In the past two presidential debates there has been much talk about Iran.  Unfortunately, the focus of the debate has been on whether or not we should talk directly with Iran.  It’s time for McCain and Obama to get over the minutia of who’s actually doing the talking.  The fact is that we need to negotiate with Iran, and pretty much all mainstream thinkers in the foreign policy community agree on this. 

What has concerned me about this debate over Iran is the apocalyptic terms with which both candidates seem to describe the threat and what that means for the likelihood of employing the military option to deal with Iran.  McCain said in the first debate, “Now we cannot a second Holocaust. Let’s just make that very clear. “  In the same debate, Obama said uneqivocally, “we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer.” 

I agree that a nuclear armed Iran would be a grave threat.  However, when we associate a nuclear armed Iran with the possiblity of a second Holocaust, this naturally leads one to conclude that we should do anything to prevent a nuclear Iran because a nuclear Iran would clearly lead to a second holocaust.  Similarly, when Obama says that a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated, he conveys the sense that we will use whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. 

It is right for our leaders to show their resolve in dealing with this issue.  It is indeed very serious.  However, by presenting the threat is such grave terms, I fear that we open the door wider to possible military action – a course of action that I fear, based on our recent in experience in Iraq, could be more dangerous than the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran.  

So, let’s assume that despite all of our negotiations and sanctions that in several years Iran is actually is able to produce a nuclear weapon.  They would certainly have more leverage in the region and they would be protected from a conventional strike by the US or Israel against their territory.  However, they would also understand that a nuclear attack against Israel, or against the United States, would result in their complete destruction.   Iranian leaders may be cruel demagogues, but they don’t seek self destruction.  As long as a nuclear attack comes from a state, the understanding that such an attack would ultimately result in self destruction, would limit Iran’s offensive capability. 

The more serious concern is that of Iran handing over nuclear materials or technology to terrorist groups.  It would be clearly communicated to Iran that if it armed a terrorist group that attacked the US or Israel, that such an attack would be considered a direct attack from Iran and would be met with similar retaliation. 

Unfortunately, the military options against Iran are not attractive.  Here’s a series of quotes by experts on the left and right who concede that we just really don’t have any good military options. 

So, the end result is that we have to make diplomacy work.  Unfortunately, conveying the sense that we will use any means necessary to prevent a nuclear armed Iran probably just provides further motivation for Iran to reach this goal.

No related posts.