The Coming Failure On Iran
By Jackson Diehl, Washington Post
Not talks. Not sanctions, even of the “crippling” variety the Obama administration has spoken of. Not military strikes. And probably not support for regime change through the still-vibrant opposition.
For obvious reasons, senior officials won’t state this broad conclusion out loud. But it’s not hard to find pessimistic public statements about three of the four options. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the prospects for diplomacy “very doubtful.” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said military action will do no more than “buy time.” Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, echoing private statements I’ve heard from the Obama administration, told me last week that a strategy of backing the Iranian opposition “would take too long” and might well produce a government with the same nuclear policy.
As for sanctions, Western officials rarely disparage them in public. They don’t want to help spoilers in Russia and China who want to block U.N. action against Iran for their own reasons. But many are doubtful about them, and with good reason. Despite hints of cooperation by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the White House is pessimistic that Russia or China will agree to the sort of escalation in sanctions that would command Iran’s attention, such as a ban on gasoline supplies or arms sales or new investments in oil and gas production.
ad_icon
The history of sanctions in the region also is not good: More than a decade of punishment, including regular airstrikes, had no positive impact on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Iran’s current rulers, many of whom came of age in the Revolutionary Guards during the Iran-Iraq war, sound convincing when they say they are ready for the country to suffer more austerity for the cause of Iranian greatness.
What of Thursday’s talks in Geneva? Iran agreed to international inspections of its new nuclear facility and to ship out of the country some of the uranium it has enriched. Yet those modest concessions may complicate the negotiations and the prospects for sanctions. The headlines about them already obscured the fact that Tehran’s negotiator declined to respond to the central Western demand: that Iran freeze its uranium enrichment work. Iran has rejected that idea repeatedly, and there is no reason to believe the hard-liners in power will change their position.
In the meantime, talks about the details of inspections and the uranium shipments could easily become protracted, buying the regime valuable time. (On Friday the Associated Press quoted a member of the Iranian delegation as saying it had not, in fact, agreed to the uranium deal.) Meanwhile, Tehran’s tactical retreat has provided Russia and China with an excuse to veto new sanctions — something they would have been hard-pressed to do had Iran struck an entirely defiant tone in Geneva.
The Obama administration and its allies have said repeatedly that they will pursue diplomacy until the end of the year and then seek sanctions if diplomacy hasn’t worked. That sets up a foreseeable and very unpleasant crossroads. “If by early next year we are getting nothing through diplomacy and sanctions,” says scholar Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, “the entire policy is going to be revealed as a charade.”
What then? Pollack, a former Clinton administration official, says there is one obvious Plan B: “containment,” a policy that got its name during the Cold War. The point would be to limit Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons or exercise its influence through the region by every means possible short of war — and to be prepared to sustain the effort over years, maybe decades. It’s an option that has been lurking at the back of the debate about Iran for years. “In their heart of hearts I think the Obama administration knows that this is where this is going,” Pollack says.
I suspect he’s right. I also don’t expect Obama and his aides to begin talking about a policy shift anytime soon. For the next few months we’ll keep hearing about negotiations, sanctions and possibly Israeli military action as ways to stop an Iranian bomb. By far the best chance for a breakthrough, as I see it, lies in a victory by the Iranian opposition over the current regime. If that doesn’t happen, it may soon get harder to disguise the hollowness of Western policy.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Israpundit » Blog Archive » The Coming Failure On Iran -- Topsy.com
“Containment” doesn’t work, when the kook countries with nukes are all out of the box.
Expect World War Three any year now. It’s heartening to think that it will not begin with a Russian salvo launched against the US. Israel already has a very credible second-strike deterrent in its five Dolphin-class subs — provided they keep them armed with nukes at all times. Some well-disguised submarine tenders could give them global reach, extending to ALL their enemies.
Of course, they also have a first-strike option, which is also good.
Obama wants Iran to have nukes:
Since Obama hates Jewish Israel, and loves muslims, he actually wants Iran to have nukes. His policy (like Bush’s before him) is: stall for time by having pretend diplomatic talks with Iran, followed by phoney worthless sanctions, and forbid Israel from a pre-emptive attack.
The Iranian nuke is a win-win-win-win proposition for Obama:
1. Iran gets the bomb and nukes Israel. Obama wins. Israel is destroyed and then he can attack Iran if he wants. Like Ahmedinajad, Obama dreams about a utopian world free of Israel’s presence.
2. Israel attacks Iran. Obama gets to denounce Israel and abandon her. Obama wins.
3. Israel and Iran destroy each other. A double win for Obama.
4. Iran gets the bomb and sits on it. Israel is despondent, and Saudi Arabia become mores even dependent on American protection. Obama wins.
Russia reportedly is close to signing a deal with Iran for enriching the ayatollahs’ uranium. That would add to the contract that Russians have with Iran to supply it with uranium rods for Bushehr reactor.
The outside enrichment plan might not materialize because Russia has to demand that Iran returns spent rods after using them in Bushehr reactor. Iran, however, needs the enriched uranium for reprocessing to weapons grade and cannot return it.
Whatever way the turmoil goes, Russia benefits from it. It profits from weapons sales to Iran, gains influence with Iran by agreeing to supply S-300 and with Israel by delaying the supply. In case of Israeli attack on Iran, Russia would profit from increased oil prices. If Israel does not attack Iran, Russia would get oil and gas concessions there for preventing the strike.
Since the communist times, Russians relied on smart and cheap policy of creating turmoil abroad and profiting from them.
An Iranian nuclear annihilation of Israel will doubtlessly claim most Palestinians as collateral damage.
However, the “supporters” of the Palestinians do not care.
Liberals are more than willing to sacrifice their precious Palestinians if that’s what it takes to kill the Jews.
The Palestinians doubtlessly are willing to make the sacrifice.
From all indications, they hate Jews more than they love life.
Such self-destructive Jew hatred is hardly unprecedented.
Hitler diverted resources from defeating the Russians to expedite the Holocaust.
In a perverse way, it is kind of flattering to be so despised.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Israel gets two more German submarines
JERUSALEM – Israel has taken delivery of two German submarines ordered four
years ago, a military spokesman said on Tuesday.
“We have received two Dolphin-class submarines built in Germany,” he said,
on condition of anonymity.
The submarines, called U212s, can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear
warheads, although when it confirmed the sale in 2006 the German government
said the two vessels were not equipped to carry nuclear weapons.
The subs were ordered in 2005 and delivery was initially expected in 2010.
Including the two new ones, Israel has five German submarines — the most
expensive weapon platforms in Israel’s arsenal.
Germany, which believes it has a historic responsibility to help Israel
because of the mass murder of Jews in World War II, donated the first two
submarines after the 1991 Gulf War.
It split the cost of the third with the Jewish state.
According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the U212s are designed for a crew of 35,
have a range of 4,500 kilometres (2,810 miles) and can launch cruise
missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
Israeli media have written that the Dolphin submarine could be key in any
attack on arch-foe Iran’s controversial nuclear sites.
An Israeli submarine recently used the Suez Canal for the first time in
June, escorted by Egyptian navy vessels, in what Israeli media said was
intended as a message to Iran.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Then this item just came to light!
Weapons expo: Israel does not exist
At AUSA military show in Washington, Israel is the only major country – exporter of arms which does not have its own pavilion. Instead, Israeli products are all offered by American companies or joint ventures.
As I have said, we must get out from under Americas Heavy boot on our heads and and learn to deal all by ourselves with what we need to deal with and on on every level. America is more of a danger to our survival than is Iran. Appeasing and subordinating our interests and our long term existence to theirs is crazy.
It isn’t Obama it is BB and past PM’s who have allowed and even sought such a situation. BB must go and now!!
I don’t buy the notion that military strikes won’t work. The media always wants to throw cold water on military options.
Replacing Mossadegh with the Shah worked for decades…until Carter installed the Islamic Republic.
Replacing Khamanei with the Shah’s son will work now.
I am with you Laura, it’s the liberal left media who wants to discourage military strikes.
I would rather rely on the generals, they will know what they are capable of doing and I believe the Israeli IDF’s can pretty much handle any of her adversaries. Their strength lies with their dedicated military personnel and they are a lot smarter. Add the sophisticated military hardware and you have a winner.