« Was RAND Health Insurance Study Wrong? | Main | Chronic Disease »
October 22, 2007
Fareed Zakaria Is Part of the Reality-Based Community
On Iran:
The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality...
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?
When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)
The one time we seriously negotiated with Tehran was in the closing days of the war in Afghanistan, in order to create a new political order in the country. Bush's representative to the Bonn conference, James Dobbins, says that "the Iranians were very professional, straightforward, reliable and helpful. They were also critical to our success. They persuaded the Northern Alliance to make the final concessions that we asked for." Dobbins says the Iranians made overtures to have better relations with the United States through him and others in 2001 and later, but got no reply. Even after the Axis of Evil speech, he recalls, they offered to cooperate in Afghanistan. Dobbins took the proposal to a principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead silence. The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he says, "looked down and rustled his papers." No reply was ever sent back to the Iranians. Why bother? They're mad.
A few further points:
- This somewhat understates the levers available to Iran, whose influence in Iraq, natural gas resources, and power in the energy-rich region can, if necessary, be used to inflict substantial pain on America.
- The only reason Iran has any influence against us is because we have made a series of foolhardy, and eminently reversible, policy choices. If we didn't have 165,000 troops stationed next door, they'd have no ability to damage us militarily. If we were actually moving to reduce our reliance on carbon fuels and increase the cost of "dirty" energy in order to encourage renewables, their economic pull would gradually weaken.
- Yes, they want a nuclear weapon. No, that does not mean they will use it on us, give it to terrorists, or nuke Israel. They want a weapon because it offers them an insurance policy against American invasion and prestige and pull in the world community. If anyone tells you they want a nuclear weapon in order to attack us, arm terrorists, or blow up Israel, they are a profoundly stupid person and you should stop listening to them immediately.
October 22, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I'm with you right up to the "blow up Israel" part, not because I think they want to blow up Israel (or that they will)... but because Israel does. That does complicate things and I think it has a lot to do with this Administration - for whom subtlety and careful negotiating is not an option - taking the hard line it takes. I didn't, up until the Senate resolution, find myself worrying that we were on fast running downhill path toward conflict with Iran. Now I do, and I think that if we are, the threat to Israel is going to be a big piece of it. We can rationally answer a lot of what you point out; dealing with Israel's fears of nuclear threat is not so simple, I don't think.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 22, 2007 1:28:41 PM
I agree with 1 and 2. I even agree with Fareed Zakaria. However this seems like an empty assertion:
Yes, they want a nuclear weapon. No, that does not mean they will use it on us, give it to terrorists, or nuke Israel. They want a weapon because it offers them an insurance policy against American invasion and prestige and pull in the world community. If anyone tells you they want a nuclear weapon in order to attack us, arm terrorists, or blow up Israel, they are a profoundly stupid person and you should stop listening to them immediately.
1.Disagreement with someone who believes that Iran will use their weapons for nefarious goals, hardly makes that person stupid. You're a much better writer when you don't let your emotions get a hold of you.I hope we can solve the situation with Iran using diplomatic means. However, I think a nuclear Iran would be very dangerous for the world community. This does not make me stupid. I can and have backed up my arguments with more facts than you,thank you very much.
2. Do you have any warrant to support why Iran will not use a nuclear bomb to do bad things? Because I'm a frequent reader of your blog and I've never seen any conclusive evidence to support this.
3. Even if Iran doesn't plan on using their nuke for bad means now, doesn't mean that they will not use it to blackmail us or our allies in the future.
4. Even if the Iranian government doesn't intend to use their nuclear weapon for evil, it only takes one person to sell nuclear secrets/technology to a rouge group or terrorists. Given the strong ties between Iran and state sponsored terrorism, I think its kind of risky to rely on the honor system.
5. The talks about invading Iran didn't occur until AFTER they set their sites on a nuclear weapon. Furthermore even today' people are advocating a full invasion of Iran or even war. Just airstrikes on nuclear facilities
Posted by: Phil | Oct 22, 2007 1:39:09 PM
There's no emotion there -- I'm not upset at folks who disagree with me. I think they're flagrantly misreading the evidence, many of them in a cynical and agenda-oriented fashion. There is simply no evidence, none, to support the contention that Iran plans to detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel (remember, here, that Israel has submarine loaded nukes that everyone knows would then obliterate tehran), give such a weapon to a terrorist, or suicidally attack America.
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 22, 2007 1:46:32 PM
@Phil - Nukes are deterrents. In this case, they deter the US from attacking. If they bomb Israel, Israel has more than enough counter-offensive to "wipe them off the map."
As for #4 - proliferation is a problem, but in this case the state is trying to acquire weapons for national strategic reasons. If terrorists really wanted nukes, they could get those loose Russian and Ukrainian ones more easily then waiting 5 years for Iran's program to come on line.
And BTW - what state sponsored terrorism do you mean?
Posted by: Kuz | Oct 22, 2007 2:03:40 PM
I noticed Zakaria's absence from the WaPo op-ed page earlier this year, but I have no idea when his column stopped appearing there. Anyone have a clue on this? It's as if they liked him as long as he was supportive of the war in Iraq, but once his connection with reality caused him to be consistently skeptical of American activities in the Middle East, they dropped him like a hot potato.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Oct 22, 2007 2:35:02 PM
But isn't it just screaming out from this recitation of facts that Iran is just like, JUST LIKE Nazi Germany before WWII, and that any claim otherwise is tantamount to Chamberlain-ism?
Seriously, I am totally with you, but have noted in my adult life the utter willingness of the media to schill a threat real or otherwise. Prior to the first Gulf War, for a good 6-9 months, Newsweek, Time, etc. were putting forward the images of Saddam as the new Hitler. It could certainly be argued at the time that there was at least a greater semblance between two dictators, and that without intervention Saddam could probably have made serious incursions into Saudi Arabia if he so desired, which would have given the man a lot of clout and made him a bigger threat. However, this again underscores a key difference between Iraq at that time and Iran now-as noted in Zakaria's reality check, Iran has not been an aggressor-they were attacked by Saddam, but have more chosen to exert influence in less overt manner (eg, by support of Hezbollah).
The idea that WWIII lurks in the background if Iran gets even so much as a knowledge of nukes is so utterly preposterous that anyone who thinks for a moment recognizes it as so. The problem is the large number of intelligent Americans who preserve little time for such thought (I had to educate several of my wife's typical and intelligent but unengaged family after the fall of Baghdad that no, WMD's had NEVER been found in Iraq).
My wife likes to point out that whether right wing military industrial complex agendas drive the modern media (they clearly do to some extent) that there is a more ancient motive-conflict sells papers, magazines, and puts eyeballs on TV screens. Peace does not. With the ability of the media to whip up visceral energy on the turn of a dime, I despair that we will never get Zakaria's words into the minds of most Americans. Thus, my lone hope resides with their now apparent, and apparently entrenched, visceral disgust at the progress of the war with Iraq and with BushCo.
Posted by: calscientist | Oct 22, 2007 3:17:08 PM
Don't forget that their neighbour on the other side - with whcih they have been having disputes - is already a nuclear state. The nukes may be more for local than global deterence.
Sure, we all wish that there wasn't any proliferation. However, the US having let India, Israel and Pakistan into the club will have a difficult time stopping it now.
Posted by: ed finnerty | Oct 22, 2007 3:20:05 PM
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the U.S. has approximately 7000 ready and 3000 reserve nuclear warheads. That's enough nuclear weaponry to render the earth uninhabitable. That Iran would be at parity with us should they get a bomb - or even two or three is ludicrous.
Posted by: Dennis - SGMM | Oct 22, 2007 3:34:32 PM
I agree that it is unlikely that Iran will simply launch nukes or provide them to terrorists. That doesn't to me equate with an Iranian bomb not being a problem.
Iran readily employees terrorists as proxies now. One can only imagine that if they felt safer from retribution (which a nuclear weapon give them) they would increase this activity. Further, the pressence of a nuclear weapon would increase, rather then decrease the needed lethality of any retribution, ironically increasing the danger to ordinary Iranians.
For example, I don't think it 'crazy' to imagine a nuclear armed Iran feeling secure enough to supply Hezbollah with chemical weapons with which to attack Israel. It seems that if this resulted in mass casualties, some response would be required, whether or not Iran was a nuclear power. If we ever must respond to Iran, it would be better if Iran wasn't a nuclear power then if it was.
I suppose some might say that Iran supplying Hezbollah with a mass casualty weapon is not a reasonable thing to suppose, but it seems plausible to me.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Oct 22, 2007 3:39:37 PM
I think a Mexican standoff between Israel and Iran is a less likely scenario than the Ledeens of the world would like us to believe, but worrying about what Ahmadinejad's 28 Percenter faction might do upon becoming nuclear is hardly stupid. It's the moral duty of anyone of vaguely liberal sentiment. Iran need not fire missiles into Tel Aviv to stoke a conflagration that would result in the death of many Jews and engage the US or NATO. There are all kinds of half-measures (think 9/11-style attacks, Hezbollah) that its messianic war faction can take that would be a hundred times more sinister and intense if backed by nuclear equity. Ahmadinejad's fortunes are said to be on the wane now, but Iran is a fragile polity and things could easily shift to embolden and empower the death cult. Can you afford to be so sanguine about this kind of outcome that you label others "stupid" for even thinking it possible?
Posted by: John-Paul Pagano | Oct 22, 2007 5:28:36 PM
There's no emotion there -- I'm not upset at folks who disagree with me. I think they're flagrantly misreading the evidence, many of them in a cynical and agenda-oriented fashion. There is simply no evidence, none, to support the contention that Iran plans to detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel (remember, here, that Israel has submarine loaded nukes that everyone knows would then obliterate tehran), give such a weapon to a terrorist, or suicidally attack America.
I agree with this to a certain extent. I don't think if Iran gets a nuke today they nuke Israel tomorrow. I do think that if Iran gets a nuke today, they threaten to nuke Israel tomorrow and infinetely on into the future. Also as I said before, if Iran has nukes then it increases their bargining power at the table. People dismiss this or say "good for them". But I don't want Iran backing up their human rights abuses, state rigged anti democratic actions, pushing an attempt to increase their hegemony.
The last of which can not be overlooked. If you disagree with the fundamentalist right wingers in our country aggressively pursuing hegemony why do you support a fundamentalist governments push for hegemony? I also don't trust a country who's power structure is largely isolated from its people.
Posted by: Phil | Oct 22, 2007 5:36:57 PM
I find it deeply interesting that people are so concerned for Iran getting one nuke, and for the plight of its people, when it seems all eyes are off of China, Russia, and even Pakistan.
Posted by: DragonScholar | Oct 22, 2007 5:56:11 PM
" People dismiss this or say "good for them".But I don't want iran backing up their human rights abuses, states rigged-anti democratic elections, pushing an attempt to increase their hegemony." Whoo! Where do I start? Well, I guess I can start with the inherent racism in your logic (Or lack there-of.). Actually, Phil, you're doing all of us "liberals" a favor. Your statements elucidate the state of modern Ameerican racism. Instead of just stating that it is your belief that the only people who should have the "right" to hegemony, or human rights abuses, (America does have the SECOND HIGHEST prison population in the world!) are good ol' Anglos,you try to shroud your bigotry in some sort of warped presentation of a concern for Isreal. Or one of concern that Iran will impose it's will on the rest of the world. Pop quiz hotshot. You've just been busted for racism, lies ,and hypocrisy. What do you do? What do you do?
Posted by: onlinesavant | Oct 22, 2007 8:35:24 PM
I've asked this a million times: When did conservatives become such war-mongering chickenhawk bedwetters?
Foreign policy made easy, right here. For Christ's sake, if we have to take one to deliver a knockout blow, so be it. At least it would be over.
And I don't think that would ever come to pass. The birthplace of civilization is not fundamentally suicidal. Neither is ANYONE who loves power. Duh.
http://jonorato42.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/foreign-policy-made-easy/
Posted by: John O | Oct 22, 2007 10:03:32 PM
1) Iran builds a nuclear bomb
2) Iran gives bomb to terrorists
3) terrorists detonate bomb in US
4) US obliterates Iran
Assuming 1-3 actually happens, the Iranians still always end up at 4. Unless Khamenei is secretly an "end times" Muslim, I don't see why he would go down this path.
Posted by: Would you like to play a game? | Oct 22, 2007 10:42:34 PM
What has GDP to do with Nuclear Weapons? Zakaria has tendency to reduce every argument to simple numbers of GDP which are not applicable to many problems some countries can create. Look for N. Korea - how many problems they have created with how much less money! It is simply trivializing the autonomy of 'political actions'.
Next, Ezra is complete wrong in discounting the danger of Nuclear Iran. As so many posts have already indicated; the danger is real. Look Ezra, one Khan from Pakistan is enough for the proliferation. So why would Americans want to believe Kucinich style peaceniks when it comes to nukes in Iran's hand? They do not.
With Iran, the prudent course is to assume and prepare for the worst.
Posted by: Umesh Patil | Oct 23, 2007 2:46:18 AM
People who say that Iran is seeking "hegemony" are a bit like me when I first discovered that beautiful word "ideology". Used it all the time.
But for Zarathustra's sake, it's balderdash. It just so happens that the Iranians have a lot of influence in Iraq because the Americans are standing on the necks of the Sunnis and trying to promote Kurdish secession. (Which is not playing well in Ankara, by the way.) Apart from that the Iranians are not tremendously influential anywhere else in the region except where there are Shi'ites who need guns because someone else (Israelis, Saudis) is standing on their necks.
As for nukes, the point has been well made and more so that their acquisition of nukes means nothing more than to diminish the danger of US aggression. But there is no evidence that they plan to get nukes; the fact that they might want to get them sometime proves absolutely nothing.
The US has based its entire foreign policy on fantasies and role-playing wargames, so I suppose none of this is surprising, but the people who read this weblog ought to be smarter.
Posted by: MFB | Oct 23, 2007 4:38:21 AM
Shiites in Iraq have been ethnically cleansed because we failed to provide security. Iran is perfectly justified in intervening to help their brother Shiites defend themselves.
Posted by: bob h | Oct 23, 2007 8:32:19 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
