Here We Go Again Posted by Michael Cohen

As if the news out of Iraq was not depressing enough I woke up to this story in the New York Times regarding Iran:

The Bush administration is preparing to declare that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a foreign terrorist organization, senior administration officials said Tuesday.

If imposed, the declaration would signal a more confrontational turn in the administration’s approach to Iran and would be the first time that the United States has added the armed forces of any sovereign government to its list of terrorist organizations.

I suppose this shouldn't come as a huge surprise since we've heard the sabers rattling on Iran for a few weeks now. But one part of the story really jumped out at me for its sad/tragic/comedic nature:

A move toward putting the Revolutionary Guard on the foreign terrorist list would serve at least two purposes for Ms. Rice: to pacify, for a while, administration hawks who are pushing for possible military action, and to further press America’s allies to ratchet up sanctions against Iran in the Security Council.

Only in the Bush administration would declaring a foreign country's military a terrorist organization qualify as a moderating step.

Not to be overly filppant here, but Iran's nuclear program is a serious issue. After all, non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy since the dawn of the nuclear age. I didn't even realize until recently but according to former Secretary of Defense, William Perry, President Clinton actually threatened the use of force against North Korea in 1994 if they reprocessed spent fuel to make plutonium. And the Clinton Administration wasn't exactly what you would call "trigger-happy" so clearly this was a big deal at the time.

Yet, in one more example of why the war in Iraq has been a disaster for U.S. foreign policy, our choices are incredibly narrow in how to deal with this issue. Due to our weakened international standing we have greatly diminished influence with our Allies and in the United Nations. But from military standpoint even if we wanted to rattle some cages (and no, I am not advocating a military strike against Iran) the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and the weakened state of our military makes such an option much more difficult. Even if we wanted to threaten force I don't think it would resonate with the Iranians. As Perry argues, it certainly resonated with the North Koreans (and so no one gets the wrong impression I am not advocating a military strike against North Korea).

This represents a fundamental weakening of America's deterrent power. In their rush to show the world how "tough" America is, the Bush Administration forgot one of the fundamental lessons of deterrence - once you use force and show people the limitations of how far you will go in using it, it tends to make people fear you less. If you look at the way we've conducted the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we ironically seem like a bit of a paper tiger, unwilling to take the really difficult steps necessary for victory (such as sending US troops into Tora Bora to capture or kill the guy who murdered 3,000 Americans). This is one case where sometimes what's not known is more powerful that what is.

Comments

[SteveB]

After all, non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Oh really? And does this apply to Israel, as well?

[Dare to Dream]

Ever heard of India?
Tell me the weren't given a U.S. pass recently to TEST nukes...

[Michael Cohen]

Dare to dream, you're right - I am very troubled by what the Bush Administration did with India and nuclear technology. It's unfortunate that this hasn't received more press scrutiny.

As to SteveB's point, you could have also mentioned France, China, India and Pakistan. The policy hasn't always been succesful, but I think keeping nukes out of the hands of rogue regimes is an important foreign policy priority. Certainly, the Clinton Administration deserves a lot of credit for stopping North Korea from going nuclear in 1994 - and the Bush Admin deserves a ton of blame for dropping the ball on that one.

Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism and threatens key US interests in the region. Keeping them away from a nuke seems like a good idea to me. How we do it is another question altogether.

[SteveB]

OK, so "non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy" should read: "Making sure our friends have nukes while keeping them out of the hands of any potential enemies has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy."

Not likely to shock any Americans over the age of twelve, I know, but how do you think the rest of the world views our definition of "nonproliferation"? And can you see why a country like Iran feels free to shrug off our outrage at the possibility that they might develop nuclear weapons?

Also, comparing the situation with India and Iran, Iran is a signatory to the NPT, while India isn't. The only reason the UN has any right to tell the Iranians what to do is because of this. If Iran had followed the Indian example and simply pulled out of the NPT, there would be no LEGAL justification for placing any restrictions on Iranian nuclear development.

So please tell me again, who's the "rogue state"?

[Jimbojones]

So one of the main reasons they are being put on the list is because they supply peopl in Iraq with weapons........where does that put the people responsible(the US military) for letting 200,000 small arms go unaccounted for in Iraq ? I mean really, which is bigger, the amount of arms we have "lost" in Iraq or the amounts other people are trying to supply ?

[Rick Taylor]

So far no one has shown any hard evidence to prove Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. Remember wmd's and Iraq? Fool me once, shame on me. . .

--Rick Taylor

[Guy in Jersey]

Right on, SteveB.

[buermann]

A cheap way to convince the Iranians that they needn't build a bomb might be to stop threatening them with the bomb.

The propensity of the President and all his potential successors outside Obama to threaten them with a nuclear strike("Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table.") if they continue enriching uranium is rather an implicit violation of the NPT by itself, and doesn't lend much credibility to the anti-bomb lobby in the Iranian regime, assuming that there is indeed any pro-bomb lobby to speak of.

If I were the Supreme Leader of Iran and watched those debates I would have taken a pick axe to every IAEA sealed store of weapons grade material in my country months ago.

[buermann]

And to quote Henry Kissinger (March 27, 2005, WaPo) on the matter of US assistance to the Iranian program, "I don't think the issue of proliferation came up". A cornerstone indeed.

[IM]

"Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism and threatens key US interests in the region"
Wait a moment. What interests? In Iraq, Iran is an ally of teh government, like the U.S. In Afghanistan both countries have a common, anti Taliban interest.
So what interests are threatened?

[Don Bacon]

Iran's nuclear program is a serious issue.

Well, it's an issue because the US has made it one, but that doesn't make it "serious" in the sense that there's any basis to it. Iran's nuclear program is in complete accordance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, as verified by El-Baradei and his IAEA. In fact, Iran went further than required and agreed to additional protocols, which it canceled when Bush threatened Iran with nuclear attack in January 2006.

This represents a fundamental weakening of America's deterrent power.

Gee, perhaps we'll actually have to learn how to get along with others, ya think?

to capture or kill the guy who murdered 3,000 Americans

There is no proof that OBL was connected to 9/11, according to the FBI.

[marvin]

we ironically seem like a bit of a paper tiger...

which is why folks like Dick Cheney believe it's absolutely critical to attack Iran. He doesn't think it's enough for the US to be the strongest sumabitch on the block, we need to be perceived as a little bit crazy -- it's best if you keep'em guessing.

[Rupert]

The idea that we've lost deterrent power is absurd. We never had it. The Norks were violating the terms of their agreements with the Clinton administration from almost the minute they signed it. Both India and Pakistan detonated nukes under Clinton's( and the UN's ) watch.

We may not have deterrence, but we do have the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the history of mankind. The components of our military that would be used in any action against Iran are not being used heavily in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the Navy is probably the most battle ready it's been in decades. It's a beast. The Air force as well. The point isn't to deter but destroy. We cut off half of Iraq for 12 years by flying planes around and destroying anything that moved north of the 36th parallel. Cut of Iranian resources and they can't make nukes.

[Don Bacon]

Rupert, you are too eager to start a world war. You seem to suggest that the US should have attacked India, North Korea and Pakistan, and now Iran. Life is cheap for you, so long as it's someone else's.

The Navy ships in the Persian Gulf are sitting ducks for accurate, lethal and virtually unstoppable cruise missiles, of which Iran has a variety. Air Force effectiveness was disproved by studies after WWII, and the Iranians have many options for responding to an air attack, including the destruction of our land forces in Iraq.

[Rupert]

No Don, what I'm *saying*, not suggesting, is the idea we had deterence back in the magical 90's is absurd. 2 powers went nuclear under Clinton's watch and Pakistan opened up a nuclear black market.

You clearly have no idea of our military capabilities or Iran's lack thereof. Do really think battleships have no defenses against missle attacks? Iran has no military to speak of, with the exception of hundreds of thousands religious fanatics who actually have to get to our forces to cause trouble. And they would get flattened before they had a chance.

[Roland]

Iran has no military to speak of, with the exception of hundreds of thousands religious fanatics who actually have to get to our forces to cause trouble. And they would get flattened before they had a chance.

Posted by: Rupert |

You mean like the current cakewalk in Iraq? Iran isn't Iraq. Invading a country isn't as easy as you make it sound. What kind of defenses do those big slow moving ships in the Persian Gulf have against cruise missiles? Last I heard the missile defense systems were still in their infancy. Sure you air strike a few sites where you THINK they are you really going to win the war then will the populace greet you with candy and thanks? I don't think so! I think the populace will greet any foreign soldier who comes into their country the very same you and I would, especially if the civilian death rate is high during the initial attack.
What is more likely that any nascent democratic movement in that proud country is going to be crushed by such an attack and the Muslim extremist will have one more excuse to spread their gospel of jihad.
Are you forgetting there are over a billion people who follow Islam The crusades have got to end someday of this is going to be what sinks us.
I think this has more to do with a nuclear-armed Israel fearing an end to their regional dominance as a local superpower (witness their loss to the Iran proxy Army Hezbollah last summer around this time.)
In my view the wise course of action would be for all the hotheads in the Bush administration would are all ready to send other peoples children to die for their messed up ideologies should THINK THINGS through and try to use incentives and guarantees (Like for an example: "We promise not to try and kill you in the way that we've done such a bang-up job in the countries that neighbor you.")

Unless you like the idea of an long asymmetrical world war. I'm sure all the weapons manufacturers and the security firms will. Then back at home more civil liberties are repealed in the name of "national security" and the real agenda might become apparent.

I really hated to say this but once I did it kind of made sense to me:

"The US isn't that much different than Iran. One of their leaders has a bear and neither president has any real power. Iran has the Supreme Leader. The US has Dick Cheney."

[Metin2 gold]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Metin2 yang . I do not know how to use the Cheap metin2 yang ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy Cheap metin2 gold . We all love game, if you want to play it, please Buy metin2 gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to have game.

[Hellgate London Palladium]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Hellgate London gold . I do not know how to use the Hellgate gold ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy buy Hellgate Palladium . We all love game, if you want to play it, please cheap hellgate gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to have game.

[cheap silkroad gold]

It is the silkroad gold which make me very happy these days,
my brother says sro gold is his favorite games gold he likes,
he usually buy some silkroad online gold to start his game

[Perfect World Gold]

I hope i can get Perfect World Silver in low price.
I buy Perfect World money for you.

[ghost gen]

Players to do the search for the ghost genof a mysterious invisible enemy in the excitements. This nickname, I have two small things in the ghost online gen.

[buy Asda Story Gold]

I do not like to go shopping, because it always spends a lot of money, but I never hesitate to buy Asda Story Gold. You can buy cheap Asda Story gold; it is so easy and convenient.