September 28, 2009--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran
What sense can be made of the Iranians desire to have nuclear weapons when they know that this will inevitably unleash the Israelis and/or the US, if I am getting the implications of Barack Obama’s tough talk over the weekend? And what beyond an increased sense of threat might be motivating Obama to speak out right now so forcefully when, according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on CNN yesterday, we have known that the Iranians have been working on a uranium enrichment facility for, to quote him, “two to three years”?
Interrupting the G-20 Summit, with Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy at his side, a grim-faced Obama announced that we now know that one of Iran’s newer nuclear facilities is for certain being used to produce weapons grade fissionable materials and that if they do not allow inspectors to visit the underground plant within two weeks there will be serious consequences. Additional sanctions and who know what else, with the latter threat undoubtedly meaning the possibility of military action.
Anyone who knows even a little about the region understands that if the US and Britain and France are talking this way the Israelis must already be pressing to attack and that they are only being restrained because we are promising that we will do something about the situation. Direct talks with the Iranians are set to begin later this week and, it now appears, if there aren’t some quick concessions from the Iranians it cannot be too long after that that we give more than serious consideration to bombing their nuclear plants.
What logic might be driving Iranian thinking when they know the likely outcome is that they will be attacked? Don’t they know that the Israelis at a minimum will not sit still while they face the existential threat of being nuked by the Iranians? Wouldn’t any prudent leaders, when faced with such overwhelming opposition, look for ways to moderate their position while extracting all sorts of concessions from the West? None of this seemingly irrational, self-destructive behavior makes sense unless, seemingly perversely, the Iranians actually want to be attacked.
Why might that be? The ultimate leadership there, knowing full well from the violent dissent that racked their country after the recent national elections, realizing from this that their own hold on power might be precarious, they could be looking for ways to stifle that opposition and unify the nation. One way that would be certain to work would be to provoke an attack on their country. Nothing unites a people more effectively than being attacked by an external enemy. Look at how the opposition to what turned out to be the Second World War evaporated in Britain and the United States after the Germans bombed London and the Japanese Pearl Harbor. And closer to home, look what the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center did to the political opposition to George Bush after 9/11. When he spoke to Congress and the American people shortly after the attack he was received like a hero and his approval ratings shot up to more than 80 percent. I for one cried while listening to him speak and supported all of his actions right up until he unnecessarily manipulated us into invading Iraq.
So think about how after attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities the very same people who rallied in the streets in opposition to Ahmadinejad, while calling for America to intervene, will be back in the streets this time burning Obama and Netanyahu in effigy while extolling their Supreme Leader.
And then Obama himself may have some political motivations that are not at first apparent for getting tough with Iran. Most obviously his new posture might be designed to restrain the Israelis while giving the Iranians another last chance to come to the table ready to negotiate. This wouldn’t be a bad idea.
But then he has other, even more complicated foreign policy and military decisions on his plate. Foremost among these is what to do about Afghanistan. Clearly his generals and his Secretary of State and the hawks in Congress are pressuring him to send at least another 40,000 troops to the region. On the other side there appears to be Joe Biden who, thankfully, remembers Vietnam and who it is said is counseling Obama to rethink his current commitment to expand the war against the Taliban. Recall that just a few months ago, in March, Obama announced a new strategy for the region that called for the dispatch of an additional 21,000 soldiers, and now to reject the generals’ new plan for even more he would have to reverse himself. Never an easy thing for a president and even more complicated for a new president with few foreign policy credentials.
But perhaps Obama is having second thoughts about his own Afghanistan policy and wants to reverse course and focus on al Qaeda rather than nation building. To the militarists this would look like wimpy behavior. Like surrender.
If on the other hand, while changing course in Afghanistan, Obama was at the same time gearing up to bomb Iran, or minimally allowing the Israelis to do it as our surrogates, it would befuddle his opposition and maybe even serve to unite support behind him at a time when his own approval ratings have been falling and thereby jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.
Perhaps this view is all to Machiavellian. But what appears to be happening doesn’t make much sense if thought about in traditional ways. Perhaps then there is some other inner logic at work where the truth might be found. At least I hope that someone is thinking clearly.
Interrupting the G-20 Summit, with Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy at his side, a grim-faced Obama announced that we now know that one of Iran’s newer nuclear facilities is for certain being used to produce weapons grade fissionable materials and that if they do not allow inspectors to visit the underground plant within two weeks there will be serious consequences. Additional sanctions and who know what else, with the latter threat undoubtedly meaning the possibility of military action.
Anyone who knows even a little about the region understands that if the US and Britain and France are talking this way the Israelis must already be pressing to attack and that they are only being restrained because we are promising that we will do something about the situation. Direct talks with the Iranians are set to begin later this week and, it now appears, if there aren’t some quick concessions from the Iranians it cannot be too long after that that we give more than serious consideration to bombing their nuclear plants.
What logic might be driving Iranian thinking when they know the likely outcome is that they will be attacked? Don’t they know that the Israelis at a minimum will not sit still while they face the existential threat of being nuked by the Iranians? Wouldn’t any prudent leaders, when faced with such overwhelming opposition, look for ways to moderate their position while extracting all sorts of concessions from the West? None of this seemingly irrational, self-destructive behavior makes sense unless, seemingly perversely, the Iranians actually want to be attacked.
Why might that be? The ultimate leadership there, knowing full well from the violent dissent that racked their country after the recent national elections, realizing from this that their own hold on power might be precarious, they could be looking for ways to stifle that opposition and unify the nation. One way that would be certain to work would be to provoke an attack on their country. Nothing unites a people more effectively than being attacked by an external enemy. Look at how the opposition to what turned out to be the Second World War evaporated in Britain and the United States after the Germans bombed London and the Japanese Pearl Harbor. And closer to home, look what the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center did to the political opposition to George Bush after 9/11. When he spoke to Congress and the American people shortly after the attack he was received like a hero and his approval ratings shot up to more than 80 percent. I for one cried while listening to him speak and supported all of his actions right up until he unnecessarily manipulated us into invading Iraq.
So think about how after attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities the very same people who rallied in the streets in opposition to Ahmadinejad, while calling for America to intervene, will be back in the streets this time burning Obama and Netanyahu in effigy while extolling their Supreme Leader.
And then Obama himself may have some political motivations that are not at first apparent for getting tough with Iran. Most obviously his new posture might be designed to restrain the Israelis while giving the Iranians another last chance to come to the table ready to negotiate. This wouldn’t be a bad idea.
But then he has other, even more complicated foreign policy and military decisions on his plate. Foremost among these is what to do about Afghanistan. Clearly his generals and his Secretary of State and the hawks in Congress are pressuring him to send at least another 40,000 troops to the region. On the other side there appears to be Joe Biden who, thankfully, remembers Vietnam and who it is said is counseling Obama to rethink his current commitment to expand the war against the Taliban. Recall that just a few months ago, in March, Obama announced a new strategy for the region that called for the dispatch of an additional 21,000 soldiers, and now to reject the generals’ new plan for even more he would have to reverse himself. Never an easy thing for a president and even more complicated for a new president with few foreign policy credentials.
But perhaps Obama is having second thoughts about his own Afghanistan policy and wants to reverse course and focus on al Qaeda rather than nation building. To the militarists this would look like wimpy behavior. Like surrender.
If on the other hand, while changing course in Afghanistan, Obama was at the same time gearing up to bomb Iran, or minimally allowing the Israelis to do it as our surrogates, it would befuddle his opposition and maybe even serve to unite support behind him at a time when his own approval ratings have been falling and thereby jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.
Perhaps this view is all to Machiavellian. But what appears to be happening doesn’t make much sense if thought about in traditional ways. Perhaps then there is some other inner logic at work where the truth might be found. At least I hope that someone is thinking clearly.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
7:22 AM
2 Comments:
Steven -
I think the "want to be attacked" is a stretch. No country developing a atomic bomb has been attacked to prevent it from completing the task. (You may say, "What about Iraq?". But Iraq was not developing a bomb; it was attacked for other reasons.) And whether or not Iran really needs an atomic bomb to advance its political objectives - building a modern army and navy that you can actually deploy would probably be a better use of resources - it is unlikely that it will be attacked or if the threat of attack became real it would not have the opportunity to obfuscate, delay and change course if necessary.
If you are serious about destroying nuclear production facilities in Iran, that means persuading and enlisting other countries. Technically, you could plan on landing Army Corp of Engineer units (I guess today that may mean hiring Haliburton) and landing forces to hold areas around sites until they are destroyed and then leaving. How would you convince the Europeans and at least Russia (the US and Russia can’t disarm if others are arming so potentially there is a common interest) that this is a good idea and can be carried out without destroying other Iranian infrastructure? Of course, if this really got into the planning stage, Iran would have to drop development of a bomb.
But much of the problem here is our rhetoric about overthrowing the current government in Iran plus the way we have handled Iraq. And like Iraq, we can’t be sure that Iran is developing a bomb. Saddam Hussein saw great benefit in just pretending and the Iranians may be doing that too. It is a lot cheaper than actually building a bomb.
Jared
About your latter point we agree.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home