WORLD OCTOBER 13, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
At the Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting beginning today in New York, Iran will try to shift the discussion to Israel’s nuclear weapons by proposing that the Middle East become nuclear-free. As historian Jeffrey Herf wrote at TNR Online last October, this is similar to a ploy the Soviets used in the 1980s:
Our negotiations with Iran are not off to a good start. After the initial meeting in Geneva on October 1--with Iran on one side and Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United States on the other--Iranian representatives said they had agreed to send processed uranium to Russia. Then, a day later, one of the Iranian negotiators denied they had agreed to any such thing. Iran, it seems, is in no mood to make genuine concessions. But, then again, why should it be? The sad fact is that Tehran holds most of the negotiating cards right now.
The essential problem is an old one in the history of negotiations between dictatorships and democracies. As was the case in the famous negotiations over intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe in the 1980s, there is a fundamental asymmetry whenever a dictatorship sits down at the table with a democracy. Criticizing their government's march to the bomb brands Iranian citizens as tools of foreign powers and possibly as traitors. This dynamic has only worsened in the wake of Iran's recent crackdown on protesters. There seems to be a widespread assumption that Iran's internal turmoil has somehow weakened the regime's nuclear negotiating position. In fact, the opposite is true: The crackdown means that speaking out against the regime from inside the country is now riskier than ever. Tehran is therefore unlikely to feel any domestic pressure to make concessions during the coming negotiations. All the domestic political pressures of the debate will be asymmetric: They will have an impact only on the governments of Britain, France, Germany, and the United States.
Iranian negotiators have proven themselves to be skillful tacticians, and they are likely to exploit this asymmetry by doing two things: playing for time and raising the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons. Their rationale for doing the former is obvious: The absence of freedom in Iran will only become more and more of a tactical advantage the longer negotiations continue, as pressures for compromise build up on only one side. As for the latter: By pointing to Israel's nuclear weapons, Iran knows that it can exploit the existing hostility toward Israel in many European countries.
The Soviet Union tried an analogous gambit during the battle over the Euromissiles in the 1980s. In the late 1970s, Moscow had deployed intermediate-range SS-20 missiles capable of striking targets in Western Europe. In December 1979, President Carter and our NATO allies agreed both to counter the new Soviet weapons by stationing American intermediate-range missiles in Europe and to propose a new round of arms-control negotiations with the Soviets, offering a scaled-backed NATO deployment in return for a reduction in their SS-20s. The USSR, however, demanded something more: that the nuclear weapons of Britain and France be counted in any negotiations. Under the Soviet scheme, Britain and France would have to pay the price for reductions in Soviet missiles by reducing or eliminating their nuclear arsenals, thus creating a "nuclear-free" Europe. Ultimately, the Soviet ploy failed, in part because Moscow overplayed its hand and caused a backlash among electoral majorities on both sides of the Atlantic. But the proposal caused considerable tension in the Western alliance; some Social Democratic politicians in West Germany, for example, suggested that the British and French seriously consider the Soviet proposals. The anti-nuclear demonstrations in Western Europe around that time were some of the largest protests in its postwar history. François Mitterrand, France's socialist president, who supported the NATO deployments, famously remarked that "the East has developed missiles, and the West has developed pacifists." In other words, the asymmetry of democracy and dictatorship meant that there was internal pressure only on the NATO negotiating position. The Soviet strategy may not have worked, but it was a shrewd tactic, one that suggested a keen understanding of how to take advantage of the West's open political systems.
Today, the Iranians know that Israel is deeply unpopular among parts of the political and intellectual establishment in the West. They surely know that the same European establishment that eventually stood firm against Soviet pressures to create a "nuclear-free" Europe might be less unified and stubborn when faced with similar proposals for the Middle East. So it is no wonder Iran keeps talking about Israel's nuclear weapons. Over the summer, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry said that the United States should tell Israel to "dismantle its own 200 nuclear warheads." More recently, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA called the passage of a resolution criticizing Israel's nuclear weapons a "glorious moment" and "a triumph for the oppressed nation of Palestine." Iran knows that such complaints about Israeli nukes will earn a favorable reception from many in the West. Indeed, Obama's recent statements about wanting to work toward a world without nuclear weapons unintentionally lent support to this Iranian strategy. When Israel continues to refuse this demand to abandon its nuclear weapons--as, of course, it must--Iran will claim that it is acquiring a weapon only to balance out Israel's nuclear capability. This will look eminently reasonable to many in Europe. In the face of such apparent sensibleness from Iran's leaders, the necessary political will to maintain a tough negotiating line will be harder and harder to maintain.
So what is the United States to do? The sole possible solution is to level a threat grave enough to upend the inherent negotiating advantage enjoyed by Iran. And the "severe" sanctions currently on the table don't come close to doing the trick. First, Iran has endured economic difficulties before, and its leaders seem to regard economic concerns as secondary to their larger nationalist and religious project. These leaders would clearly be willing to use their still-intact apparatus of repression to stifle protest due to economic difficulty. Second, Russia and especially China have shown no enthusiasm for imposing economic difficulties on Iran. Indeed, China is increasing its economic involvement in Iran's oil and gas sector. Any sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany will be weak from the start because Iran can simply turn to Russia and China.
This brings us to the one policy option that Tehran truly fears--and thus the only one that gives these negotiations any realistic chance of success: a credible threat of military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States, perhaps joined by Britain and France, or Israel. If the Iranian leadership believed that such an attack was a real possibility, it, or some parts of it, might be persuaded to change course.
If President Obama were to make this threat, he would enrage the base of the Democratic Party that made possible his nomination for president, antagonize liberals in Congress, and infuriate the New York Times editorial page. In the eyes of many of his admirers, he would appear to be yet another unilateralist, imperialist American president. So Obama has a choice: He can look out for his popularity or he can do what is necessary to defend the national security of the United States, our European allies, the moderate Arab states, and, yes, Israel. He has reached the point in his presidency when it has become clear that he cannot do both.
Jeffrey Herf is professor of modern European history at the University of Maryland in College Park. He is the author of War by Other Means: Soviet Power, West German Resistance and the Battle of the Euromissiles and the forthcoming Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.
8 comments
Iran against the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia AND China? What balls!! Here is how to follow the negociations: Everything we say they say about everything they once said we once said about everything they must say in order to say anything that matters at all must gibe with what we said they did not say about what they say they said before they said just the opposite. It helps to have an advantage degree in bullshit here. Or a friend in the government in North Korea. But if you get stuck somewhere I'll be glad to set you in the right direction. Just don't follow Marty's directions or you'll end up in the middle of Armageddon. Jeffery Herf is "a professor of modern European history at the University of Maryland in College Park." An academic. Is that all he is? What does he know about the inner workings of the Iranian government---now, today? Why should we believe his assessment is more accurate than those [right here in TNR] that suggested just the opposite may be the case: That Tehran IS riven with internal schisms that can be taken advantage of. Come on: What is REALLY going on over there? And it will be curious to note how, if Iran does bring up the Israeli nuclear program, those negociating with it rationalize it. Why was Israel permitted to pursue the bomb in total secrecy---outside the framework the U.S. often insists other nations must subscribe to? Isn't that inherently destablizing? Wouldn't that incentivize Iran to pursue a nuclear deterrent all the more? Doesn't this go beyond the potential for further hostility between Israel and Europe? Herf seems intent on giving Tel Aviv a get out of jail free card here. It is just somehow "Okay" for Israel to amass weapons of mass destruction because they are on our side. The side of all that is Good. And, personally, given the neighborhood, I certainly agree it is only commonsense that Israel has the bomb. But that is not how others will see it. And to dismiss this as just another anti-Zionist knee jerk, merely reinforces their contempt for those who insist that, of course, this is really all it is. Or as Herf puts it: When Israel continues to refuse this demand to abandon its nuclear weapons--as, of course, it must--Iran will claim that it is acquiring a weapon only to balance out Israel's nuclear capability. This will look eminently reasonable to many in Europe. In the face of such apparent sensibleness from Iran's leaders, the necessary political will to maintain a tough negotiating line will be harder and harder to maintain. george: This line of reasoning [from others more hostile to Israel] may just be more anti-Semitic bullshit to some folks in here; but that doesn't necessarily make it so. But since we can't know for sure what the hell is really going on over there, why take chances Herf suggests. We must make it clear that unless Iran gives up its own potential nuclear deterrent [while agreeing to allow Israel to carry on its secret nuclear warhead stockpiling with impunity] they are all but authorizing a military invasion. So, this is yet another call to war here discussed as an "analysis" of the situation. george walton
- iambiguous
October 13, 2009 at 3:27am
For myself I find ths an imposing an imposing analysis and it holds out a possible solution while qualifying its possibility: "...This brings us to the one policy option that Tehran truly fears--and thus the only one that gives these negotiations any realistic chance of success: a credible threat of military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States, perhaps joined by Britain and France, or Israel. If the Iranian leadership believed that such an attack was a real possibility, it, or some parts of it, might be persuaded to change course. If President Obama were to make this threat, he would enrage the base of the Democratic Party that made possible his nomination for president, antagonize liberals in Congress, and infuriate the New York Times editorial page. In the eyes of many of his admirers, he would appear to be yet another unilateralist, imperialist American president. So Obama has a choice: He can look out for his popularity or he can do what is necessary to defend the national security of the United States, our European allies, the moderate Arab states, and, yes, Israel. He has reached the point in his presidency when it has become clear that he cannot do both.... The call for parity by denuclearizing Israel is shrewd and hobblling of American efforts under *this administration* and underscores how American power, lying at the base of all this, still could call the shots on who can and can't be nuclearly armed. My speculation is that America will never make a military threat against Iran even despite a lot of talk of "what's on the table", though I would be happy to see my speculation shown wrong.
- basman
October 13, 2009 at 11:46am
I don't know why this surprises anyone. This is what everyone told Obama leading up to the election last year.
- ptuttle
October 13, 2009 at 3:21pm
military strikes on Iran can be disguised as the "wrath of Allah"
- K2K
October 13, 2009 at 7:36pm
You advocate the threat of a military strike against Iran as if it were somehow cost free, akin to the Israeli strike against the Iraqi facility in 1981. My gut feeling is that the consequences of a strike could be more disastrous than the fact of Iran having the bomb. What I'd like to see in this magazine is a serious discussion of the scenarios involving the aftermath of an attack.
- wnalpert
October 14, 2009 at 7:19am
I agree with Jeffrey Herf's analysis, but he leaves open the question "what kind of military threat?" and specifically "by whom?" Europe won't participate, it just won't, not any longer. Our ill-conceived and executed invasion/occupation of Iraq (among other important reasons) has vacated that possibility. Furthermore, it sinks a unilateral intervention for us. At this point it is simply unfeasible. We can't, anymore than Israel can, destroy or long delay Tehran's plans to build a bomb and delivery vehicle. It doesn't necessarily require a rocket to seriously and credibly threaten to attack Israel (or Europe, or us). To a considerable degree that is why Ahmadinejad and Khamenei can sling their despicable rhetoric and public apocalyptic musings and not be laughed off the stage or out of the U.N. So, what's left? I haven't thought of a feasible alternative, but I'm no military or diplomatic expert, obviously. What I have been thinking and turning over and contemplating (not to mention praying) is something more simple, though it is a radical idea. But it certainly is doable and we don't have to spend a ton of money or resources to do it. I believe the time may have come to settle on a decisive course of action in the domain of foreign policy, a new doctrine, call it what you like: resolve to use a pre-emptive nuclear attack if any nation proceeds to develop or acquire nuclear weapons with the aim of blackmailing or attacking another nation. I believe it could work - would work if we be so resolved - to halt the insane nuclear weapons buildup by delusional and or malign governments. It will be fraught with implications and problems and considerations to weigh for years, but I believe it's about time to get on with it.
- Tgossard
October 14, 2009 at 11:52am
I nearly always think of a follow-up or closer line after I hit the submit button: Nearing sixty years ago Truman made the fateful decision to use the first (and to date only) atomic bomb to end the war with Japan. I think we are still the only nation fully qualified to use the next. G-d helping, we will never have to do so.
- Tgossard
October 14, 2009 at 11:59am
"Nearing sixty years ago Truman made the fateful decision to use the first (and to date only) atomic bomb to end the war with Japan. I think we are still the only nation fully qualified to use the next. G-d helping, we will never have to do so." george: Embraced without a shred of irony, no doubt. Sort of like those who speak of the tsunami that murdered 250,000 innocent men, women and children a few years back as an "act of God". IS God a murderer here? God may well work in mysterious ways but how much comfort can we take in worshipping and adoring one that sits idly by while nuclear bombs and tectonic plates destroy the lives of millions? How do YOU take comfort in it? Really, I'm curious. george
- iambiguous
October 14, 2009 at 7:44pm