There’s a fascinating debate going on over on Winds of Change on the situation in Iran and the U. S.’s proper course of action. There are commenters right, left, and center and, while contentious, the discussion is for the most part civil as one would expect from WoC.
As I see it the consensus view on Iran is something like this:
- Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons development program
- with the materials and equipment currently in hand they should be in a position to have a nuclear weapon in hand in a timeframe of within two years
- thereafter they should be able to produce additional weapons at the rate of roughly three a year
- given Iran’s longstanding support for terrorist groups and their frequent threats against the United States and Israel this is troubling
In the thread Trent Telenko and Tom Holsinger take the position that the U. S. should invade Iran immediately to prevent further development of nuclear weapons by Iran (they believe there’s an imminent threat and that a bombing campaign would be insufficiently effective).
Left-leaning (but sane) commenter Davebo more than holds his own with a number of pointed and relevant questions.
I attempt to hew to a more centrist position and urge a number of actions short of either bombing or invasion. I do believe that the situation is urgent and requires that some action be taken now for any measures short of actual shootin’ war to be effective.
As I identify discussions going on elsewhere in the blogosphere on this issue I’ll link to them in updates to this post.
Like you, I’m doing more listening than talking about this issue. Rather than jump into the WoC discussion, I have a few questions of you. Namely, the discussion seems to overlook the fact that, by most accounts, Iran currently has medium-range missle capability that could target Israel and Europe, not the US. Assuming this is true (correct me I’m if wrong), it means that the US risk is much less than that Israel, barring other delivery means or missle enhancement. Does that change anyone’s view of the extent of the threat to the US? And how far are we willing to go to bat for an ally?
Part of me is very pessimistic about our ability to halt the march of nuclear proliferation. Surely the Saudis can buy or develop their own bomb. Pakistan is a coup away from being another Islamist hornet’s nest. I think we’ve reached the inevitable brave new world that Cicero alluded to a few weeks ago.
We’ve got 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and major bases all over the area in striking distance of an Iranian medium-range missile. That puts us at risk. So Israel isn’t the only or even the most important consideration we have.
This described situation doesn’t appear to be distinguishable from North Korea, an Axis of Evil member, where US military bases are exposed to the similar risks. One could argue that Iran’s radical religious leadership is more volatile than the leadership of NK, I suppose. It also strikes me that we were in the nature of a volunteer as to the 150,000 troops, in that we chose to be there and presumably accepted the related risks. Should those risks be too high, we can always pull the troops out of harm’s way.
The main difference is that North Korea is highly isolated. They could do some damage, but the amount of unrest they can provoke in that part of the world is very limited. Obviously, if they can sell their weapons to terrorist groups, and find it advantageous to do so, that math goes out the window.
Not so with Iran, which lies amidst a hotbed.
Applying a neo-Jeffersonian tact, I’m trying to realistically assess whether Iran presents a regional problem that the US can opt out of. The US military base rationale troubles me because it can eliminate the notion that any conflict is regional- we’ve got bases and deployments worldwide. Makes it a bit difficult to be an isolationist, put it that way. Like Tom and Dave, I view a nuclear Iran as a horrific threat to civilization. Friday’s comments by Ahmadinejad reinforce that perception.
Check out the blog Arms Control Wonk for some excellent back and forth on the technical aspects of things, and how the missile program relates to the a-bomb program. It’s not altogether simple.
National sovereignty. Iran is a recognized nation (govt controls territory and borders, UN member, etc.). As such, under the principals of the Treaty of Westphalia of the early 1600s, Iran can do what it wishes. E.g. the US undertook the Manhattan Project; Iran can withdraw from the NPT and proceed to legally develop atomic weapons and matching delivery systems.
100% legal and unexceptional.
The mullahs at the same time reject the limitations of the nation-state, and act as they see fit, according to their own standards. Examples include support of Hezbollah and the bombing of US Marines in Beirut, the Salman Rushdie fatwa and the attempted murders of Satanic Verses translators in various places, the bombing of Jewish centers in South America, attacks on Americans in Saudi Arabia, sending shaped-charge devices into Iraq, operating militarily and politically in Iraq through cutouts, and support of the al-Qaeda leadership.
See under Cake, having it and eating it, too.
The rest of the world has no paradigm for dealing with the Iranian approach. Most people want to avoid conflict by playing split-the-difference. Not a very promising approach. As with Iraq in 2002/03, many governments view these events through a much more parochial lens, “forget about overarching philosophy; what’s in it for me?” So we can expect that China and Russia, the UN Secretariat, and possibly France, will be opposed to most solutions that would be acceptable to the US. As they see it, the dangers that the mullahs pose to a US-dominated world order aren’t bugs, they are features.
My two cents.
Actually, at their worst, the Iranians aren’t doing anything that the US hasn’t done in the immediate past, or even right now.
Rejecting the nation-state? What’s all the “globalization” about? (In fact Iranians are deeply nationalistic, and their brand of Islam is unique to mostly just Iran.)
Support for terrorists? Gee, were they the ones supporting nun-raping death squads in Central America….wait, no, I’m pretty sure it was us.
The allegation that Iran was behind the Argentinian bombing suffered a fatal blow when the British courts released the Iranian ambassador and refused to extradite him to Argentina, because the Argentinians weren’t able to bring any actual evidence of an Iranian role.
Same goes for the allegation that Iran sent shaped charges or IEDs to Iraq — The Brits withdrew the charge, and a US general flatly contradicted Rumsfeld on that point. In fact the Iraqis themselves are perfectly capable of building shaped charges.
The Rushdie “fatwa” — it wasn’t a fatwa, and in any case the Iranians announced they aren’t going to carry it out.
Operating in Iraq? Why they heck WOULDN’T they do so? Perfectly to be expected. Why would we be allowed to operate there and not them? Heck, it seems to me that the Iranian-supported Shiites are the only ones holding the place together and winning elections while the Sunnis have sided with the Jihadists and Baathists.
Hass, here’s the the issue with a spirited defense of the mullah’s policies: if you make your bed with the Islamofascists, you may end up lying in it. That may or may not be a problem for you; obviously it’s pretty congenial for some. Others of us would say, ‘no thanks.’
WHo is making their bed with Islamofascists? It was the US that supported Saddam (OK so he wasn’t Islamic but he was a fascist) and the Taliban, and currently the Saudis and the Israeli Zionists (who are religious fascists) and the Pakistanis…the list is long.