Condoleezza Rice has stated the US request to the international community quite clearly:
The White House declared yesterday that “it is time for action” by the U.N. Security Council, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on it to take “strong steps” to force Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment.
The next question would seem to be: Who, in that community, is likely to take Iran seriously enough to act strongly? Or, as Gerard Baker asks: Do we have any reliable allies who can?
How plausible is it that this depleted and demoralized army of European governments is going to spring into battle – metaphorically or literally, with tough economic sanctions or tougher military action – to divert the Iranians from the doomsday path.
The Bush administration was excoriated at home and abroad for its unilateralism in confronting Iraq. But does anybody really think, when the hard decisions have to be made to face down the next threat, that anyone other than the US will be in the coalition?
Polimom thinks that judging the European allies on the basis of events occurring right now, at this moment in time, and weighing whether they’re willing to “spring into battle” is similar to wondering whether one should stock up on water in November for the hurricane season that starts in June. It’s probably a good idea to keep one’s eye out for sales, or signs that the stock hasn’t been replenished, but the levees haven’t actually failed yet.
Contrary to breathlessly hysterical headlines today like, “Bombs possible within 16 days!”, the actual assessments are still along the lines of five to ten years, before Iran would actually be able to deliver what we’re all pretty sure they’d like. As Right Wing Nut House said earlier, everybody please relax and take a deep breath.
Folks, that’s too long a time to toss the towel already on negotiating, or to start making a case that “the US will have to go it alone”.
The problem isn’t our allies; it’s Iran’s bizarre face to the world.
Polimom doesn’t believe for a second that Iran expects to just sit there, happy as a tick, holding “the bomb” over its enemies heads as the world frowns its disapproval. Ahmadinejad knows that even if the U.S. decides that perhaps the preemptive approach isn’t ours to make, Israel will never just sit there and wait for death to fall from the sky.
Iran seems to be on a path to suicide.
Why? I concede that it’s possible that he’s simply insane, but if he’s not, then what does he stand to gain by provoking the world, and risking everything? (via first link above)
“We’ve been trying coercive diplomacy and the Iranians have just sent a very clear message: ‘Nice try, it just won’t work,’ ” said Clifford Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group. “The only diplomatic option we haven’t tried” is to cut a deal directly. “We might as well try putting everything on the table.”
Yes, we might as well. Given the alternatives, it seems to me that it’s worth taking the time (since we have it) to find out. Don’t you?
It seems to me that Iran is in a much more stronger position in this affair than most reporting would suggest. No, I don’t think Iran is suicidal. An attack on Iran, whether by the United States or Israel, is not a win for the US – and certainly Iran knows it.
Also, I think the conventional wisdom that Iran is going to start a nuclear conflict with Israel needs to be reexamined. It has become an accepted notion simply by mere repitition. Anti-Israeli rhetoric plays well for the home crowd, but when it comes to action, the Arab regimes and Iran have engaged more asymetrical methods and have mostly avoided direct confrontation. The more we beat this drumbeat of Iran vs. Israel the more we are doing the bidding of those who want war.
I think the fact of the matter is that Iran is going to go nuclear and there will be very little we can rationally do about it. Sure, George Bush may launch pre-emptive air strikes and lead us all down a nice deep hole, but short of that, if sanity prevails I think we are looking at the reality of a nuclear Iran.
And quite frankly if Israel wants to take Iran and itself down with it, they have ample nukes to get the job done. There is absolutely no reason for the US to have to go to war here on behalf of Israel in a nuclear conflict. Israel has overwhelming superiority there. Again, my guess is George Bush notwithstanding, the world community will not allow it to happen.
Finally, the question of what is driving Iran? Well, if you had US troops to your East and US troops to your West and South and to the North, you would think that you need some deterrence too. Without nukes, Iran is in a very weak spot. And if the Iraq invasion has shown anything, it has shown that a country needs nukes in order to defend itself against attack.
Mash – I’d buy into the “Iran is doing this because the US on all sides of us” theory, except that Iran’s quest for nuclear nirvana predates our entry into Iraq by a long while.
And actually, the drums of Iran v. Israel have been beaten hard, and long, by Iran. Are you suggesting that we (not necessarily the US, but the world) should not take them seriously? The Iranians are notoriously Machiavellian in their strategical thinking, but that is going a bit far, even for them, I think.
You said:
I don’t know that the reality of a nuclear Iran bent on the annihalation of other countries is the sane solution. Of course (as you know), I don’t think we should pop in there and start kicking a** and taking names, either (so to speak).I just cannot believe that those are the only choices.
I was imprecise if I suggested that Iran did not want nukes before we invaded. What I meant to say is that its not surprising that Iran would want nukes urgently now that we are surrounding the country. Frankly every country in the world wants nukes. If it wasnt for the NPT many more countries would possess nukes now.
Anyway, I decided instead of trying to summarize in the comments here I should post a piece on my blog about Iran. I have posted an article and It is likely the first in a series about separating Iran the country from Iran the caricature.
I tracked back to your article also.