Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a parliamentary committee that Iran will have the technology to build a nuclear weapon by early next year.
Putting aside the accuracy of this claim for the moment, it is important that the Obama administration not allow Israel to set an artificial time clock to end “engagement” with the Islamic Republic and move toward sanctions and threats.
The best way to ensure that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear capabilities do not pose a threat to U.S. interests is to move toward a more normal and cooperative relationship with Iran. That requires a sustained commitment to bilateral negotiations on a broad array of issues including, but not limited to the nuclear issue.
There is no military or diplomatic “solution” to Iran’s nuclear program as long as the bilateral relationship continues to be dominated by threats and mistrust.
– Ben Katcher
I appreciate the valuable inside story you recommend in your post. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here often. I am rather sure they will study a huge of new stuff here than anybody else!
My personal opinion, Lysander, is that you’ve made a much better choice with “Lysander” than you would have with “Hector.” After all, despite his bravery and his chivalry, Hector came to a rather unpleasant end.
Cheers and thanks for the civil debate!
I appreciate the classical references. Had I been going for that motif I would call myself Hector. Rather it is after Lysander Spooner, abolitionist and anti government activist in civil war days. Not nearly as handsome as the beloved of Hermia, though.
You are correct that we can only speculate what a hypothetical Iranian government would do. But I can guess with some accuracy what US/Israeli policy will be. Neither will willingly accept an Iran as powerful as all Iranians would like to be.
Think of it. If the US were to lift all sanctions on Iran right now…and no Iranian government would accept anything less…investment dollars would flood the country by the 10s of billion, per year. Within a decade, Iran could eclipse Israel as the economic and technical powerhouse of the middle east. It would eclipse Saudi Arabia in wealth. It could dwarf any regional military power.
I agree that you and I do not know what policies such an Iran would adopt. Neither do the US or Israel and neither will be inclined take the chance. That is why, even if the opposition takes power, and even if they are highly motivated to repair relations with the west, my guess is they will not be able to. They will find that for reconciliation, the US will demand a whole lot more than simply an end to their nuke program and more than toned down support for Hizbullah.
The US will want a relationship akin to that with Pakistan. They will want to have a say in who the future defense minister will be. Who will be the interior minister. Who gets promoted in the Army. Their intel services will have to get close to the CIA. The Iranians have already been down that road. I don’t think they want to go down there again. When the opposition realizes that this is what is required for better relations, I suspect they will find themselves following much the same policies as now. And they will be maligned in western press as “no different” from the previous regime. After all, they are not going to give away their nuke program for free…if at all.
Another point is the subject of brutality. While we can all condemn the death of innocents, Iran’s current government far more closely approaches democracy than any other middle eastern country except for Turkey and possibly Lebanon. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (close US allies) are much much worse. Israel is better if you count only Jewish citizens. Add in Palestinians and their record…leaves something to be desired.
While we can only make educated guesses at what a future Iranian government will do, I I have no doubt what the US will do. It will not matter who is president.
Best wishes and Happy New year.
First of all, Lysander, you have a lovely and musical name. Are you the namesake of the Spartan General who defeated the Athenians at Aegospotami to bring the Peloponnesian War to an end or are you named for the beloved of Hermia?
Either way, I am jealous; your name is delightful.
As for your comment, I don’t see any contradiction between my hope for victory on the part of the freedom fighters and my concern about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
1) You say that even if a new regime is swept into power and the conservative Mullahs vanquished, Iran’s nuclear policies would remain the same. The truth is that you may be right and you may be wrong; neither you nor I know what a new Iranian regime will decide to do about the development of nuclear weapons. We do know that during the presidential campaign, both Mousavi and Laranjani said that they supported Ahmadinejad’s nuclear policies. But there’s alot of water under the bridge since the disputed elections. A substantial portion of the freedom fighters are young students and the educated elite who favor a rapprochement with the west in general and the United States in particular. If a new regime is swept into power this element of society will be far more influential than it is now so it is possible (but not certain) that a new government might moderate its views on nuclear weapons. Certainly if the freedom fighters are successful Rafsanjani will be rehabilitated and most people believe that on the nuclear issue he plays a moderating role. I certainly understand the irony of mentioning Rafsanjani and democracy in the same sentence but if he did play a moderating role it would be good for the United States and the west and good for Iran.
2) The elements of society who most vociferously oppose Khamenei and Ahmadinejad (and who can expect to be empowered by a new regime) are far more skeptical of their nation’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah than the current regime is. I don’t doubt that any government in Iran will support Hamas and Hezbollah but I think it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that a new government will do so with considerably less vigor. Remember it was just a few short months ago when tens of thousands took to the streets during “Jerusalem Day” to chant “No to Hezbollah; No to Hamas; Yes to Iran.” Empowering people who express this sentiment is good for Iran, good for America, good for the West and good for Israel.
3) A new government is bound to be more liberal than the current government so prospects for Iranian minority groups especially the B’hai but also the Sunni (and also the Kurds) are bound to improve. Regardless of the policy a new government adopts on the nuclear issue, less brutal treatment for minority groups is something all decent people should be able to rally around. Don’t you think?
4) Contemplating some sort of deal with an Iranian Government, even if its not the “grand-bargain” advocated by the Leveretts, is far more palatable if the regime is not run by a bunch of murdering thugs which the current one is. One of my objections to the Leverett’s approach is that negotiating with a government that shots down its own students; uses monsters on motor scooters to enforce dress codes for women and assassinates its political opponents (e.g. Ali Mousavi) is to repeat the mistake of overthrowing Mossedeigh. The United States overthrew democracy in Iran once; supporting the thugs against the student demonstrators would be to repeat the mistake all over again. Whatever you may think of Khamemei and Ahmadinejad and what ever Flynt Leverett may think of them, it is increasingly obvious that a large and growing proportion of Iranians think they lack legitimacy. Tens of thousands of Iranians are so convinced of this that they are willing to put life and limb at risk to object to the regime’s abuses. Negotiating with a regime that lacks legitimacy makes the United States the enemy of the Iranian people.
5) It is entirely possible that a new Iranian government would continue to pursue policies pertaining to nuclear weapons that even if legal under the NPT are still unacceptable to me and to large portions of the Western World. If that happens, I would still support whatever actions are necessary to inhibit Iran’s nuclear aspirations, including military action. But there is ample evidence to suggest that it is at least reasonably possible that a new Iranian regime, anxious to reach out to the West might be more malleable on the nuclear issue.
More malleable on the nuclear issue, more liberal, and less brutal to its own people.
What could be better than that Lysander?
You know wig wag, I’m really hoping for a revolution in Iran so I can witness your contortions of logic when the new government persues the exact same policies as now. It is in iran’s national interest to have a nuclear program, a space/missile program. It’s in their interest to have the greatest possible influence in Iraq Afghanistan and Lebanon. That will not change with a new government. Iranians will want to be the strongest nation in the middle east no matter who is in charge.
Israel (and therefore wig wag) will not want that…no matter who is in charge.
Demonstrators throughout Iran are chanting “Death to Khamenei.” Amazingly the Supreme Leader is now being compared by Iranian demonstrators to the most notorious figure in Shia history, Yazid (murderer of Hussein). Thugs at the behest of the Iranian Government have martyred Ali Mousavi. Shia religious figures in Qom are being kidnapped, intimidated and arrested. Demonstrators have now turned their anger at the Basij militia and police who they are attacking with a vengeance.
About all of this we hear nothing from Ben Katcher (or Flynt Leverett or Hillary Mann Leverett). It seems that the upheaval in Iran doesn’t fit in with their preconceived narrative so they’re just going to ignore it. I guess the message Flynt Leverett in particular needs to ponder is the message the Iranian demonstrators are delivering to him and everyone else loudly and clearly; “we’re planning a revolution-get over it.”
While Iran burns, Katcher treats us to a mindless post constructed around testimony Ehud Barak gave to a Knesset Committee.
Ignoring a huge story in Iran while hyping a trivial story about Barak is perfectly emblematic of the obtuse commentary offered by the proprietors of this blog.
Come on Ben Katcher, I know you can do better than this!