The New York Times‘ Editorial Board fell into lock-step with the Obama administration yesterday, calling for the United States to impose additional sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I have so many disagreements with this article that it is difficult to know where to start, but here are three objections to their analysis.
1. The Board says, “We were glad to see Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warn China, which seems especially intractable, that it faces diplomatic isolation if it fails to back new sanctions.”
Does anyone seriously think that China is concerned about being “diplomatically isolated” if it refuses to go along with sanctions? It is hard to imagine what “diplomatic isolation” even means in a world in which China owns nearly one trillion dollars worth of U.S. treasuries.
Besides, Clinton is making a curious argument. She is, in effect, saying that China’s energy security requires that it join the United States in imposing additional sanctions. Not surprisingly, China seems to have concluded that, in fact, its interests are better served by preserving cooperative relations and increasing its energy agreements with the Islamic Republic, a country with enormous oil and natural gas reserves.
See this post by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett for more on China’s interests in Iran and its management of its “Persian Gulf dilemma.”
The Board also says that while additional sanctions must be pursued, “the door must remain open to negotiations.” But going down the sanctions path and engaging in good-faith diplomacy are mutually exclusive. It is wrongheaded to think that the Islamic Republic will negotiate with a country that is actively seeking to choke its economy. The idea that Iran might respond to sanctions by begging the United States to negotiate on the nuclear issue is pure fantasy.
Finally, the Times says near the end of its piece that “President Obama needs to speak out more strongly on behalf of Iranians who are peacefully seeking change. But the United States and its partners also must be very conscious of the fierce pride and independence of the Iranian people. Squaring that circle will be extremely hard, but it must be done.”
The problem with this statement is that negotiations cannot succeed if the Islamic Republic perceives that the United States is actively supporting its domestic opposition. It is wishful thinking to think that we can have it both ways.
– Ben Katcher
Fact Sheets of Iran-US Standoff: Twenty Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.
Please click on this link;
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/2093
I would agree that we should be aware of the psychology behind the actions of people and states. In the case of Israel, I think the psychological imperatives are obvious, and I don’t see any way of ameliorating them. My ideal U.S. policy for the Middle East would be 100% hands off. My second choice is establishing a strategic partnership with Iran to balance the U.S.-Saudi relationship. I would cut Israel off at the knees; they do nothing for the interests of the American people. The U.S.-Israel relationship was established by men long dead; my generation had no part in it and hence no obligation to maintain it. I am realist who echoes Palmerston: America has no friends (or almost none), only interests.
I just don’t think the psychology helps us find a way out of the current dilemma. So I don’t pay it much attention.
I think we all know that Israel and Iran once saw themselves as having mutual interests, but a return to those days doesn’t seem likely. I agree with your first paragraph except for two things: I don’t think the U.S. defense industry is a big impediment to U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. That industry would be happy to sell arms to Iran, if Iran and the U.S. were again on friendly terms. You’re confusing cause and result in this case. U.S. defense interests would love a friendly Iran; they simply are powerless to effect this. So they sell to Israel. Certainly there are few people in the world more amoral than arms merchants.
The second thing I differ with is your point about “if the U.S. behaved rationally . . .” Here we are discussing psychology again. Nations like human beings are rational some of the time at best. To posit that something will occur if only so-and-so behaved rationally is almost a counsel of despair. The Israelis often don’t behave rationally, as you yourself point out. Why expect Americans to do better?
I do enjoy your comments, despite the disagreements.
response to Jon Harrison -
As Race for Iran essays have pointed out several times, a US-Iran rapprochement supports US interests — economic, financial, and geostrategic — more than does sustaining a state of perpetual enmity. The two major obstacles to US-Iran rapprochement are Israel and the US defense industry. The US obstacles involve economic interests; if US behaved rationally, which it is capable of doing absent disproportionate influence from Israel advocates, US could come to a grand bargain with Iran.
Israel’s friction points with Iran, with whom it had had friendly as well as lucrative relations for many years, until 1. Khomeini’s rise put an end to an Iran-Israel oil transshipment arrangement that saw Iran shipping oil to a Rothschild-built pipeline to Eilat, whence Israel kept some for domestic use and sold the rest to Europe; and 2. the end of the Iran-Iraq war put an end to Iran’s function as ready market for Israeli weaponry that Israel had enjoyed,a continuation of Israel’s role as weapons supplier to the Shah. (see Ronen Bergman’s “The Secret War with Iran” for reporting on Iran’s 50-year long position as major customer to Israel’s arms merchants.)
That Israel is keen to reestablish the oil deal is suggested by Doug Feith’s pre-Iraq war bargain with Chalabi http dir dot salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/ Feith was, of course, at the core of the cabal that fixed intelligence to push US toward war in Iraq.
But I argue that Israel ‘psychological’ status is equally, if not more important to understand Israel’s beef with Iran, and inasmuch as Israel’s University of Pennsylvania prof. of political science Ian Lustick discussed Israel’s motivations in its current conflict with Iran in a conference in Seattle, WA in Dec. 2009 www dot edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv Lustick argued that the power of Holocaust in shaping Israeli perspective cannot be overemphasized, and he explained how Jabotinsky’s philosophy of the “Iron Wall” — Israeli overwhelming military might as a pedagogic tool to debilitate Arabs — is challenged by Iran.
I submit that it is a mistake to dismiss an understanding of the psychological forces that motivate Israel, particularly as Israel is heavily militarized, nuclear armed, and exercises disproportionate influence on US foreign policy.
We could argue about what constitutes a maked power grab, but that seems pointless. My definition of the term differs from John H’s. I’ll leave it at that.
Anything is possible? No. There are domestic political imperatives, geostrategic realities, and simple concepts like force-to-space ratios that make a land war with Iran, for example, impossible for the forseeable future.
I hope rfjk is right about the possibility of a grand bargain. Let’s assume for a moment that Iran is open to same. Does Obama have the political capital/guts/willingness to make it happen? I question whether he can defy the neocons and the Israelis over this. He’s shown himself to be relatively establishmentarian in outlook. In other words, he’s politically cautious — too cautious, in my view. But then the example of Dallas, Memphis, and Los Angeles must weigh on him, even if only subconciously.
I regard any attack on Iran as a desperate act. But Hillary just threatened Chinese oil supplies. And Obama seeks a big increase in funding for nukes. To me, these are not signs of a nation confident in its position. Rather, the US elites are behaving as if they have been rattled by the suddenness and extent of America’s decline–the emergence of China, lack of military success in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prospect of peak oil, massive foreign financial exposure, and weakness of the economy and financial markets, which will likely prove chronic. The convergence of these trends is eroding the very foundations of American primacy.
So, anything is possible. The past two decades have witnessed naked power grabs in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. As a result, we cannot consider naked power grabs to be out of the question. And they could justify the capture of some Iranian provinces under the guise that they are only being used as a bargaining chip to be returned when Iran starts “behaving correctly.” (Similar to how Israel justifies holding onto the Occupied Territories, but only because the Palestinian side refuses to respond to continual, generous Israeli peace offers.)
Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t work out because the locals fought back. What may prove attractive to delusional military planners is the fact most of the Iranian provinces bordering the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, and holding the bulk of natural gas, are very thinly populated. So resistance from the locals could theoretically be minimized. However, oil and natural gas investments require decades of security. Any occupation would require willful obliviousness, perhaps politically mandated, to the length and extent of security required. Given the delusion manifested in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t mis-underestimate the elites’ capacity for delusion.
I also don’t think a “grand bargain” as the Leverett’s have defined it is out of the question or fairy dust. Its just the US and Iran are in this dance and in the process of getting acquainted with its peaks and valleys. The US isn’t going anywhere, especially after 19 March 2003, and will be involved in the M/E as long as its in its national security interests.
Thank you both for those very interesting comments. They give one much to ponder. I do have to say that I don’t see U.S. military action coming against Iran, certainly not under this administration. Any occupation of Iranian territory would be beyond the ability of U.S. ground forces at the present time. Indeed, such a course would probably require reinstitution of the draft — a nonstarter politically. What may happen after this administration is gone is another matter, of course. The economic arguments John H. makes are quite interesting, but I don’t see the U.S. undertaking a naked power grab such as he outlines. I just don’t think it’s in the cards, for various reasons. I still believe the most important factor is Israel and the significant influence it has over U.S. policy.
This is only partially about oil. It’s mostly about natural gas, which Iran possesses in abundance. Gas is a different beast since it is produced as a gas, not a liquid. Gas is the emerging source of energy and will gain importance, perhaps predominance, as oil production stagnates and drops.
It’s not as simple as saying, “Iran can sell gas anywhere it wants.” There are good reasons why gas is normally piped, not shipped. As I said, pipelines are less conducive to American “protection” and financial intermediation. The US would like to force the market into liquefying the gas, which would more closely resemble today’s oil market finance, distribution, and “protection.”
I really doubt the US has an appetite for war with Iran. On the other hand, if it did, I don’t think China or especially Russia would stand in the way. An open war with Iran would be for the US what the invasion of the Afghanistan was for the USSR. Especially Russia, but maybe also China would welcome the sunset of the United States as a dominant power, and a war with Iran would certainly speed that process and it may even produce that result by itself.
Barring Israel, Iran would sell its oil to the highest bidder. The US Navy is what ensures the US has a veto, if it ever was to choose to exercise it, over all oil from the gulf region to Asia or Europe. The unilateral sanctions imposed by the US on Iran were authored by Israeli lobbying organizations for the explicit purpose of punishing Iran for supporting anti-Israel groups. There really is not a more complex explanation for US/Iranian hostility than Israel. Establishing and maintaining Israel despite regional opposition is a very expensive project the West, led by the US, has undertaken.
Here is why the US has decided not to attack Iran. It was written in 2007 and will remain valid at least until the US is no longer pursuing military objectives in Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901958.html
Beyond Iraq’s borders, the options become difficult: engaging in hot pursuit against weapon supply lines over the Iranian border or striking explosives factories and staging areas within Iran. This sort of escalation is opposed by the Iraqi government and American military leaders. The Defense Department fears what is called “escalation dominance” — meaning that in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs.
My concern is that the US is increasingly exhibiting signs that Iran is vital to the preservation of its hegemony. If Iran maintains its independent stance, the US would no longer be the guarantor of energy supplies to Europe and Japan. Iran could choose to sell wherever it could negotiate deals–China, India, Europe, etc. In that case, Japan and Europe would start to negotiate deals on their own, without the “indispensable party.” Germany already does this with Russia. These deals would be centered on long term pipeline contracts.
This would have dire consequences for the US and Britain:
1) the relevance of Wall Street would diminish, since long term contracts would supplant much spot and futures trading on Wall Street and in London.
2) the importance of the dollar would diminish because contracts could be negotiated in the currencies of the two parties (or even bartered) without dollar intermediation.
3) pipeline routes would have no need for US naval protection.
I worry that the US is drawing a line in the sand regarding Iran. The attitude is that Iran must be in the US sphere of influence, period. If Iran will not buckle under US pressure and China acquiesce in it, then the US will attack. The attack would not be as advertised. Its primary goal would not be Iranian nuclear facilities. Rather, after an air campaign targeting Iranian communications and transportation capabilities, it would focus on occupying oil-rich Khuzestan, next to Iraq and a coastal strip along the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. This would give the US effective control of key Iranian energy assets, particularly the giant South Pars natural gas field located under the Persian Gulf. It would ensure that natural gas would not flow by pipeline, but by tankers in liquefied form under US “protection.” It would be traded in dollars on British and American exchanges.
This is not an Israeli issue, though Israel’s public relations campaign alleging an existential threat is useful in making the case for war. It’s certainly an easier sell than trying to make Iran seem threatening to the US itself. Rather, issue the goes to the heart of American power–military, financial, and energy. Given these stakes, the movers and shakers may well feel compelled to attack, regardless of the risks. The alternative–watching their power erode even more–would simply be unthinkable.
Why would Pakistan or India retaliate against an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran? The Israelis have at least 200 nukes — plenty of counterstrike capability. In any case, I don’t think Pakistan at least has a delivery system capable of reaching Israel.
The Israelis would indeed care about 3 million casualties (probably an overestimate, by the way) because world opinion would turn decisively against them, endangering the existence of Israel and perhaps even of world Jewry.
It’s true that Israel exibits a disconnect between the values it professes and its actions. That’s called human nature. Everybody does it to some extent. No need to seek out psychobabblers for an explanation.
Thanks for the link regarding the submarines.
I tend to think Lysander’s on to seomthing when he talks about Russia and China tag-teaming to subvert any sanctions regime. Does everyone agree that the U.S. under Obama will not initiate military action against Iran? If you disagree, what scenario do you foresee that would lead to Obama ordering strikes? And would those of you who believe we are heading toward Israeli military action tell us what you think the timetable is? Does anyone think war is likely to be avoided?
Merely to ask the question is to acknowledge a profound malignancy in US foreign policy and relationships.
nb. the statistic quoted referred to bombing Isfehan, which is about 150-200 miles SE of Tehran. Tehran is situated on volatile earthquake fault lines, as is much of Iran. A penetrating blast such as the one contemplated could have a seismic impact.
Isfehan is an UNESCO world heritage site.
Possible effect of nuking Iran–maybe 3 million people dead within two weeks.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_weapons/technical_issues/the-robust-nuclear-earth.html
Would Israel really care? Of course, Pakistan and India, both have nukes. And either could nuke Israel in return. Would that alter Israel’s decision? or is the entire premise of the Israeli nuke program is that they don’t care if they go down, as long as they take everyone along with them?
here’s the link re nuclear retrofits of Israeli subs; it’s Sam Nunn’s outfit, NTI:
www dot nti.org/db/submarines/israel/import.html
re: the sub’s ability to be retrofitted with nuclear warheads (can’t find the original article that described the missiles; these two links refer to past Israeli sub purchases: www dot defenseindustrydaily.com/germany-may-sell-2-more-dolphin-subs-to-israel-for-117b-01528/
www dot washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html
regarding the ‘psychobabble,’ my only qualifications as a psychologist involve messing with my kids’ heads.
It does seem to me the Israeli population demonstrates a disconnect from values it claims to uphold. Abarbanel provides an explanation for the disconnect that seems to make sense. Evaluate it for yourself: www dot avigailabarbanel.me.uk/growing-insanity.html and “Israel’s Trauma Psychology and the Attack on Gaza” www dot avigailabarbanel.me.uk/gaza-2009-01-04.html
Israel’s communications/propaganda programs — the messages its government transmits to its people — seem calculated to keep the population in a persistent state of anxiety and attaches that anxiety to every Jewish Israeli’s sense of identity. Even more than spoken/written ‘propaganda’, Israel’s very landscape and architecture is designed to enforce Jewish identity with the land, which discombobulates both Jewish and Arab populations: see “Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation” www dot amazon.com/Hollow-Land-Israels-Architecture-Occupation/dp/1844671259/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264902679&sr=8-1
A final point — in contrast to the image many may have of Jews as culturally monolithic, there deep internal fissures among Israelis of differing national backgrounds. Russian Jews, roughly 12% of Israel’s Jewish population, are relative newcomers (post-1990) and experience what one writer has termed “reverse diaspora” — having to shift their Russian-Jewish identity to acclimate to an Israeli-Jewish identity. Then there are settlers, and ultra-orthodox, and Ethiopian Jews, and brash American Jews…
“Will China buckle or will China counter ?”
Good question. With Clinton making such a public warning, I’m inclined to think backing down would involve an intolerable loss of face. Of course the top diplomat would have known that so what was the game plan here? Publicly humiliate China so as to assert US dominance? Seems risky and with a small potential return.
OTOH, while I certainly can’t prove it, I’m going to guess that obstructing sanctions has been a tag team effort by Russia and China. In the past, it was Russia that was the main obstacle, absorbing most of the heat from the US. Then, when Russia appeared persuaded, China ran interference for a while. Now that the heat is on China, maybe it will relent and agree to sanctions…
…only to have Russia change its mind and become the wall in the way of US plans.
All this is pure speculation, of course. We will know in the next few weeks if it’s a good guess or not.
Jon Harrison said, “The positive aspect of this is that America will have to reorient itself in the world. Foreign commitments will have to decline whether the ruling class wills it or not; the size of government will have to shrink.”
The negative aspect of this is that America is getting increasingly desperate and pulling out all the stops against China and Iran. The ruling elites will not let their dreams of hegemony die lightly. These folks would gladly sacrifice the American economy if it meant they could remain in control. Sadly, they will probably sacrifice both, which is what ultimately happened to Britain a hundred years ago.
So the stars align in February 2010 for Obama’s drive for tightening the screws on Iran:
- Pro-sanction France presides over the UN Security Council on Feb. 1st
- China is pressured via a c.$6 Bn Taiwan arms sales with a 30 day fuse announced on Jan. 31st and neatly coinciding with the sanctions push
- China has also sustained a broadside in the politicized Google-hack and potential Google exit from the country, early Jan
- New anti-missile weaponry is announced in the Persian Gulf and Arab States, announced Jan 31st
- New York Times sounds the trumpet with a call to sanctions editorial, announced 31st
- A weakened Obama domestically looking to change the topic
Will China buckle or will China counter ?
It is clear that newcon Dennis Ross is calling the shots now on Iran.
Lets hope there is cop up.
Interesting thoughts, F.L. I’m not sure I buy the psychobabble on why Israel takes a punitive stance toward Iran. I’m also not aware that Germany builds subs capable of launching nuclear missiles, but on the other hand I don’t keep up with worldwide naval construction capabilities any more. Can anyone confirm the story?
But it’s true that U.S. Middle East policy since 1948 has been neocolonialist, at least in its effects. Worse, it has not served the interests of the American people. America came out of World War II too strong, too wealthy. As a result it never considered the need to conserve its strength. It’s been attempting too much since at least the time of LBJ. Contrast the world position and internal coherence of the United States in 1965 to that of today. With the exception of advances in a few areas (race relations, for example), the picture is one of decline. We fight luxury wars (Vietnam, Iraq), and create “prosperity” through overspending, over-borrowing, and depreciation of our currency. The bills are starting to come due now; Americans will witness a decline in their living standard (maybe a very sharp one) and a fall from their position as arbiters of world politics over the next 20 or so years.
The positive aspect of this is that America will have to reorient itself in the world. Foreign commitments will have to decline whether the ruling class wills it or not; the size of government will have to shrink. Perhaps a return to the more balanced federalism of the past will take place. Whether we find the leadership to get us there is the question; if we don’t, then our passage may be violent, and the country itself may come apart.
Certainly the Israeli connection and the strong influence over U.S. policy wielded by Israel and its supporters contribute to our problems. We are paying for participating in a crime, viz., throwing the Palestinians off the land they had occupied for centuries. One doesn’t make up for a tragedy (i.e., the Holocaust) by oppressing those who were not the cause of it. The Israelis are going to pay for their own misdeeds eventually. Israel should be compared to the medieval Crusader states. In time it will be overwhelmed — if not militarily, then demographically. At some point the more fecund Palestinians will demand their rights, and the world will support them. It is a peculiar tragedy to witness the Israeli people, through their mistaken attitudes and policies, dig their own graves.
Outstanding comment Fiorangela, Thank You!!
You may have a mastery over semantics, WigWag, but a careful look at your post seem to reveal nothing but a bunch of half truths and malice.
You talk about a “near universal consensus.” Can explain what that means?
WigWag, why do you hate Iran so much?
Why should Iran come “clean” to Western countries about its nuclear project while Israel is given pass to develop nuclear weapons?
If you can provide reasonable answers to these questions then readers will begin to take you seriously.
In a conference on Iran convened by Tikkun Olam blogger Richard Silverstein in Seattle, WA in December 2009, former AIPAC operative Keith Weissman said that in 1995 he worked with AIPAC in writing the executive order that Clinton signed, which enjoined American companies from contracting to work for/in Iran. That order resulted in the loss of a lucrative contract for an American company (Conoco), a contract that Khatami’s Iranian administration had deliberately sent America’s way as a gesture of good will. According to Weissman, the sanctions did not achieve what was intended in ‘changing Iran’s behavior;” it did work against American commercial as well as geopolitical interests. Why was that executive order (and the subsequent sanctions legislation) pursued? Because Israel needed it. Jewish-Israeli psychologist Avigail Abarbenel diagnosed WHY Israel needs to take a punitive stance toward Iran: to release the profound internal pressure Israelis feel at being perpetually re-traumatized by their government and their very landscape into believing that someone is out to get them: Abarbenal explains that Israelis can bottle up that pressure only so long; then it needs release in the form of violence, and it needs to justify that violence — find someone else to blame because Israel’s entire identity is involved in claiming Palestinian land as their own, but that act also damns them, according to their own proclaimed moral code. Iran is Israel’s ram caught in the thicket.
In the past fortnight Germany has proceeded with delivery to Israel of a submarine that Germans have reason to believe Israel will arm with nuclear warheads; the sub is intended to patrol the Persian Gulf.
In the past fortnight, Israeli diplomats and Bibi himself have held talks with Angela Merkel that have resulted in the revocation of at least two contracts that German firms had with Iran, to perform work on Iran’s Bandar Abbas port. Israel played the Holocaust card, and also claimed that the “Francop” shipment of weapons alleged to have come from Iran to Hamas/Hezbollah, had originated at Bandar Abbas; therefore, Germany MUST renounce those contracts with Iran or be seen as enabling a terrorist organization. Halting Germany’s participation in the repairs at Bandar Abbas will harm German commercial interests. Inasmuch as Russia or China will likely take up the contract to do the work, Iran will not be harmed. Why was that sanction imposed on Germany? At the behest of Israel.
But, Germany has other interests in the region: Germany recently signed multi-billion dollar contracts with Saudi Arabia and other UAE states to construct rail lines and photovoltaic/solar facilities on the Arabian peninsula. The purpose of the rail lines is to enable shipping to Red Sea ports and thence to Mediterranean, avoiding the Persian Gulf and, at least in Bibi’s and Angela’s fevered calculations, further economically strangling Iran.
For the life of me I can’t figure out why attempting to economically devastate a nation with 70million dynamic people and essential natural resources, would create stability rather than chaos.
A few days ago Barack Obama and Joe Biden told a meeting in Tampa, FL, that US taxpayers would (borrow money to) invest $8 billion in seed money in a rail system from Tampa to Orlando. A representative of US transportation industry welcomed the news, though he admitted that the US was well behind the times and technology needed for the project, and would likely have to buy the technology from European or Asian states.
At that same Tampa meet-up, a young Arab woman asked Mr. Obama why, in his defense of human rights internationally, why it was that Israel was not called to account for their systematic oppression of the human rights of the Palestinian people, which is subsidized with American taxpayer dollars and political cover? Obama did not have a rational response.
Connecting the dots: Israel oppresses Palestinians; Israel targets Iran for its actions in provided some measure of support to Palestinians; Israel bullies states that do business with Iran and those bullied states accede to Israeli demands, even at the cost of their own best interests. Partially in support of its ally Israel, the US has overextended itself on military investment to the extent that it is deficient in other competitive technologies such as high speed rail lines; but Israel is participating with other states — Germany and Saudi Arabia, for example — in investing in the Arab Peninsula and the creation of a new route to the Mediterranean that is intended to marginalize Iran.
One more dot: Bob Gates and David Petraeus have shamelessly flogged the “fear Iran” meme in order to sell US weapons to Arabian Peninsula states. Gates and Petraeus appeared at Manama Dialogs in 2008 and in 2009, urging UAE to “buy weapons, buy American, buy a lot,” because “Iran is a threat to whirled peas.”
Release of Israel guilt, lucrative contracts on the Arabian peninsula, and an arms race with the goal of enriching the US defense complex — THAT is what promoters of sanctions against Iran seek to achieve.
Do I “root for the failure of American policy,” wigwam? Damn right I do– or I would, if such madness could be considered ‘rational,’ ‘American’ and ‘policy’ in any meaningful sense of the terms.
Well, Wigwag, the “left” does seem to agree that a grand bargain is not achievable and the “right” also agrees. The left because the concessions with respect to Iran’s ability, in theory, to threaten Israel that the West would demand would be more than Iran could reasonably accept. The right because Iran would demand to retain too much independence, that it could use to threaten Israel than the West could reasonably accept. So the left and right agree, and their reasoning is the same and it is probably correct.
By the same terms, the left and the right agree that there cannot be a two state solution to the conflict over Zionism. The left thinks Israel’s basic interests demand more than is reasonable for the Palestinians to accept. The right thinks Palestine inherently would demand more than is reasonable for the Israelis to accept. Again, both saying the same thing, both right.
But that does not mean only a fringe disagrees with the left and right as they are presented here. In both cases, there are many voices that consider themselves reasonable that for one reason or another do not accept that the two sides in each discussion have exclusive interests that cannot reasonably be reconciled.
But there is far wider agreement that the sanctions Katcher is arguing against will harm US interests, whether or not a grand bargain can be reached. With or without a grand bargain, the small bargain struck by Bush and the Iranians that led to the 2007 NIE and also led to a decrease in Iranian support for Iraqi militias saved hundreds, maybe thousands of lives of US troops and also was to Iran’s benefit.
If Obama follows your advice, as well as that of the New York Times, and disregards the advice of the Leveretts’ it will result in an unnecessary increase in hostility with Iran, unnecessary US troop deaths, unnecessary instability in Afghanistan and Iraq and will not slow Iran’s nuclear program or improve the US position in the Middle East over the short or long term.
In fact, sanctions will not accomplish anything if they are a necessary step before a war that the US already knows would be counter-productive for US interests, then that is not accomplishing anything. Maybe some perceive the US to have an interest in Iranians being unemployed for its own sake as long as punishment for Iran not accepting Israel, but that takes us back down the path to dead US soldiers that is clearly contrary to US interests.
Wigwag is certainly skilled at mouthing the conventional wisdom–”the overwhelming consensus of foreign policy professionals on the right, on the left and in between is that [negotiations] is a fool’s errand.”
Unfortunately, the real fool’s errand has been following the advice of US foreign policy professionals. They got it totally wrong on the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Shah. More recently they got it wrong Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they expect us to believe their group-thinking nonsense on Iran.
And Wigwag is wrong. Most foreign policy professionals don’t agree. It’s mostly Western foreign policy professionals who agree. Those is Russia and China don’t seem to buy all the phony baloney of their elite Western counterparts.
But let’s get to what Ben asked–what do these self selected, group thinking professionals intend to achieve? What will sanctions accomplish beyond chest thumping and kicking the can down the road? Answer–probably nothing.
So why bother?
The only alternatives are negotiations (never pursued seriously) and war. Given fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan, chances of success in Iran seem pretty slim. Policy planners in Washington certainly must realize this.
So what’s the point of all the chest thumping if the prospects for success of sanctions and their likely sequel–war–are equally dim?
The only explanation I can think of is to justify those never ending, double digit increases in “defense” spending. They certainly don’t advance the interests of the
West in any discernible way.
WigWag, don’t sugarcoat your views — tell us how you really feel!
Are “the Europeans” bigger Iran hawks than the Americans? The French government, okay, but I don’t have the impression that Europe as a whole is as concerned about Iran as is the U.S. That aside, though, I agree with what you say.
If military action takes place it will be Israeli, not American — at least while B.O. is president.
I’m not so sure that the Leverett-Katcher view is as out of the mainstream as you believe. As regards the policy community, you’re correct; but then George Ball was out of the mainstreamn on Vietnam in 1965. Should one give up one’s views because they are unfashionable? As regards American society as a whole, I think you will see more and more that in the face of economic and social challenges, the American people will incline toward a hands-off policy as regards Iran, and other places as well.
As to the reasons behind sanctions, I have to agree with you, WigWag. Those are largely the reasons. I would add to that an attempt to halt Iran’s economic development, which would give even more regional power and influence than it has now. It would make it the strongest nation in the middle east by far. In fact, in my view maintaining sanctions is far more important for the west than halting the nuclear program.
Which is why I also, from a very different perspective, agree with WigWag that a grand bargain was never a real possibility. It would require the US deal with Iran on a basis resembling equality. That it would have to make concessions to Iran, not just demand them. Among those concessions would be lifting all sanctions, something the US is loath to do.
Funny you should mention Christopher Marlow among the other conspiracies. His death almost certainly was an Elizabethan conspiracy. And while he didn’t produce Shakespeare’s works, had he lived a normal lifespan, I’m certain he would have produced a comparable body of work.
As for China, I certainly can’t speak for Ben or the Levertts. But for myself, I find most US/Israeli policies detestable and so if anyone thwarts them, Iran or China, fine by me. The Leveretts likely are of the opinion that the US would be better able to compete geopolitically with Russia and China if Iran were an ally of ours rather than theirs. Which is true, but it assumes the US will make concessions to Iran it is simply unprepared to countenance.
Have a good day,
Lysander
It’s hard to understand how an otherwise intelligent young man like Ben Katcher is so mystified by “what promoters of sanctions seek to achieve.”
Isn’t it perfectly obvious?
Diplomats in the Obama Administration and the editorial writers at the New York Times aren’t stupid; they fully understand that any sanctions regime that is imposed is unlikely to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons if it is chooses to develop them.
Imposing sanctions kicks the ball down the field and buys the Administration time. Sanctions placate the Europeans who are bigger “Iran hawks” than Obama is. Sanctions are a necessary prerequisite to an American military strike against Iran (or American support for an Israeli strike) if that’s the direction the Administration decides to take. In the event that Iran does acquire nuclear weapons (leaving deterrence as the only option for containing Iran) sanctions provide the Administration with an excuse; at least the Administration will be able to say, “we tried something; unfortunately it didn’t work.”
As for the approach the Leveretts and Katcher recommend; forging a grand bargain; it’s increasingly clear that the overwhelming consensus of foreign policy professionals on the right, on the left and in between is that this approach is a fool’s errand. Grand bargain advocates are increasingly viewed as a fringe element now being relegated to the sidelines where they can commune with others of their kind like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, those who think the Americans (or Israelis) used a “death ray” to cause the Haiti earthquake and those who think Christopher Marlowe actually authored the plays “attributed” to Shakespeare.
It’s fine if Katcher wants to align himself with this fringe point of view; who knows, maybe it’s even a good career move. But do we really need Katcher to feign ignorance about what sanction supporters are trying to accomplish?
He knows perfectly well what they are trying to accomplish.
As for the Leveretts, I wonder if they entertain the fantasy that they will ever be able to work as diplomats again. It’s one thing to disagree with the policies of George W. Bush or Barack Obama; it’s another thing to actively root for those policies to fail. The tenor of the posts on this blog makes clear that they’re not just expecting China to thwart American policy on Iran; they’re rooting for China to thwart American policy. In this, they are alot like Chas Freeman whose only regret was that the Chinese were not more brutal in Tiananmen Square than they were.
A near universal consensus has developed that sanctions against Iran are the way to go; realists may disagree, but the whole realist school of foreign policy is increasingly anachronistic and now almost completely marginalized.
Rooting for the failure of American policy is fine for bloggers, it hardly seems like a recipe for future success in the foreign policy establishment.
I hope the Leveretts plan to maintain the “Race for Iran” far into the future. It’s about the only place that their ideas are likely to be taken seriously.
.