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 Two Ways of Buying Time. One Way Works.

THE SPINE SEPTEMBER 27, 2009

Two Ways of Buying Time. One Way Works.

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Defense secretary Robert Gates has been given the assignment of placating the anxious with "severe" new sanctions on Iran. So we are told inferentially in an article by Brian Knowlton in Sunday's New York Times. In any event, Gates, assures us that Tehran will now be faced with "several additional sanctions," although he certainly can't promise that either Russia or China will be in on the punitive regime.

Although we aren't taking "any options off the table" (by this he means military options), Gates thinks "there is still room left for diplomacy." Less and less room, given the news about the facility at Qom which--shall we say?--blew up in President Obama's face.

But Gates also has taken on the task of pooh-poohing any military option (which, of course, he hasn't taken off the table), blah, blah, blah. Here exactly is what he said: "There is no military option that does anything more than buy time." So there!

This is likely to be the administration's fail-safe excuse for not itself doing anything concrete against Tehran's bombs and missiles. And it will use this rationale also to persuade Israel from defending itself.

But, if it comes to that, Israel is not likely to listen. It has had its own experience with how long the time you buy will last.

On June 7, 1981, several Israel air force F-16s, accompanied by F-15 interceptors, took out an Iraqi uranium-powered nuclear reactor outside of Baghdad. Twenty-two years later--and not for wont of trying--the Iraqis still did not have a nuclear facility, as poor George Bush can tell you.

Yes, Iranian nuclear facilities are more dispersed and more intricate. But Israeli military might (to say nothing of American military might) is also more sophisticated, more intrusive and more capacious than in 1981. I'd be happy with a 20 years delay in Iranian nuclear arms development, and even in a decades delay. With such a devastating defeat the regime would probably collapse. That's when the diplomatic option might really work.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 17 comments

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

17 comments

Agreed. This endless charade of diplomatic huffing and puffing will not likely deter the mad mullahs of Iran. Meanwhile, everybody else (Russia, China, India, Europe, etc.) is cutting their own commercial deals with the mullahs. Iran builds its military alliances apace with North Korea, Venezuela (Iranian missiles in the western hemisphere, anyone?), the amoral two-timing Russians, Hezbollah, etc. The present Administration is tap dancing around what must be done. I'd rather that we act; we have the all the necessary resources. But, if the Israelis must act, we should step out of the way. It might take Israeli military action to save the world.

- amidut

September 28, 2009 at 9:36am

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

The only sound that the Obama Administration makes on the world stage comes from the stamping of its tiny little feet. Obama must have been briefed on the secret Iranian facility on Day One. In perspective, it moves his previous attempt to link US support for Israel on Iran to "progress" with the Palestinians from the naive into the realm of the idiotic.

- malahat

September 28, 2009 at 12:05pm

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

Marty, You haven't perchance been bitten by a rabid skunk of late, have you? A rabid skunk bitten by a rabid pit bull bitten by a rabid Michael Vicks? You are getting closer and closer to Armageddon. Still, even Roger Cohen pooh-poohs the sanctions as largely bullshit. He sees it all boiling down to war or living with a nuclear Iran. You apparently are more inclusive. You see it all boiling down to war and living with the Apocalypse. But then folks like you and I don't have all that much time left to quibble over details anyway. We want as much action packed into those last remaining days as possible. We're closer than you think. You think so? gw

- iambiguous

September 28, 2009 at 3:12pm

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

$10 the facilities that would have to be taken out have been moved to a site beneath the homes of Mousavi and other influential members of the Opposition...

- dylanposer

September 28, 2009 at 7:05pm

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

If anything I would rather Israel take out Ahmed and Khameni with a few missile strikes and leave the nuke facilities alone. Killing a bunch of scientists, and undoubtedly a fair share of civilians, would not lead to a collapse of the regime but would be a huge boost to it. Yeah, there will be demonstrations and yada yada but nowhere near the blowback that a strike on the facilities would have.

- blackton

September 28, 2009 at 7:29pm

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

Yep - this is the policy of the fundamentalist theocrats in the U.S. and of the Israel-firsters like many on here who think that U.S. Policy should be run in Israel's, not the U.S.' best interests. Otherwise, it's sheer lunacy.

- P.E.Overbrook

September 28, 2009 at 8:00pm

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

I wonder if Uberbruch ever gets tired of doing his Hitler impersonation. Pace him, allying oneself with Iran against the Jews is in our best interest. Ubercruch must have been reading old issues of Henry Ford's paper.

- jacksondyer

September 28, 2009 at 8:52pm

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

If halting Iran's nuclear weapons program were as simple as a few bombing raids, the Bush administration would have done it. Do people seriously believe they didn't pursue a military option because the admin was suddenly taken over by a bunch of flower power hippies. The Bush admin looked long and hard at the bombing option, concluded it wouldn't work, and went another way. Iran is not Iraq and the mullahs learned a thing or two from the 1981 raid. Taking out Osirak was simple and easy. The Iranians don't give out freebies like that.

- DC Spence

September 29, 2009 at 11:13am

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

DC Spence "If halting Iran's nuclear weapons program were as simple as a few bombing raids, the Bush administration would have done it. Do people seriously believe they didn't pursue a military option because the admin was suddenly taken over by a bunch of flower power hippies. The Bush admin looked long and hard at the bombing option, concluded it wouldn't work, and went another way. Iran is not Iraq and the mullahs learned a thing or two from the 1981 raid. Taking out Osirak was simple and easy. The Iranians don't give out freebies like that." Yes, it won’t be easy, but it's not impossible. The Iranians are not invincible even if the like to think that they are. We have to start talking about it and get serious about stopping nuclear program. So far all we have done is talk. We talk about how difficult it’s going to be, we talk about “stronger” sanctions, and we even talk about doing nothing. So far the last option seems to be winning out. Problem is that we lost our nerve. After years of Chomskyite propaganda about how evil we are many intellectuals, mostly leftists, have bought into the idea that since we are not pure we shouldn't do anything about any threat to world peace and stability.

- jacksondyer

September 29, 2009 at 11:23am

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

Jackson - you appear to have avoided DC Spence's main point. If it was so feasible, why did the Bush administration not do the strike? Or are you saying that the Bush administration was overtaken by Chomskyites? "With such a devastating defeat the regime would probably collapse." You know I seem to remember similar arguments being made, oh, lets say 29 years ago, if Iran was invaded by a neighboring country. How did that work out? While we're on the topic, can someone provide us with a list of just how many regimes/governments etc have "collapsed" after an assault by a foreign country? I'm sure there must be some that I'm just not thinking of since the people who propose this course of action are sure it will occur. I just can't think of any myself right now. This is not to say that a military option is simply out of the question. However the consequences of it will be assuredly very serious, so it will need to be taken with some care. And any other possible options should be very thoroughly explored.

- Nari224

September 29, 2009 at 1:02pm

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

anyone drilling down to wonder what Russia considers most important in their tapdance with Iran? I do not buy into the theory that Russia keeps Iran happy to keep Iran from agitating the Azeris and Stans into Islamic radicalization. I do think Russia would like oil prices to go up. Yet, hard to believe even Putin would risk a Muslim theocracy with nuclear warheads that can reach Moscow. As for the Chinese? same considerations except they want stable oil prices. Best weapon Israel (or the U.S.) could develop is a transformative process for turning algae into ethanol so that everyone can change the global dynamics of petroleum faster than Iran can spin uranium into terror. time for something Biblical, ten plagues anyone? the mental picture of Mahmoud having frogs rain down on him is most enjoyable :)

- K2K

September 29, 2009 at 1:14pm

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

Walnuts: I can't stand you but that post was pretty funny.

- MOLLYSIMON

September 29, 2009 at 2:15pm

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

Nari224 "Jackson - you appear to have avoided DC Spence's main point. If it was so feasible, why did the Bush administration not do the strike?" I didn't avoid it. I thought it wasn't that important. Why didn't Bush do something? I can think of many reasons, including a fear that Iran would strike back in Iraq and the Bushies wanted Iraq stabilized. Still, whatever the reason I am glad they didn't do anything because they would have fucked it up the way the fucked up Iraq and let Afghanistan go. They were like a bull in a china shop and we need smart and lethal but precise responses not merely bombing for the sake of doing something.

- jacksondyer

September 29, 2009 at 3:57pm

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

Nari said, "...While we're on the topic, can someone provide us with a list of just how many regimes/governments etc have "collapsed" after an assault by a foreign country? I'm sure there must be some that I'm just not thinking of since the people who propose this course of action are sure it will occur. I just can't think of any myself right now..." Oh, as a small sample, ever heard of the Taliban government of Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, South Vietnam, World War II, World War I etc, ad nauseum...

- malahat

September 29, 2009 at 4:16pm

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

What would TE Lawrence do?

- sighthnd

September 30, 2009 at 10:42am

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

bl462: Each of those examples that you list were invasions, not the limited external assault as we are discussing here. In other words, none of the governments that you listed collapsed after the first few days of American bombing. Each of them needed to be removed by troops on the ground. Or are you proposing that we invade Iran?

- Nari224

September 30, 2009 at 4:04pm

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

Nari, Oh, puhleeze. You didn't limit your question to "limited external assaults", you wrote, "...While we're on the topic, can someone provide us with a list of just how many regimes/governments etc have "collapsed" after an assault by a foreign country? I'm sure there must be some that I'm just not thinking of since the people who propose this course of action are sure it will occur. I just can't think of any myself right now."

- malahat

September 30, 2009 at 6:28pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close