Obama and McCain spar on Iran

No talks between us and Iran prevent the reach for the bomb. On that McCain is correct.

Iran's decision based on our choices to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing we do now will scratch the nuke itch.

Now we live with the consequences of our choices, including the military tie-down that rules out regime change in Iran with military force.

All that is basically decided, along with our inability to stop Iran's reach, thanks also to Tehran's none-too-surprising support (or lack of serious resistance) from Russia, China and India.

We can deal with that emerging reality or we can finger-point over the past.

The question is, Who do you want to deal with this emerging strategic reality? The cool negotiator or the anger-management guy?

Ah, but what of the "irrationality" factor?

I repeat my question.

Why do we get so wobbly over Iran? We have met this package (nation-state/failed revolutionary power talking trash and sporting new nukes) twice before and finessed it nicely (and frankly, both the USSR and PRC were far more successful).

This "Mao" already has a bevy of "Nixons" knocking at the door over oil and gas.

We learn to accept our lack of leverage here or we're going to be consistently flabbergasted at our lack of success--as in, more of the same old, same old.

Our problem remains the same: we are unable to see the strategic reality for what it is and we're perplexed that our attempts at global gun control aren't working.

So I repeat the question differently: turn the page or reread the same passage over and over again, hoping for a different outcome?

Comments

[farhad]

you can't beat the mullas,without the support of the Iranian people.you can't get thier support by threating thier national existance andindependence or integrity.the one issue that bond Iranian together,is not religion,but nationalism(through 3k years of history).if we wish Iran to be a more democratic country,and affect the whole region possitively,we can't make deals with the mullas,at the same time ignoring the iranian thirst for democracy,whishing for a passive,nonefunctioning,but "moderate"Goverment.

[Louis Heberlein]

I don't think Iran's nuke bomb push was motivated mainly by our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It was our decisions to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq and to try to move them toward modernization that were the main concerns.

Iran quietly helped Bush #1 with Gulf War 1. Then he let Saddam's army use helicopters and heavy weapons to destroy an uprising by Iraq's Shiites when we still had the forces there to stop that attack, or destroy Saddam's resources.

Iran then stood there quietly after 9/11 while we knocked back the Taliban and then Saddam's regime. But we stayed in both places and seemed to be trying to use their modernization as tipping points to modernize the region. That is real issue.

We could go back to 1990s methods and base our forces in Turkey and the smaller modernized Arab states without getting Iran's religious and political leaders up tight. It is a real regional modernization model they really hate.

So if the prospects for modernization in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to get better, Iran will feel obliged to risk more trouble making. Unless .... (Tom can copy and paste his strategy here).

[Michael]

Nice thing about sticking with the smaller states: they happen to be on the shipping lanes where our presence can to the world-at-large the most good.

Semi-random observation: If we found- and took a close look at- genuinely 'irrational' world leaders of the past and present, that would go a long way toward deciding whether Ahmadinejad is crazy or not. Any nominations, folks?

[Louis Heberlein]

We developed and implemented Cold War strategy and techniques because Russia had a paranoia driven culture throughout its establishment as a result of a long difficult history. That meant that a true openly rational US approach was not likely to work, so some American approaches had to be used that did not seem wise at the time. Both within our government and academic world there were some folks really watching developments in Russia to see what was needed and when it was time to flip to rational. That became the seemingly lucky Reagan - Gorbachev time.