Judeocons' mad ship steams ahead towards its next stop: IRAN.
Tue., November 30, 2004 Kislev 17, 5765
Either war, or the bomb
By Shmuel Rosner
"There are three species of creatures who when they seem coming are going, when they seem going they come: diplomats, women, and crabs," said John Hay, secretary of state during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. Women have been freed of this dated, chauvinistic stigma, and crabs never protested anyway. But as far as diplomats are concerned, it appears that Hay was frequently right.
For example, there is now an ongoing process to find a solution to the problem of Iran - the hottest problem on President Bush's desk. It appears that attempts are being made to extinguish the flames by means of a pile of reports, recommendations, and position papers. Yet paper, as we know, is not effective in fighting fires. Not even high quality paper, like Kenneth Pollack's new book, "The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America," although the author has become one of the U.S.'s most influential foreign policy experts in recent years.
Pollack wrote an important book in favor of the war in Iraq just before the war began. Now, during a process in which the timing is similar but his conclusion is different, Pollack declares that war must not be waged against Iran. What should be done? Pollack suggests several solutions, but he understands that they far from guarantee success. To summarize, it is not clear that the bomb can be stopped without paying an intolerable price.
The same Pollack recently participated in a mock "war game," mounted by The Atlantic magazine, to examine various options available to the American president in Iran. The players concluded that there is no reasonable military option on the table at this time. They examined three alternatives, including various shows of force, destruction of the nuclear installations, and an all-out war to topple the current regime, a plan objected to by all five participants. They added that diplomats must be given a chance to work, whatever that means.
Senator Hillary Clinton, while in the presence of an Israeli guest, recently made a similar statement, with the addition of an explanation for the limited options: What is happening in Iraq prevents us from taking effective action in Iran. On the other hand, as one of the participants in the game, former chief UN weapons inspector David Kay said, "If you say there is no acceptable military option, then you end any possibility that there will be a non-nuclear Iran. If the Iranians believe they will not suffer any harm, they will go right ahead."
The Atlantic war game, like every other piece of paper written on the subject in the last year, presents another military option: "The Israeli option." According to this plan, Israel attacks, and America remains silent. This option was rejected because players believed that America's reasons to avoid an attack were even more crucial in the case of Israel: There are no appropriate targets, there is inadequate intelligence, the response will be severe, etc.
Similarly, the war game's "Task Force" of the "Council on Foreign Relations" concluded that Washington would be blamed for any unilateral Israeli military action, and that the U.S. must make it clear to Israel that American interests would be harmed.
This brings the decision makers back to the original problem: How to block Iran without using American or Israeli military force?
This question has many answers. As an outgoing member of the government who will apparently return in the next government admitted this week, all the answers are tainted with the bitter taste of inevitable failure. This is true of solutions which emphasize necessary European collaboration, solutions which depend on the participation of the UN Security Council, solutions which rely on financial incentives to achieve the longed for result, and for the solutions which present the most ambitious option called by some "The Grand Bargain."
Geoffrey Kemp of the Nixon Center suggested in his monograph - "US and Iran The Nuclear Dilemma: Next Steps," that making a deal of this type would mean the end of the "regime change" as part of the "mantra for U.S. foreign policy." Iran would meet the immediate strategic needs of the U.S., the relinquishment of nuclear weapons and assistance to terror organizations, in return for many financial benefits.
The downside: This deal would abandon the Iranian people to the continued Muslim regime led by the Ayatollahs. Moreover, who said that Iran would agree? There is currently no sign of such an agreement, and many Americans do not believe that an agreement of this type has any chance to succeed.
In private, sobering discussions, it becomes clear that there are not many in the upcoming Bush administration who believe that any diplomatic deal will succeed. Nor do they believe that it is possible to block an Iranian bomb by means of warnings, discussions, or punishment. A senior member of the administration told an interested colleague last week that nations determined to develop nuclear capacity, and willing to pay the price of such developments, were never stopped without force.
In the absence of a convenient, accessible alternative to use force, and in light of existing circumstances, President Bush is left with only two real options: To accept the existence of an Iranian bomb, or to wage an "unfortunate war" with imperfect opening conditions. Any other option presented in the next two months, any international diplomatic process, will be little more than an optical illusion: When it seems to be coming, it will be going.
haaretz.com |
