Monday, May 01, 2006

A New Strategy on Iran by Dennis Ross

Dennis Ross, special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton, just wrote an interesting piece in the Washington Post on how to best deal with Iran. Here are some excerpts:
“The United States and Iran are playing programmed roles in a minuet on nuclear weapons. The United States pushes the U.N. Security Council to warn Iran about the consequences of going nuclear. And Iran continues its march toward development of nuclear power, even as its president declares that ‘we don't give a damn’ about U.N. resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment.

With the Russians and Chinese seemingly determined to block sanctions, our efforts at the United Nations promise to evolve slowly while Iran presses ahead with its plans. If we stay on the same path, we will be left with two choices: accept the reality of Iran's nuclear weapons capability or take military action to set back its ambitions.

Either outcome could prove disastrous. If Iran succeeds, in all likelihood we will face a nuclear Middle East. The Saudis -- fearing an emboldened Iran determined to coerce others and to promote Shiite subversion in the Arabian Peninsula -- will seek their own nuclear capability, and probably already have a deal with Pakistan to provide it should Iran pose this kind of threat. And don't expect Egypt to be content with Saudi Arabia's being the only Arab country with a nuclear ‘deterrent’.

As for those who think that the nuclear deterrent rules that governed relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War will also apply in a nuclear Middle East: Don't be so confident. For one thing, the possible number of nuclear countries will drive up the potential for miscalculation. For another, with an Iranian president who sees himself as an instrument for accelerating the coming of the 12th Imam -- which is preceded in the mythology by the equivalent of Armageddon -- one should not take comfort in thinking that Iran will act responsibly.

But the alternative of using force to prevent or forestall the Iranians' going nuclear does not look much better. To begin with, there are no simple or clean military options. Air operations alone might involve striking hundreds of targets, many in populated areas where there are significant air defense capabilities in the process of being upgraded by the Russians. The more casualties we inflict, the more we inflame the Islamic world.

Perhaps we could manage the response if the military campaign inflicted relatively few casualties and succeeded in setting back the Iranian nuclear program. But such a rosy scenario assumes that Iran's ability to retaliate is relatively limited. Even if we have the means to prevent the Iranian navy and air force from shutting down shipping into and out of the Persian Gulf, Iran has other options for turning any effort to take out its nuclear capability into a wider war….

The challenge remains one of changing the Iranian calculus. Iran must see that it either loses more than it gains by proceeding to move toward nuclear weapons or that it can gain more by giving up the effort. The problem with the current policy is that it threatens costs that either aren't believable or are likely to pale in comparison with what the Iranians see themselves gaining with nuclear power.

But what if we could threaten collective sanctions that the Iranians would see as biting? What if those were combined with possible gains in terms of a deal on nuclear energy, economic benefits and security understandings if the Iranians would give up the nuclear program? …

Why not have the president go to his British, French and German counterparts and say: We will join you at the table with the Iranians, but first let us agree on an extensive set of meaningful -- not marginal -- economic and political sanctions that we will impose if the negotiations fail. Any such agreement would also need to entail an understanding of what would constitute failure in the talks and the trigger for the sanctions…

Real economic sanctions would not just bite Iran and its ability to generate revenue but also would undoubtedly drive up the price of oil. Our readiness to accept that risk at a time when high gasoline prices are becoming a domestic political issue would convey a very different signal about our seriousness to the Iranians -- who presently don't fear sanctions because they think they have the world over a barrel.

There is no guarantee such an approach will work with Iran. This Iranian government may simply be determined to have nuclear weapons. If that is the case, and if President Bush is determined to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons -- as he has said -- we would still be better off having tried a direct negotiating option before resorting to what inevitably will be a difficult, messy use of force once again.”


At Wed May 10, 02:23:00 PM PDT, Blogger The Jewish Freak said...

I hold out no hope in counting on the Europeans for anything meaningful.

At Wed May 10, 08:47:00 PM PDT, Blogger Sam and Fabienne Adler said...

What about this great strategic move by the UN? Appointing Iran to their Disarmament commission? Am I seeing things?

At Sat May 13, 08:41:00 AM PDT, Blogger Filou said...

The jewish freak,
I unfortunately agree with you. That being said, their support is crucial, and based on their past failed negotiations with Iran, one would hope that they understand the real goal of the Iran mullahs...

At Sat May 13, 08:48:00 AM PDT, Blogger Filou said...

Sam and Fabienne,
Thanks for sending this interesting link. The appointment of Iran on the disarmament commission is one more pathetic move from the UN. Or may be the expression of the UN sense of humor.

At Mon May 29, 08:48:00 AM PDT, Blogger Mike's America said...

I've always admired Dennis Ross. His experience in the region and clear thinking are very much needed.

However, in this article he suggests sanctions, only to turn around and conclude "There is no guarantee such an approach will work with Iran."

He also admits that Iran is not behaving as a rational state in the way that the former Soviet Union did.

Sanctions almost never work. Especially when you have so many nations that openly cheat on them to make money. Just look at the Oil for Food program in Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that France, Russia and China won't cheat again is fooling themselves.

The military option is fraught with risk, but when is that not the case?

I would prefer to see regime change in Iran achieved by the Iranian people. But how long can we wait and hope for that?

The danger of acting now is akin to that after Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland sixty years ago this year. France could have flicked it's little finger and saved sixty million people from a horrible death. But they choose not to do so because of the "risk."

I have been slow to get on the bomb Iran bandwagon. I do agree that all options should be carefully considered. But in the end, waiting until Iran gets a nuke will mean the cost of correcting the problem is so much higher.

At Mon May 29, 10:27:00 PM PDT, Blogger Filou said...

mike's america,
i don't know if sanctions would work, but it's about time that we start doing something and that we stop using empty threats that are more a sign of weakness than anything else.
i believe that the best solution would be to find a way to convince the russians and the chinese to side with the western world, but i know that's going a very tough battle to win.


Post a Comment

<< Home