The Fallout of Smoke & Mirrors
9:28 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
It's worth saying flatly that a nuclear Iran is a nonstarter. Even Egypt, which has lived with a nuclear Israel next door for decades, seems shaky about the possibility of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having nukes. But the way that their nuclear aspirations are thwarted matters greatly. What tact will the Obama administration take to elimanate Iranian weapons, and how long will it take us to stop playing footsie with a psycho?
Despite Ahmadinejad's award winning performances on Charlie Rose, we could be forgiven for seeing tacit evidence that the Iranian government does indeed seek nuclear weapons capability. Their lack of cooperation with the IAEA coupled with eleventh-hour admission of unapproved nuclear enrichment facilities would be evidence enough of a taste for nukes. This coupled with coy rhetoric and quasi-denials make the situation troubling indeed.
NPR reports that some experts support military action to thwart Iran's efforts. "I do think military attacks on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure may eventually be necessary to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons," says Kori Schake, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain during his presidential campaign.
But not everybody agrees- not even all neoconservatives. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute worries about Iran developing a nuclear bomb, but he opposes using military strikes. Rubin says the best way to keep Iran non-nuclear is to push for a new government there.
According to his interview with National Public Radio, Rubin spent five years in Iran doing research. He has a list of ways the United States could promote "regime change" that includes supporting independent trade unions, setting up a clandestine communication system and recruiting defectors.
And that's where we should lose the American audience in the standoff with Iran.
The United States seems perennially addicted to meddling in other countries business. Even a passing glance at history reminds us that the US forcing regime change by meddling in other countries' business rarely ends up going well in the long run. The US-backed reinstatement of the Shah and his subsequent fall in 1979 in Iran alone could provide cautionary tale against forced regime change.
Finding subtle ways to manipulate Iranian citizens is not only dubious on practical grounds, but on moral grounds as well. America should not be in the business of electioneering, period. If our government is willing to prod Iranian citizens into doing our bidding, what stops us from assuming that we would do the same to American citizens?
In a part of the world that is rarely exposed to debating points of view, it is dangerous to tug on puppet strings. The people of Iran did last year exactly what we ask the world to do. They voted for their government through a very scary and divisive election. The presence of fraud has not been reason enough for us to cast out the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan, and rampant fraud in 2008 has not caused America to oust president Obama from Pennsylvania Avenue. So we cannot use that excuse to bomb or electioneer Tehran.
Then again, it's always worth reiterating that a nuclear Iran is a nonstarter. Sanctions have failed in large part because of Russian and Chinese interests in Iranian trade. Meanwhile we've lost another two years because this president decided to invite a psychopath back to the adults table to reason with him. So if American voters and American allies don't have the stomach for military action to stop Iran from glowing in the dark, then the awful choice between war and political espionage seems inevitable.
Excuse those of us in the nosebleed seats for yearning for the good old days where we called evil empires by their name and treated them accordingly.
For videos and archives visit Drawnlines Politics Online AND check us out on FACEBOOK
It's worth saying flatly that a nuclear Iran is a nonstarter. Even Egypt, which has lived with a nuclear Israel next door for decades, seems shaky about the possibility of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having nukes. But the way that their nuclear aspirations are thwarted matters greatly. What tact will the Obama administration take to elimanate Iranian weapons, and how long will it take us to stop playing footsie with a psycho?
Despite Ahmadinejad's award winning performances on Charlie Rose, we could be forgiven for seeing tacit evidence that the Iranian government does indeed seek nuclear weapons capability. Their lack of cooperation with the IAEA coupled with eleventh-hour admission of unapproved nuclear enrichment facilities would be evidence enough of a taste for nukes. This coupled with coy rhetoric and quasi-denials make the situation troubling indeed.
NPR reports that some experts support military action to thwart Iran's efforts. "I do think military attacks on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure may eventually be necessary to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons," says Kori Schake, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain during his presidential campaign.
But not everybody agrees- not even all neoconservatives. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute worries about Iran developing a nuclear bomb, but he opposes using military strikes. Rubin says the best way to keep Iran non-nuclear is to push for a new government there.
According to his interview with National Public Radio, Rubin spent five years in Iran doing research. He has a list of ways the United States could promote "regime change" that includes supporting independent trade unions, setting up a clandestine communication system and recruiting defectors.
And that's where we should lose the American audience in the standoff with Iran.
The United States seems perennially addicted to meddling in other countries business. Even a passing glance at history reminds us that the US forcing regime change by meddling in other countries' business rarely ends up going well in the long run. The US-backed reinstatement of the Shah and his subsequent fall in 1979 in Iran alone could provide cautionary tale against forced regime change.
Finding subtle ways to manipulate Iranian citizens is not only dubious on practical grounds, but on moral grounds as well. America should not be in the business of electioneering, period. If our government is willing to prod Iranian citizens into doing our bidding, what stops us from assuming that we would do the same to American citizens?
In a part of the world that is rarely exposed to debating points of view, it is dangerous to tug on puppet strings. The people of Iran did last year exactly what we ask the world to do. They voted for their government through a very scary and divisive election. The presence of fraud has not been reason enough for us to cast out the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan, and rampant fraud in 2008 has not caused America to oust president Obama from Pennsylvania Avenue. So we cannot use that excuse to bomb or electioneer Tehran.
Then again, it's always worth reiterating that a nuclear Iran is a nonstarter. Sanctions have failed in large part because of Russian and Chinese interests in Iranian trade. Meanwhile we've lost another two years because this president decided to invite a psychopath back to the adults table to reason with him. So if American voters and American allies don't have the stomach for military action to stop Iran from glowing in the dark, then the awful choice between war and political espionage seems inevitable.
Excuse those of us in the nosebleed seats for yearning for the good old days where we called evil empires by their name and treated them accordingly.
For videos and archives visit Drawnlines Politics Online AND check us out on FACEBOOK
Posted by Nick Stone
on 9:28 AM.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
The problem with negotiating with Iran is that we have nothing to negotiate with. We have nothing they want and with no influence over Russia and China no sanctions will have any teeth. Ultimately it is a no win scenario. It's time to admit that we no longer have the diplomatic power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The alternative is to openly attack their nuclear facilities or to simply let them have the bomb and sign a new nuclear treaty with Allied states in the Middle East that a nuclear attack on one is an attack on all and reinstate mutually assured destruction.