Pages

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Our Theoretical Iran Policy

In theory, Russia could support sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt nuclear work that will lead to a nuclear weapon:


"If an agreement is reached on programs for the enrichment of uranium and its use in Iran for peaceful means, then we will gladly participate in these programs," Medvedev said in an advance copy of the interview released on Saturday.

"If the Iranian leadership takes a less constructive position, then anything is possible in theory," he said, adding he had discussed the issue with U.S. President Barack Obama.

"We wouldn't want this to end with international sanctions because sanctions, as a rule, take us in a very complex and dangerous direction. But if there is no movement forward, nobody is ruling out such a scenario."


Whoa! Hold on there, cowboy! How's that for a Russia willing to cooperate with the Obama administration on stopping Iran? It's almost as if we got nothing for halting our original planned ballistic missile defense plan in eastern NATO!

Foreign policy realism was supposed to leverage Russian help by screwing over our new NATO allies Poland and the Czech Republic in order to pressure a mullan-led Iran that would--if pressured and induced enough--would give up plans for nuclear weapons. In theory, it's a fine realpolitik strategy. But it won't work.

Yet while Russia is clearly uninterested in pressuring Iran (and if they did it is likely they'd have an agreement with China to do the dirty Security Council veto deed), we continue to pursue an agreement with Iran even as they continue to murder and abuse democracy protesters.

Yeah, those protesters inconveniently refuse to be suppressed in the name of nuanced diplomacy:


The New York Times reports that opposition protesters in Iran, in between beatings and tear-gassing from riot police and the regime’s hired thugs, have started a new chant: “Obama, Obama -- either you’re with them or you’re with us.”

In case you were wondering what the answer might be, the statement yesterday from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said it all. Gibbs declared that Obama administration officials were following reports of the unrest and “hope greatly that violence will not spread.” This was a great moment in the annals of diplo-speak. No mention of who might be committing the violence, or who might be its victims. Violence, it seems, has the capacity to spread without any human involvement.

The point of the statement, of course, was to avoid saying anything that might offend the rulers in Tehran or give any encouragement to the regime’s opponents. The Obama administration is locked into its approach on Iran and is seemingly impervious to changing circumstances. It has never adjusted to the unexpected rise of a nationwide opposition to the regime and still tries to move forward as if there were no turmoil and unrest in Iran.


One day, even the "reality-based" people leading our Iran policy will conclude that Iran really wants nuclear weapons, Russia (and China) will not help us stop Iran, and that smiling hands-outstretched diplomacy with Tehran is just viewed by the mullahs as an amazing opportunity (undoubtedly supplied by God) to stall us while they get nuclear weapons.

And on the day that the administration decides it can't talk Iran out of nuclear weapons, the choices will boil down to containing religious nutballs, military action, or overthrowing the regime.

I'd hope that the lack of reason displayed by the Iranians would disabuse the administration of the idea that these guys who sponsor terrorism on a grand scale without nukes can be contained--even if for some reason the Iranians decide they won't use nukes.

And worse, will be have the option of trying for regime change any more? Really, after suffering under our policy of throwing the Iranian protesters under the bus for the last five months, will the protesters even be pro-American anymore after being abandoned for so long by the Obama administration? Or even around? The regime could yet succeed in crushing the protest movement.

So our options will be either suffering a nutball Iranian mullah regime armed with nukes or launching a military campaign lasting weeks to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Ah, nuance!