After reading the comments on the previous post, Dan Darling’s post at Winds of Change, and the columns referenced in it, I think more discussion of Iran is warranted. Particularly, I’d like to look at the options on the table and a search for alternative courses. Once again I’ll state, I’m not a professional foreign policy analyst nor do I suspect that those who read this site are, however, I, like all Americans, have a vested interest in the resolution of the issues between the US and Iran.
First off, the objectives must be clear. I say "objectives" not objective because we have multiple objectives with regard to Iran. As I see them they are:
Preventing nuclear weapons development,
Promoting liberal democratic reform or eventual self-governance,
Ending Iran’s support of international terrorism, and
Re-establishing normal relations with Iran.
There are others I’m sure. But with those objectives we are able to look at the actions, diplomatic, economic and military, that are most likely to secure our objectives. Additionally, we must make clear, as I believe the President has done, what our objectives are. This must be done here at home, for our allies and the international community and, of course, for the benefit of the current Iranian government (official and unofficial).
Option A is the course that has thus far been followed. Negotiation between the EU3 and Iran for Iran’s agreement to abstain from nuclear weapons development in exchange for significant economic and trade incentives from the Europeans. The U.S. supporting the effort from afar, yet holding firm to the idea that Iran must move toward removing doubts about its nuclear program or face possible referral of the issue to the UN Security Council. The latest round of discussions in the press have centered on the potential for the U.S. joining the effort. Examples being Robin Wright’s Washington Post column or Steven Weisman’s NY Times column. A counter argument that the European course has failed is available in Jeffrey Bergner’s Weekly Standard column.
Option B would be the extension of the EU3 to include the US, as espoused in the columns mentioned above. Essentially this option works if one believes that the prevailing word from Iran is both truthful and economically guided. The evidence required for such a belief is unclear to me. It, like the first option, does nothing to address any objective beyond the nuclear issue.
Option C is the ever-present expectation of impending military action. It appears that this is the end of the punditries ability to address the issue. To read much of the discussion on the topic one would think that either we follow the EU3 or we go to immediate and full scale war against Iran. The advantage of such a course of action would be an end to Iran’s nuclear program, an end to their support for terrorism (though the terrorism in Iran would likely rise), and the end to the human rights violations of the current regime. Effectively all the objectives would be met, but at significant cost both diplomatically, financially and most importantly in human lives.
Option D, and again I’m just making this up, would be requiring the IAEA to refer the issue to the UN Security Council. Therein the international community would be forced to address the crisis and potentially support the levying of sanctions and the further ratcheting up the pressure on the regime. The internal pressure, a young and liberal minded reform movement, might then be squashed or as we’ve seen most recently in Lebanon, it may resolve the issue itself. The significant drawbacks I see to this are getting the support of Russia, China and France at the UN, and time. The more time we take before acting, the closer Iran comes to nuclear weapons.
Option D+ is essentially the same as D with the added support of a blockade on Iran and international support for the reform movement on the streets of Iran.
Option E is Israel. More than any nation Israel is threatened by Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons, and more than any nation, Israel is apt to act unilaterally to remove the threat. The consequences, likelihood of success, and effect on other objectives remain unclear. This could be yet another argument for the U.S. taking a more immediate course of action, so as to avoid Israel becoming the lone party forced to act against Iran.
I’m sure other options can and have been developed. Yet I’m also certain that action, backed by force (economic and potentially military) is more likely to create the incentives for change in Iran. Our current course offers no reason to change. Thus far Iran has won the chess match and the Mullahs have rightly counted on dissension between the U.S. and the world’s alternative leaders (EU3, Russia, China). The President has a huge decision to make, and soon, and then he’ll have to apply all of his diplomatic might to bring others on board.
I remain convinced that a solution, other than war, will avail itself to us. Likewise, I’m willing to support effort, whatever form it takes. What I can’t support is more of the same.
UPDATE: As if more reading is needed, sorry Tom, I'm adding a link to the EU Referendum which has an excellent post entitled the Wages of Appeasement. He points out a column by Reuel Marc Gerecht in the Financial Times. I found it at the AEI site but not at FT. The WSJ column he mentions requires a painless subscription.
And then Revolution by Michael Ledeen at NRO.
AP Photo
