Mook Responds To GeneThug on Iran Issues

Hi ho--

GeneThug comments here. My response as follows.


GT: "Both Zakaria and Yglesias seem like bright guys, but seem to have completely overlooked in their analysis two crucial members of the conflict: Iran and Israel."

Mook: But Zakaria does not overlook Israel-- check the first link:

"And then there is Israel, which has long seen Iran as its greatest threat. It is unlikely to sit passively while Iran develops a nuclear bomb. The powerful Iranian politician Ali Rafsanjani has publicly speculated about a nuclear exchange with Israel. If Iran's program went forward, at some point Israel would almost certainly try to destroy it using airstrikes, as it did Iraq's reactor in Osirik. Such an action would, of course, create a massive political crisis in the region."

He repeats your Israel point just about word for word.

GT: "Yglesias uses the exercise to engage in Bush bashing - sure, whatever.."

Mook: You're being overly sensitive. The entire basis for your remark seems to be Matt's use of the word "Bushies" and this statement: "risk-friendly, arrogant, and slightly paranoid about the motives of everyone outside their circle." "Bushies" might not be a respectful way to address the president and his staff, but it's hardly a thing worthy of getting your hackles up. And as for the rest, it's a pretty acceptable and not that over-the-top critique IMO-- probably even most Bush supporters would agree with the characterization if they were at all fair-minded. And it's germane to the issue at hand-- Bush operates his presidency based on his principles of character. He's proudly stated this many times. All presidents do, Bush more than some, less than others. There's nothing wildly or even inherently partisan about critiquing a president's character as it truly impacts his FP decisions, as this certainly does.

GT: While Zakaria's analysis is pretty solid, his proscription for diplomacy as the answer is totally wishful thinking.

Mook: I don't think Zakaria thinks that diplomacy, especially by the US, is the prescription, here. Read his words:

"If military strikes are not a good option, engagement isn't great, either. . .They say that the Bush administration is unwilling to offer a "grand bargain"-- normal relations with the United States in return for no nukes. Also true. But there is little evidence that better U.S. policy would produce an Iranian response."

What he is suggesting is that action by the EU in the form of sanctions or the threat thereof might very well give Iran cause to waiver. Or not-- who knows. Sanctions are rarely successful, granted, but there's reason to think they might have traction in Tehran. And it strikes me as a much toothier response than trying to initiate regime change by UNARMED students or passing this legislation Darling refers to, though these suggestions couldn't hurt, either.

But where you/Darling and I/Zakaria seem to differ most is that your camp seems to boil the US/Israeli strategic options down to a "do or die" situation. Your case seems to be based for the most part on Iranian smack-talk, which I agree is totally OTT. But it's smack talk, nonetheless-- it's what evil regimes do. It strikes me as a very low-value particular relative to Iran's under-war in Iraq and its terrorist ties; actions speak louder. And with respect to their threats, there's every reason to believe they're empty. The Iran-attacks-Israel/US with nuclear (or otherwise) missiles meme rests on the totally absurd suggestion that Tehran could willingly commit national suicide, as surely it knows it would if it did so. As if it were bound to a law of physics, the US would react reflexively by bombing the entirety of Iran into glass. If it hasn't done so already with conventional weapons, it is much less likely that Iran would attack with nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons, as I have said before, fulfill only one useful function-- they exist only as a kind of self-destruct button, militarily useful only in the occasion of having been hopelessly backed against a wall with no escape route in sight. They imply mutual destruction always. That said, a US/Israeli initiated conflict, which would follow Yglesias' law of escalating retaliation, is more likely to produce the sequence of events in which nuclear weapons might be used-- that is, Iran backed hopelessly against a wall, as surely it would be-- than anything other than another 9-11 linked (however tenuously) to Iran.

Therefore, we either preventatively invade Iran now, before she has nukes, or we apply sanctions and hope they put Iran into an inspection-friendly mood. Given our national debt, our current struggle with Afghanistan and Iraq, the threat from terrorism, and our already hyper-stretched military, the invasion of Iran in the near future could only be seen as a very serious defensive compromise for our nation. As I said, it's a bad idea.

Bury them in sanctions and hope for regime change in the long-term.