ARTICLE: “Why U.S. Wages Diplomacy With Defiant Iran: Strike on Nuclear Sites Could Derail Reformers, Trigger Broad Retaliation,” by Carla Anne Robbins and Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2006, p. A4.
ARTICLE: “Hurdles Await U.S. Bid for Sanctions Against Iran: Compromise, Interpretations Cloud Agreement for Reports On Tehran’s Nuclear Efforts,” by Marc Champion, Neil King Jr., and David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 1 February 2006, p. A6.
EDITORIAL: “An ‘Intolerable’ Threat: What a world with an Iranian nuclear weapon would look like,” Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2006, p. A12.
ARTICLE: “Senators grill intelligence chief about surveillance: Negroponte says it’s ‘probably true’ that N. Korea has nukes,” by John Diamond, USA Today, 3 February 2006, p. 4A.
Greg Jaffe’s piece with Carla Robbins is a tremendous explanation of the reasons why the Bush Administration, while talking plenty tough, has actually taken a fairly reasoned and low-key approach to Iran.
They argue that it would be easy to lay facilities to rubble, but that Iran’s distribution strategy means that impact would be minimal in terms of actually setting back their efforts (hence the argument of some that the only quick successful strike would necessarily be a nuclear one).
But the main reason why the administration wisely lays off is the fear of blowback from a population (Shiite) that frankly hasn’t been the bulk of our problem yet in the region, so why add them to the battle against the exclusively Sunni-based Salafi jihadist movement?
That’s the fear, but the hope is not small either. State and the White House are smart enough to know that there are substantial reformist elements and a rather restive, largely pro-American population that’s not worth losing.
Clearly, our inability to master the second-halves in both Afghanistan (where we do better than people realize) and Iraq (pretty tough slog still) is the underlying cause of our inability to threaten Iran with much beyond the lightning strikes. So if we’re going to keep the Big Bang rolling in the time remaining in this administration, we’ll have to do it by coopting Iran, not invading it.
So radical when I wrote it a year ago, but looking more and more like the only logical play for us. It’s so logical, in fact, that Bush is willing to suffer the criticism from all sides that he’s not being “tough enough.”
Fortunately, or unfortunately, our sanctions, however arranged, won’t have much impact, so the long-term squeeze on Iran yields us only one significant positive: a longer conversation with Europe, Russia, China and (hopefully) India on what we collectively want the Middle East to look like in coming years and decades.
“Intolerable” to the WSJ, but the board is blowing smoke on this one, because they’re ignoring the sheer realities of how tied down our ground forces are right now.
Actually, the WSJ editorial shoots itself in the foot, by quoting Simon Jenkins, editor of the Times of London: “I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb. But a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its West… How can we say such a country has ‘no right’ to nuclear defense?”
Ouch!
But clearly, a country that supports terrorism outside its borders can’t be trusted with the bomb?
Double ouch, as only India might be easily excluded from that list.
Meanwhile, new Director of National Intelligence says North Korea probably already has the nukes.
I mean, Iran will always dream of one thing first: Iran’s continued survival in a world where it has existed for thousands of years.
But North Korea? You know Kim fears the inevitable: his country will disappear. It will disappear like South Vietnam, the lesser Yemen (can’t remember), and East Germany. It will not survive because it is a relic that’s lived beyond its time.
That regime and that leader truly has nothing to lose by going out with a bang.
And that’s why Kim needs to go.