First, thanks for your response. It’s very interesting for me to hear someone who, with the same set of facts, comes to such a different conclusion. All-too-often policy/ideas come primarily from a lack of information and, once all have the same “set of facts” everyone agrees.
I think we both agree on the “long-long term” goals: in short, an Iran that is a capitalistic member of the "community of nations. I think we agree on the power of capitalism and trade (to a large degree), and I think we agree in the inherent “right” of countries to be free.
Where we disagree seems to be on the “paths” to obtaining our goals. I strive to “live in” the short/mid-term in my analysis. I’m always asking myself what will happen tomorrow if a plan is implemented. You seem to be skipping over the tomorrows in favor of the “long-long term,” if I am not mis- understanding you. Also, I think you tend to “jump to the ‘logical’ conclusions” of arguments whereas I am trying to “muddle through” the middle of them. I’ll write more on these in comments below.
Also, I appreciate your “walking back” of some of the more extreme things you said and the honest statements that you were just “writing fast without editing” (paraphrase). All too many will hold to something they’ve said even when they know it’s wrong as a matter of pride.
Okay, I’ll try to continue this conversation. I hope you are enjoying it.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not sure why you say “potential” above and they say that you are “conceding” below. You see to be “thinking as you write”, is that correct? I think there are a lot more than three options. I the general strategy now is “delay” and some options are being exercised. Why do you say it “does not satisfy [my] own view”? What do you mean. I agree that war may be necessary to stop them from getting the bomb.
[/quote]
Very correct. I am a convoluted writer without editing. I’ll use logical form below:
-
Regime change through war or uprising is necessary to stop a nuke
-
Delaying war allows for regime change through popular uprising.
-
Delaying war allows Iran more time to secretly develop a nuke until regime change
Conclusion: Delaying allows for the possibility of regime change without war, but also allows Iran the time to secretly develop a nuke before that regime change takes place.
-
Iran cannot be allowed allowed a nuclear weapon under any circumstances
-
Delaying war allows Iran time to develop a nuclear weapon
Conclusion: Delaying war is not a viable option of conclusively preventing a nuclear weapon
There are a lot of permutations of the delaying strategy, but it is still fundamentally the same strategy. We either leave them alone and try to bring them to us, delay in hopes of a regime change the popular unrest, or go to war.
I put sanctions in the delay category, because they are still able to develop weapons with those sanctions and they still are. Sanctions have been shown numerous times not to halt weapons development or belligerence.
Those are my above assumptions. I don’t see the possibility for intimidation to stop their program at this point nor any other peaceful option. If that assumption is wrong then the rest of the argument falters, but I have seen no evidence yet it is a false assumption.
So I say delay does not fit your own criteria because if you really feel they cannot get a weapon under any circumstances then delay is not for you. It gives them a very real chance to develop a weapon before we realize it or before their people overthrow them.[/quote]
I think you are slightly misunderstanding my position and (as I mentioned above) jumping to conclusions and then making arguments based on those. My position is that they cannot ultimately have nukes for the reasons stated. You are correct that with delay, they may be able to “sneak into” the nuclear club. There is a risk there. However, as of today, I think that risk is worth taking without a war. But if they continue on the path and are not overthrown/killed, then yes, I think war will be necessary.
“Time is money” as is said, and with time other opportunities may present themselves (challenges as well).
[quote][quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t think anyone has suggested this. I don’t understand why you are “moving the goalposts” as it were.
Earlier you said, I was referring specifically to a serious, non-defensive, threat of open war. They have certainly threatened open war, or VERY close to it. I am not understanding how you see it otherwise.
[/quote]
Where have they threatened open, non-defensive, war? Over a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz? That would be illegal from what I gather and I suppose you could argue that is a declaration of war if they do it. I can concede that point, but at a minimum we have to say that it is a move they would only be willing to make when pushed to the brink by other actors. They wouldn’t be justified morally in doing it, but we would have to say we drove them to it. It would not be an irrational act on their part, just a desperate one. It would be eating the seed corn for them and they know it.
Are there other instances I am missing? [/quote]
Iran threatens Israel and the US every now and again. I take them at their word. We’ve discussed things above in this thread and I won’t go over them again. Let’s just say we disagree if you don’t think threatening to sink ships (and other such events) is a declaration of war.
But the larger point that I don’t understand here is the idea that Iran is not at fault and have been “drove them to it” (underlined). Who is “we”? The west? The US? Because of sanctions? Sanctions are being imposed because of the actions of Iran. If they stop their actions, the sanctions will go away. I cannot understand why you seem to be absolving Iran of their responsibility for their actions.
[quote][quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t believe their are many who agree with you in your assessment that this is the most productive way forward. Certainly the US has “recognized” that “things happened” as you are no doubt aware. Certainly there have been attempts to bring the US and Iran closer together.[/quote]
That depends on who you talk to. Most policy experts agree sanctions do not work, but they just don’t have much else to go to besides war so we use them anyways. Trading and open relations take decades to fully bear fruit so most don’t like to go that route because 1. it looks soft to the voting public and/or 2. they feel they don’t have that much time.[/quote]
Sanctions don’t work for what? I don’t understand what you are saying at all. Above you are saying (perhaps) that sanctions are driving them to terrorism, now you say that they don’t work. It is my understanding that sanctions HAVE had an effect. Their actions/threats further indicate that they have.
A very different situation, but SK goes back and forth with openings and closings. To me, this is just the latest “change” in their policy, and probably one meant to have an impact on the new leader. It’s been tried before, I hope it works this time. Long term, I think a lot of S. Koreans want reunification. “The path” is the question. Although, this should probably be in a different thread.
[quote] [quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Religious ferver, primarily.
[/quote]
I would just say that it would be highly unlikely that they have more pure zeal than any group like this we have ever seen. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan was notoriously corrupt and self serving. They faked piousness publicly and talked a good game, but when the rubber met the road they were as dissolute as any group. I can’t know they aren’t religiously insane for certain but the weight of history is behind the guess that they are just keeping up appearances.[/quote]
YOU brought up the Taliban, so let’s examine them for a minute. They were presented with an existential situation (allowing UBL into the country to export terror). They agreed dispite where it lead. Then again an existential question when Bush said, “hand him over or else” (paraphrase). AGAIN they chose death.
IF the Iranian leadership is like the Taliban as you have implied, then they MUST be removed from power. The Taliban allowed UBL to attempt a nuclear strike against America from their soil. They allowed for numerous terrorist attacks. If they had had nuclear capacity, everything we know indicates they would have allowed UBL to use nuclear material. If Iran is like the Taliban, YOU are making the case for war.
You continue to talk about history. But I don’t think that you are correct in your assessments. Leaderships HAVE chosen to lose power/die instead of “the alternative” for a variety of reasons.
[quote] [quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m still not sure what you mean. Were the Japanese kidnappings “predictable?” Was the 2010 shelling of an island predictable? I apologize if I’m misunderstanding, but it sounds like you just “don’t care” about Japan/South Korea and in that regional stability. Words like “harmless” and “predictable” make it hard for me to understand your point.
[/quote]
We know why they do it not always where and when it will happen. Like an angry child looking for attention they push the envelope until folks notice them and try to placate them. At present North Korea’s economic setup and international isolation means they can produce virtually nothing for themselves. They need the international community to support them, but to keep an absolute iron grip over the populace they can’t liberalize their economy too much. Thus they resort to being provocative and try to extort concessions out of the rest of the world. They never intend to actually go to war or launch a nuke. We know it and they know it. They just want us to pay attention and give them stuff to hold them over. So not “harmless” in the sense they are willing to hurt individuals, but “harmless” in the sense they are NOT going to ever use their nukes unless regime change is pushed and they are NOT going to go into a full scale war because they know they would last about a month.
Harmless is perhaps the wrong word, but hopefully the above helps show what I meant.[/quote]
I think my assessment above that you “don’t care” about Japan/S.Korea may have been correct. How much of a “tantrum” are you willing to tolerate? I was in Japan in (when was it?) 2006 when NK missiles landed in the sea of Japan, so perhaps I see things differently because of that. If NK bombs Tokyo as part of their tantrum, would that be acceptable? If they shell another S. Korean Island? How do “you know” that they won’t do so as part of a tantrum? How do you know that their 20-something year old leader isn’t a nutcase who is willing to let terrorists have nuclear material? To me, you seem to be “doubling-down” on a psychological assessment.
But again, perhaps this should be in another thread.
[quote] [quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I simply cannot agree that we know for certainty that they would be “manageable” with a nuke. They seem quite unmanageable without one. I agree that the west should steel itself for a war if it comes to that. Where we seem to disagree is that I think the West and US should do A LOT to prevent getting to the point of them having a nuke. You seem to be suggesting that it is inevitable and thus we should just back off, grow ties, and hope they play nice with Israel and Saudi Arabia despite recent actions.
[/quote]
I do believe it is inevitable without regime change (through war or uprising) so we need to get comfortable with the idea unless we are willing to go to war over it.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Other than your psychological analysis, what gives you confidence that Iran would not continue to export terror (and possibly export WMDs) if we engaged them further?
[/quote]
I would say it depends on your time frame. Would they stop tomorrow? No. Would they stop or severely cut back over the coming decades? Almost assuredly.
Generally speaking when a populace is wealthy they put up with a lot less bullshit from their governments and anything that encroaches on their new found wealth. Even China has started to have glimmers of things like private property rights because the population has gotten a taste of the good life and they refuse to go back. We have seen this happening all over the world from Germany, China, North Vietnam, Turkey, India and others. Hell even Saudi Arabia and Dubai are willing to set their own Islamic law aside for visiting westerners and businesses or at a minimum moderate them for those people. Wealth has a wonderfully ameliorating and compromising effect on countries and peoples. It would be extremely odd for Iran to break this mold when virtually no other nation I can think of has done the same.[/quote]
This is primarily where I think you are “skipping” to the last step without thinking through the steps to achieve the long term result. I agree in the “long-long term” goals. Further, you seem to be ignoring “bad times” in history and the “brave new world” of WMDs we live in today. What I mean is that China was a serious menace with Mao at the helm. It took until '79 before liberalization occurred and only then did ties start to get better. With Vietnam it took until '86. (why do you keep saying “North Vietnam” btw?). In terms of today, WMDs and nukes (+terrormism) are MUCH more dangerous today than they were in the past (for example, when Japan tried to send hot air balloons with diseases at the US during the war (or whatever it was that they sent). Unit 731 and the Nazi seemed to open the door for this stuff and things progressed. Globalization means a fool from Yemen can be given anthrax from Afghanistan, put on a plane in Nairobi headed for Los Angeles.
There have been plenty of crazies in history. Some have even taken control of countries and done crazy things. The lessons of history + our “Brave New World” (for me) mean that we must not let Iran get nukes.
Long term they may be able to join the community of nations. But in the short term they have indicated (through their actions) they may be crazy and “lack information” enough for them to use WMDs.
[quote] I fully confess I am basing all of my arguments on the fact that Iran is a rational actor. The regime wants to survive and does not want to be destroyed. I think the fact that they trade with us (or want to) and don’t go to war with Israel right now proves they are at a minimum pragmatic and not purely radical Islamists willing to blow themselves up at the drop of the hat, consequences be damned, to defend the faith. It may be all part of a cold, calculated plan but it proves at a minimum they are not the blind ideologues many portray them as.
But we can never know anything for certain. History and rationality tell us it is highly unlikely they will break with the above traditions.
[/quote]
The rational actor model works to a point. But does it explain the Taliban as discussed above? Idi Amin? There are others.
For me, the short term and “path” is as important as the long-term goal (if not more important). Do you have any thoughts on the “short term”? Why/how would opening up trade and allowing for a nuke work in the short term? I think you admitted they would continue to support terrorism in the short term, why don’t you think they would be willing to give terrorists nuclear materials?
As if all that is not enough of a reason not to let them have a nuke, what about proliferation? If Iran “goes nuclear” I think a number of countries also will in short order. Are there any countries that you would not want to have nuclear capacities? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Would it be acceptable to arm groups in Somalia with Nukes? I don’t think I’m using a “slippery slope” too much here. A nuclear armed Iran would directly lead to a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia at a minimum, I fear.
Thanks for the conversation.