Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A somewhat different take on Iran problem: the alternative to a negotiated settlement that precludes or wistfully abides a nuclear Iran is not necessarily a military conflict as people are imagining it - Tehran may have calculated "if the enfeebled West allows us the bomb, great; if not it will be because Israel attacked us and that can serve our interests just as well if not better". It's not at all a given that if Israel strikes what will immediately follow is a calamitous military adventure - a moderate but insidious response by Iran, including naturally actions by Hezbollah and Hamas, would make much more sense and still allow them to continue pursuit of nuclear ambitions. Iran will have gambled that the US will not be willing to intercede in an authoritative and defining way, from which we can infer that Iran views an American military intervention as the worst scenario as far as their interests are concerned. Seen in this light the best option - it will never happen of course, especially with Obama as president - but the best option is for the US to apply extreme pressure in form of sanctions etc with clear ultimatum that if Iran refuses to relent the US - not Israel - will take out its nuclear facilities, the logic being that all scenarios end with violent upheaval therefore best that US takes the lead in hopes of controlling outcome. There will of course be a 'cry havoc, unleash dogs of war' moment but it's very important for us - meaning The West I think- to understand that there are no good options here making it crucial we pick the best of those available. Unfortunately, as I've said, with Obama as president our best option may not even be considered.
