One of the blessings of being an unknown, unimportant voice in the blogosphere is that my opinion matters so little, even to my own family and friends, that I can make a statement without fear of retribution or consequences. I do not expect those in power or responsibility or reputations worth defending to speak as plainly as I intend to now. But, one vainly hopes that plain words can, indirectly, promote reevaluation among those who do not have the luxury of that personal indulgence.
In an era of more limited resources and domestic inflexibility, American foreign policy may need to clarify its interests and reevaluate any commitments in which neither interests nor values are served.
For these reasons, I suggest two "grim trigger" strategies to modify existing American policy:
1. An ultimatum to Iran to suspend its entire nuclear program and submit to IAEA inspections within nine months, or face military reprisals.
2. A clear statement to Israel that if they attack unilaterally, all aid will be immediately suspended.
Iran:
Iran has demonstrated its inability to cooperate within the guidelines of the global community. Perhaps even more tragically, it has brutally demonstrated that reasonable voices of dissent are both unwelcome and powerless within the Iranian state. No one should wish ill upon the people of Iran for the folly of their leadership. But we also must recognize the limits of our power, diplomatically, economically, and militarily, to effect regime change anywhere, especially Iran.
Unfortunately, this means that the Iranian people are largely on their own. God willing, we will not attempt nation-building in a country with over twice the population and four times the land area of Iraq, a nation that, religiously, linguistically, and historically, has found itself at mortal odds with most of its neighbors. Such an invasion and occupation would make the folly of Iraq look like Grenada.
At the same time, one should be pessimistic about the outcome of diplomatic efforts. Both Russia and China are not subject to the rules of either liberal democracy or a self-identity founded upon liberalism. Russia, in particular, has demonstrated a particularly brash willingness to support Syria to provide it strategic access to the Mediterranean. Both nations, because of their geography and demography, also have a vital interest in crushing self-determination movements of any form. They are, in short, not reliable partners in containing Iran, and cannot be trusted to adhere to sanctions. I pray that our national leadership never becomes so populated with fools that we would ever trust our national security to the whims of these two international actors.
Furthermore, Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon would severely damage the power of the United States to effectively negotiate. The North Korean experience indicates that containment is possible only given the conditions of (1) powerful, proximate allies, (2) powerful, proximate adversaries who, because of their own interests, serve to restrain the regime, and (3) a weak enough technological and military capacity that major shipping lanes are not affected. The Iranian situation has none of these, leading to the conclusion that containment would be impossible, and long-term disruption of American interests inevitable, should Iran possess a nuclear weapon.
Sadly, inevitably, America is left with the option to do its best to, again, disrupt and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program. This means continued covert operations directed toward sabotage, which has already postponed the Iranian nuclear weapons program by at least a decade. But it will also mean an ultimatum to Iran: open up all sites to IAEA inspections and turn over nuclear refinement to an external party (Russia if necessary, but ideally someone else) by January 1, or the US will direct strikes against Iranian nuclear installations, military as well as civilian, and associated anti-air defenses.
Israel:
That I am now reluctantly inclined to think that a strike against Iran may be necessary does not, in any way, moderate my frustration with Israel's efforts to push the issue in America. Although intended for a separate post, I have decided to address Israel in this statement as well.
Lord Palmerston once famously said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies. They only have permanent interests." (Nearly as famous was the requotation by Gorbachev to Thatcher, following the US-UK schism over the Falkland Islands schism).
A secret: America is not an exceptional nation. Neither is Israel. Both are subject to restrictions, natural and cultivated advantages and weaknesses, and the demands placed upon them by their respective systems of government and citizens.
Mature participants in the international community do not deny history. Nor do they use it as a shield against all criticism. They use it as a guide. The history of the United States tells us that there is danger in subordinating or confusing national interest in the name of satisfying the whims of a small, but seemingly indispensable ally, whether in the heart of Europe or in Southeast Asia.
The arrogance of the Israeli government in general, and Netanyahu in particular, of lecturing America while as a guest in the United States is egregious. I do not forget the approval of new settler homes during Joe Biden's visit, an obvious slap in the face to the Obama administration's request that the settlement process be at least temporarily stayed.
The political impossibility of any mainstream political candidate suggesting anything short of unqualified support for Israel reflects, if not direct coercion of US policy by a foreign power, the subduing of American interests through a combination of self-censorship and a powerful domestic lobby. Statements such as this are typically charged as anti-Semitic, even when made by Jewish-Americans with a demonstrated centrist or right-of-center political disposition and a record favorable toward Israel. (See: Joe Klein)
American policy must make it clear that if Israel attacks Iran unilaterally, the United States will immediately stop the estimated $3 billion in annual support presently given to Israel, most of it in the form of military aid. It is an appropriate response to what I can only consider the attempt by a foreign power to draft America into a war.
That I am concluding that a strike against Iran may well be necessary does not take away from the healthy and necessary aversion to American interests and policies being so roughly pushed by an ally.
Both of these would be considered "grim trigger" strategies. They deserve the name. Yet they also do represent a strategy consistent with American interests and limitations. And what is sorely needed, perhaps more than at any time in the post-Cold War era, is a consistent strategy founded on our interests.
A final note: I recognize that, for a range of reasons, one or both of these changes may need to be made secretly, or strategically leaked. They could be linked or not. There are lots of variations. But I would argue that these two policy changes hold the promise of improving the connection between our policies and our interests.
If I have done my job, I've pissed off more people than usual - those on the left and the right. So be it - I am not above changing my mind in the face of superior reasoning or information. I am not privy to all of the information that is germane to this issue. But now, you will need to speak up.
