians are likely as scared and infuriated as we are, then the current escalation may well continue to an unfortunate climax.

- bunthorne

January 18, 2012 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lately, the Chinese have been using Iran's vulnerability to bargain for easier oil purchase terms. So they seem more opportunistic than anything else. This situation presents no easy choices. If the Israelis are likely to attack at some point, it would make more sense to support, not hinder, them. They are interested in putting Islamist Iran out of the nuclear business, not in killing Iranian civilians. The ayatollahs, on the other hand, want to kill as many Jews and other enemies as possible. They are rightly paranoid, but they created most of their enemies. If we don't stop Iran's nuclearization, other states in the region will go nuclear. How comfortable can we be with additional Middle East nuclear powers: Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Pollack himself understands well the limits of sanctions. That suggests quick military action would be more effective. Think the first Gulf war under Bush I, not the later one. Let's not confuse the regime with the majority of Iranians. Many, if not most, Iranians would like to see an end to this theocratic nightmare. We could be doing them a favor in destroying the clerical regime. The theocratic regime, unchecked, as a messianic jihadist state, will likely continue its foreign adventures. It has a friend in Venezuela. What happens if they place long-distance missiles there or smuggle more terrorists and dangerous contraband north into the United States homeland? Another potential target, the Panama Canal is closer by. Obama offered them a mutually tolerant relationship. They have responded with contempt. Not doing enough to effect regime change in Teheran is itself a poor option.

- amidut

January 18, 2012 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I believe a dark and mordant satire can claim a legitimate place on TNR discussion boards. Given that Iran, like the Republican candidates but unlike the United States of America, inclines to regularly trumpet the obliteration of another country, it seems a little over-reactive to pick on K2K's quite observant remark about the universally ironic fact that harmless places get to feel the destructive power of nature." Yes, but he's not making an ironic observation; rather he is openly rooting for it to occur to a people, the overwhelming majority of whom likely would not dream of effecting another nation's destruction. Of course the agency of human beings' wishes being what it is, this is ultimately a completely harmless statement. However, in making it, K2K has ceded any claim to moral high-ground he may have had, and is no different from the mullahs praying for the destruction of Israel. Of course, he is hoping for this to occur by the hand of fate or God or mother nature, while the mullahs would like to take matters into their own hands. Whatever, it is extremely unsavory in any case.

- bunthorne

January 18, 2012 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iran is an innocent vulture. Actively involved in terrorism. The theocracy that keeps barking, or should I say oinking. They should not have nuclear capabilities either by force or by force. These is what new born Christians demand. A strong Israel, a civilized Israel. Light among the nations. And hidden racists you will soon swallow the ashes of a destroyed Iran.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 18, 2012 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent amidst. Excellent.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 18, 2012 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Incidentally, I've been struck that nobody has been talking about Shibley Telhami and Steven Krull's piece in the NYT a few days ago in which they point out that the most productive road to go down is the one almost nobody ever mentions: a nuclear-free Middle East. The response might be that Israel will never give up its tool of last resort…” Irony, Telhami’s views are not new. There are a number of problems with it. First, the presence of nuclear weapons in the Muslim world is a reality. How would you induce say, Pakistan to give up its nuclear bombs? Moreover, do you really believe that if Israel gave up its nuclear arsenal Iran would stop its nuclear weapons program? The Telhami proposal assumes that there are two and only two antagonists in the Mideast. The deadly antagonism between Shiites and Sunnis goes back centuries. It’s also unclear who will be in power in any given country there in a few years or even months in some cases. Then, how do you define the Mideast? Is Pakistan part of the Mideast? What about Iran or Turkey? If Israel becomes a nuclear clear zone will anyone guarantee that Pakistan will not give nuclear weapons to some Arab regime there if and when Islamists get into power there? The only thing we know for certain is that the Mideast regimes are shifting faster than the sands in the desert. If Israel hadn’t had an A bomb Egypt would probably never have agreed to a peace treaty nor would that tiny country have been able to survive. While Israel could never use an atomic bomb first if at all the very fact that its enemies fear that it might is sufficient to deter even the craziest of rulers there.

- arnon

January 18, 2012 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: "...it seems a little over-reactive to pick on K2K's quite observant remark about the universally ironic fact that harmless places get to feel the destructive power of nature." Harmless places like New Zealand, I suppose.... but as opposed to what? 'Harmful' places like Tehran, which K2K so playfully hoped would be erased with its people? And is a wish that Sunni Muslims 'go Genghis on the Shi'a' dark and mordant satire in your book as well? Actually, I think what you're doing in this case is acting as an apologist for K2K's Muslim eliminationism.

- SMacEachern2

January 18, 2012 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SMacEachern2, yes we know the Mac and his ilk have a monopoly on reality. The rest of us, especially Jews, are merely paranoid and don’t know an archeological dig from a hole in the ground.

- arnon

January 18, 2012 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: That's funny, but it's an old joke.

- SMacEachern2

January 18, 2012 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Smac: "Actually, I think what you're doing in this case is acting as an apologist for K2K's Muslim eliminationism." Actually, I wasn't apologizing for anyone. I was suggesting, perhaps, that holier-than-thou finger-wagging was a little out of place in response to what seemed to me at least to be a joke. I presume I'm meant to take your "eliminationism" comment seriously? That wouldn't be the eliminationism coming from the Mullahs, of course. Which is so clearly a comic act. arnon -- I agree that there are many questions that can be legitimately asked and indeed many not have reassuring answers. However, there is a bigger question: is the only solution for regional conflicts (even ones with a theological driver) the one with military action? I think it's noticeable that there seems to be a complete unwillingness to think about other kinds of political evolution, some of which may involve a certain long-term building of trust. The attitude toward the increase of nuclear weapons in the world is beginning to appear to me like some kind of odd, morbid resignation -- this very much in contrast to the 1980s in Europe where there was a genuine and at times fraught competition over views of defense and the balance of terror, and both those against and those for nuclear options had to dig deep into their arguments. I think this was healthy and in fact contributed to the sense that the Cold War division had had its day. So what do you think of the polling results from Israel?

- ironyroad

January 18, 2012 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shias want martyrdom . They will get martyrdom. The sooner the better. Then TNR bloggers can go back to analyzing if we are using proper English in our low intellect discussions. Main bloggers are a bunch of schnucks, where do you put the verb, adverb, and so on....... A bien tot mes ignorantomus.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 18, 2012 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So what do you think of the polling results from Israel?" I am not surprised, if asked I might have answered in the same way. It all depends on what "long term option" means. In a hundred years it may come about, in the next ten to twenty years, I doubt it.

- arnon

January 18, 2012 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"analyzing if"? or "analyzing whether"? What's with the "low intellect" remark? Have you visited some other discussion boards? Dude, it's like the Cornell faculty lounge here, in comparison.

- ironyroad

January 18, 2012 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: "holier-than-thou finger-wagging was a little out of place in response to what seemed to me at least to be a joke" Right. The destruction of Tehran as a joke, just a bit of ribald good humour among friends, K2K and you. My apologies for not picking up on the punchline straightaway. I'm not sure which is worse, sick fucks like K2K hoping for the deaths of multitudes of Iranians, or apologetic little weasels like you, shuffling along after him and sweeping up his droppings.

- SMacEachern2

January 18, 2012 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Take a break, mac, Irony is nobody's fool. It takes more than a little folly to take k2k so seriously. Even so, his comments in the above post were so exaggerated that only someone without an ounce of irony in his would read it straight.

- arnon

January 18, 2012 at 7:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, Smac. Your standard of thoughtful commentary rises like a launch from Cape Canaveral when someone has the temerity not to fall in line with you, I see. In any case, I notice that you completely ignored the larger part of my comments in this thread, which have nothing to do with K2K.

- ironyroad

January 18, 2012 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks to K2K for STRATFOR link. Here's its final paragraph that hooks up with Pollack's concern with inadvertent war: ...We find ourselves in a situation in which neither side wants to force the other into extreme steps and neither side is in a position to enter into broader accommodations. And that's what makes the situation dangerous. When fundamental issues are at stake, each side is in a position to profoundly harm the other if pressed, and neither side is in a position to negotiate a broad settlement, a long game of chess ensues. And in that game of chess, the possibilities of miscalculation, of a bluff that the other side mistakes for an action, are very real... By the way, later for who here is and isn't an anti Semite. That kind of shrieking doesn't grace the Cornell faculty lounge or the lounge at MIT, (that is, the Marimashee Institute of Technology.)

- basman

January 18, 2012 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: Yeah, I tend to focus when someone calls for the elimination of urban conurbations or entire modes of religious belief, Muslim or not. I don't tend to think that's a joking matter, especially in the modern Middle East. So sue me. As for the rest, this is your substantial contribution? A opinion poll on the possibility of the region becoming a nuclear-free-zone? What exactly do you think are the chances of that, given the governments of Iran, Israel, Pakistan or other countries in the area?

- SMacEachern2

January 18, 2012 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: I didn't say ironyroad was a fool, I said he/she was an apologist. There's a rather major difference there.

- SMacEachern2

January 18, 2012 at 10:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, Smac, you tend to focus when someone makes calls for the elimination of urban conurbations, eh? :) Sorry, but the comic aspect was perhaps not intended by you. In any event, I didn't claim my contribution was "substantial." I merely noted that you had ignored the 75% of my comments to concentrate on the 25% that related to K2K. I was just saying that there were alternative perspectives on the larger issues of nuclear weaponry in the Middle East that had been addressed in the NTY op-ed that nobody on TNR seemed to have picked up on.

- ironyroad

January 19, 2012 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mac and Irony epitomize the decadence of the academic intelligentsia. Hear no evil. See no evil.

- amidut

January 19, 2012 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iron is more ferrous than ferric. Needs an extra electron to function. But again intellectually superfluous. Being articulate, with the proper English, does not guaranty being smart. This is not decadence, it is being silly. Make sure brain is on gear when tongue is on the accelerator.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 20, 2012 at 1:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question was are we sliding into war with Iran. Not like ferrous ,fools gold, distracted into sliding into war with proper English construction. Again being articulate does not guaranty being smart. How about the polling results in Iran? Ferrous will get excited if they exist. Iron is a different re-arrangement of ferrous compared to steel. Are you current with chemistry, or better did you have chemistry in high school? Or like the late William Safire, are you self made? Never gone to high school. Sorry folks I am going to watch the Australian open, good tennis match coming up Tomic vs Dolgopolov, new stars. Oy guevalt such broken English will desperate ferrous on the road, quite ironic this schmuck , that's Yidishkeith for you. Adios pendejo.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 20, 2012 at 1:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We don't need to invade Iran. Just send the leaders a private message: attack us or any of our allies and you will face the full wrath of the United States Navy and Air Force. If it comes to that most Sunni Arab states will protest loudly in public and give us a wink and a nod in private.

- bulbman1066

January 20, 2012 at 2:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SmMacEachern2, could you please tell us how you came to your neo-Nazi view of the world? Did you get if from your parents? Seriously, when confronted with the mystery of Absolute Evil, people like me, who fall within the normal range of the western good-bad curve, can only recoil in fear and horror.

- bulbman1066

January 20, 2012 at 2:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has anybody realized that Iran has provided thousands of missiles to Syria, Hezbollah/Lebanon, Hamas/Gaza . And these arms were used to attack Israel? Is ferrous rational defending a nuclear Iran? Iran has been supporting the Iraqi terrorists. Killing Iraqis and Americans. Destruction of Iran's theocracy is long overdue. That is why ferrous is articulate(?) but dam stupid and ignorant in his ""discussions"". Even a parrot can become articulate. Do you dig ferrous?

- JAIMECHUCH

January 20, 2012 at 2:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

01/18/2012 - 3:57pm EDT | amidut: all excellent points. irony: thanks for noticing my :) The geological fact is that Teheran IS the #1 'most vulnerable to massively destructive earthquake population center' in the world. The Ayatollahs have long considered relocating Teheran because of this unfortunate accident of tectonic plates. In 2009, the Iranian population was abuzz with rumours that the Revolutionary Gurad had planted bombs around Teheran in order to 'fake' an earthquake. So, when I see New Zealand getting earthquake after earthquake, my inner geologist does wonder when Mother Nature will finally shift her focus, tectonically speaking, to Teheran. Which would mean that Iran would have to divert their attention to a national tragedy, and leave everyone else alone for awhile. Basman - even tho you are not here, glad you thought the STRATFOR analysis a good counterpoint to Pollack's post here. Having spent one semester in grad school in 2005 studying Political Islam, especially focussed on Iran's Twelver Shi'a theocracy, I just see the fifteen hundred year battle for control of Mecca and Medina as a battle I personally wish could be settled with a conventional resolution - whether that includes tank battles outside Karbala, where Ali was beheaded by the Sunnis; or whether it means Moqtada Al-Sadr reveals he IS the Twelth Imam, and everyone ponders why it did not require nuclear devastation of anyone; or ends, as did the Thirty Years War, with the Peace of Westphalia in say, Baghdad (being the geographic centerpoint of the arc of Shi'ism) - it would be very good for the entire world, including the world of Islam, to finally resolve this fifteen hundred year schism. Anyone who thinks Twelver Shi'a theocracy is RATIONAL, and can be contained, needs to study a lot more actual history. The Saudis are far more threatened by a nuclear Iran because the Saudis want to remain the Guardians of Mecca and Medina. Now that Israel has shale oil reserves equal to the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, I just do not know if Iran would even use a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv, which is far more a risk than a nuclear missile. After all, the Shi'a of Lebanon have historic and familial links with Iran, andcontrol of Israel's newly discovered shale oil (and offshore natural gas) is a real wild card. Still, no one should ever believe that Twelver Shi'a theocracies are rational. Whereas, secular Baathist tyrants can be relied upon to be rational about retaining power. I have no sympathy for Iran's historically based "greivance". Yes, Persia/Iran has been a plaything of almost every empire for more than two hundred years. But, Persia certainly played the empire game for more than 2,000 years. Iran is the remnant of the Persian empires, and I am still counting on the Kurds, Azeris, Lur, Baluchis, Turkmen minorities who still find themselves persecuted by the rump of Persians inside the current borders of Iran.

- K2K

January 20, 2012 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Still, no one should ever believe that Twelver Shi'a theocracies are rational." Nobody who has seen scenes from the celebrations of Ashura could even believe Shi'a to be even remotely rational. http://www.google.ca/search?q=ashura&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1aEZT5vlCsjo0QHe99njCw&sqi=2&ved=0CE8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=608

- noga1

January 20, 2012 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JAIMECHURCH, what exactly are you on about, and can I assist you toward clarification in any way? It seems as if you have something to say about me (whom you don't know) and my arguments (that you read here) and continually mix those things up. And if you have a counter-argument, perhaps you'd like to let us know what it is?

- ironyroad

January 20, 2012 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To me it seems that JAIMECHUCH misspelled Iran as Iron and from that point on everything lost any rational meaning.

- noga1

January 20, 2012 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No kidding.

- ironyroad

January 20, 2012 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You see?

- noga1

January 20, 2012 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The main objective is to destroy Iran theocratic terroristic regime. All other discussions are superfluous. There is no civilized discussions with fanatics. It appears that Obama sent a clear letter warning Iran bosses of the consequences if they stop the flow of oil. Clearly these fanatics understand only force . Their destruction is long overdue. In the Middle East only extreme force stops fanatics.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 20, 2012 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let us remember. The eight year war in the 1980's between Iraq/Sadam Hussein and Iran/Ayatollah Khumeinih . There were one millIon casualties. Sadam used chemical weapons against the Iranian Kurds. What was the reason for the war? The ayatollah Khumeinih had been mistreated by Sadam Hussein while in exile, and actually went to live in France. For the Iranian theocracy humans are dispensable. They are always looking for terrorism and violence to achieve their goals. Destroying them is the only solution. The sooner the better. We either have failed, or ignored, the Iranian people to get rid of their theocratic dictators. You can not negotiate with fanatics that are armed to their theeth. And to add insult to injury, now they want nuclear weapons. Those that advocate a peaceful accommodation with the Iranian theocracy are delusional, very wrong, or simply very very naive. Obama knows it, Nethanyauh knows it. We will see soon a rapid, surgical elimination of Iranian theocracy. This will save undue suffering by the Iranian people. Sanctions do not due the job. The pathetic example is North Korea. People are starving, but they have nuclear weapons.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 20, 2012 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But Jaime, let us also remember that at the end of that eight-year war Teheran got hammered with SCUD missiles from Iraq and that accounts for the slice of purely nationalist support for Iran's nuclear program. Never again will they be defenseless against a hostile and better-armed neighbor, goes the story. However, to a degree at least I think your assessment is accurate -- there is no way that the current regime can be dissuaded from its path to nuclear capability by offering a new relationship with the U.S. in which Iran is respected and its regional role honored (essentially the carrot that the Obama administration held out in 2009, which might have worked if the Bush administration had offered it in, say, 2004). What to do, is the question. I regard the military option as having a hell of a lot of downsides, including, most importantly, not achieving the desired result.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2012 at 12:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Twenty years have passed . Scud missiles attacks are a lot of baloney used as excuses by Iranian theocrats to plant thousands of missiles in Lebanon/Hizbullah, Gaza/Hamas and Syria. They have been used to attack Israel. The key word is a " hostile neighbor". Who is the aggressive hostile neighbor? The Iranian theocrats have been adamant in their intentions to obliterate Israel. Their denials of the Holocaust have been a plenty. Vitriolic hatred is their nature. Who knows, now Syria is in trouble. Maybe Iran theocrats will soon be. But Israel has to be pro-active. Obama should have helped the Iranian freedom fighters, and he did not. Now we are faced with the destruction of Iranian theocrats.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 21, 2012 at 5:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At this stage I'm completely unsure what it is you are arguing for, or even against, Jaime. How do you suggest we "destroy" the Iranian theocrats? If you're talking about organizing (arming?) an opposition, then that is a complicated task that can't be done in a few months or even a couple of years. And again, I'd just say that success in these things is NOT guaranteed. See: George W. Bush.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2012 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

a cold thread - there is no way to effect regime change in Iran by external means. If their economy gets bad enough, the bazaari merchants will be a force for change. and, since the military option is so unpalatable, that is why I await Mother Nature. Even the Ayatollahs were serious about relocating Teheran due to this reality - just a matter of when all those tectonic plates collide. Maybe the Mayan prophecy for 2012 will be real. Just saw the film "2012" again last night. Very reassuring to know all but Africa will be obliterated.

- K2K

January 23, 2012 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close