Iran, Iran, Iran: What Is To Be Done?
Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek that we have to face the fact that we have no good options on Iran:
At best a strike would set back Iran’s program by a few years. But it would inflame public opinion there and unify the nation in its determination to go nuclear. It is a substantial country—with three times the population of Iraq, for example—that has a powerful sense of national pride. And Iran would have many ways of retaliating, especially with 140,000 American troops next door in Iraq.
Sanctions will not work. Iran is the world’s second largest oil exporter, with tens of billions of dollars in surplus cash these days. If we have few sticks, we also have few carrots. It’s probably worth offering a package of real benefits—mostly as a signal to the Iranian people that we want good relations with them in return for cooperation on nukes—but I have no illusions that it would be accepted. The current regime does not want good relations with the West. It knows that more trade, contact and collaboration only undermine its grip on its society.
Zakaria argues instead for a policy of containment, a sort of new cold war:
This does not mean accepting a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran is many years away from nuclear weapons. Its program is not that sophisticated, and moving to a serious weapons capability isn’t that easy, particularly if there is a concerted global effort to slow it down. The regime in Iran is not stable and the fissures in Iran will only grow. Regime change, however, is not going to take place at our will and on our timetable. Outside forces can help. But we will slow change in Iran if we feed the feeling that America is humiliating it. Let us not believe one more time that people in a foreign country will welcome American bombs with sweets and flowers.
Wow, that’s some ending; why the obligatory shot in an otherwise serious piece?
Leaving that aside, perhaps Zakaria is right…but it’s worth noting there are other players in this drama who may have something to say about its outcome:
Israel’s defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.
“Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing,” Shaul Mofaz said.
His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.
Germany’s defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program, but argued that “all options” should remain open.
Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: “Yes, we need all options.”
French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.
It appears that Zakaria is perhaps underestimating the opposition to Iran worldwide; this appears to have all the makings of a truly pan-Western coalition…
Payback’s A Bitch
Problem is that I fear nothing short of actually attacking the Iranian facilities and destabilizing the Iranian mullahs and the nutter Ahmadinejad will result in deterrence from their stated goals of obtaining nuclear weapons, using them on Israel, a…
There is a case for a regime change via a ground invasion of Iran.
See:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php
How come nobody has discussed the possibility of arming and training Iranian opposition groups? Assuming there are groups with credible claims to support of the Iranian people, such a route would lead to the single most desirable outcome — regime change — and would have the added benefit of distracting Iran from their efforts to meddle in Iraq.
Doubtful that will happen – see Bay of Pigs for reference.