Unfortunately, our President shares in Gordon Brown's delusion by wasting time and resources discussing this supposed nuclear free world. I think I may disagree with Gordon Brown regarding what statesmanship and brinkmanship is in this situation though, because negotiations with an end of stopping nuclear weapons development by either North Korea or Iran is neither statesmanship or brinkmanship, because neither country is willing to give up the capability.Well, finally someone who shares my disdain for Obama's 'no nukes' rhetoric. The question I'm interested in here is, since if Iran wants the bomb and has the ability to make the bomb they will have the bomb, what is the point of negotiations aimed at convincing them to do otherwise? If the leadership have decided they want the bomb then nothing short of a compete and unrelenting embargo of the country or, as the above points out, an Iraq-like invasion is gonna stop them - and of those two, probably only the latter [because Russia and China will balk at the former] has much chance of succeeding. So why the charade of negotiations? I have trouble believing anyone actually thinks the negotiations will work [in fact I'd probably be alarmed if they were that naive or bemused by their own cleverness] - can it be so shoddy a business as putting perfunctory act for appearances sake? And to please what audience - the code pinkers and Green Party faithful who actually believe the problem will yield to refined debate?
North Korea has the bomb, and Iran will have the bomb. If Gordon Brown and Barack Obama want to know what is required to stop Iran from getting the bomb, all they need to do is look at how George Bush dealt with Iraq on WMD. Nothing short of that type of effort stops Iran, so if another Gulf War isn't an appealing option, learn to accept the idea of an Iranian bomb. All this political happy talk of "tough/smart/strong/cunning" negotiations is about as intellectually convincing as the militant threat of air attack by Israel. Neither will be successful, unless Israel nukes the Persians. ID Navy blog.
It's a conundrum because apparently Obama is going to announce today that the US knows and has known for some time that Iran is building/has built a secret enrichment facility - I take it this news is being made public because by means not yet clear Iran now knows that we know. What this means, among other things, is that while Obama was pushing the 'let's talk' approach he knew Iran was proceeding without compromise towards what supposedly we were going to talk them out of.
So, again - why? Is there a cunning strategy here, or just appearances? And if just appearances, why were they so conflicted on how to respond to the Iranian reform protest, a conflict of interests that only made sense if they actually had faith in negotiations?
I suppose this is why Gates was so dismissive of Israeli threats of a military strike - he knew that Israel knew that a strike could never be successful - but, again, if that's so, wouldn't you want to keep the illusion of an attack alive in order to improve you negotiating position if you actually believe in the efficacy of negotiations? I'm not getting this: either the administration is confused about what to do about Iran - or their plan is cunningly obtuse.
update: the Obama apologists are running the story that this is a brilliant negotiating ploy, springing this intel at the last moment to apply ultimate pressure to Iran, Russia and China. Not impossible, but leaves much unexplained. If a strategem, keeping it secret would have been vital so how did Iran find out? Seems more likely this 'brilliant ploy' is just an ad lib made necessary by Iran finding out. Wouldn't it have made more sense to spring this trap during the reform protests, when the regime was at its most vulnerable? If the idea is to shame Russia and China into supporting sanctions, seems to me that would have worked to best effect during the protests when the world's attention was squarely fixed on the questionable practices of the regime. And how bout the fact that calling Iran out like this puts greater pressure on Obama to get a deal done? If Iran, Russia and China still resist, which is likely, certainly for Iran, since their intentions to acquire the bomb are now obvious, won't Obama then be under more pressure to intercede? For this reason you could make the argument that they didn't want this intel to come out at all - you could even argue that this scenario actually improves Iran's position - kind of a "go ahead, make my day" moment, if you will.
One thing is clear: both Bush and now Obama knew about this for awhile - so why didn't they tell IAEA inspectors? The intel was being withheld for a reason - but Bush wasn't into negotiating, so how can a 'negotiating ploy' be the reason? Is it possible that the reason was that, in order to keep the site clandestine, Iran would have to sacrifice security against an Israeli or American attack and now, if his apologists are right, Obama has compromised that military option?
However it came about and why, the more I think on it the more it troubles me that Obama is acting like he now has a winning hand as regards negotiations - because, if he doesn't have a winning hand, and I don't think he does, well... this isn't the kind of game that you can just fold and walk away from - if Iran calls his bluff, if China and Russia see him as vulnerable and choose to exploit that - what happens then? because we know he would not use a military threat, how much would he give away to save face? and if it comes to that would Israel then decide that he can't be trusted and take the dreaded step themselves?
And finally, I'm still struck by how it is just assumed that an American military strike would be worse than Iran getting the bomb - and don't get me wrong, that may very well be true - but you just can't assume it, it's not nearly that clear cut - and yet an American strike is simply passed off as absurd - whereas all we really know for sure is that initially it would seem worse - but five years down the road of a nuked up Iran? I hate the Nazi parallels, but when Germany built up its military against the dictates of the Versailles Treaty, if Britain or America, their concerns rebuked, their calls of alarm ignored, had in response sent a few bombers over Berlin everyone would have been aghast, everyone would have accused them of brinkmanship, warmongering - unless they could have seen into the future and known what Hitler planned to do with that Wehrmacht.
[of course, allowing for your Nazi analogue, the middle east is not Europe - even if Iran succeeds and uses its enhanced powers to further a reckless ambition, what's to be gained by risking a major war to stop them? We save Israel? No offense, but hardly seems worth it - unless of course you see Israel as the linchpin that once pulled sets a whole series of connected events in motion none of which promises goodwill and cheer for the West - and that indeed is the rub]
