This should cause a little angst in the Left-o-sphere
Our negotiations with Iran are not off to a good start. After the initial meeting in Geneva on October 1–with Iran on one side and Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United States on the other–Iranian representatives said they had agreed to send processed uranium to Russia. Then, a day later, one of the Iranian negotiators denied they had agreed to any such thing. Iran, it seems, is in no mood to make genuine concessions. But, then again, why should it be? The sad fact is that Tehran holds most of the negotiating cards right now. (major snip, after long discourse on what is going on)
This brings us to the one policy option that Tehran truly fears–and thus the only one that gives these negotiations any realistic chance of success: a credible threat of military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States, perhaps joined by Britain and France, or Israel. If the Iranian leadership believed that such an attack was a real possibility, it, or some parts of it, might be persuaded to change course.
Unfortunately, they are correct, and this is what we on the Right have been saying all along. It is the threat of force, not necessarily the use of force, that could change the dynamics. It doesn’t mean we would bomb them, and, if people would back the president’s use of force position, something I am 100% sure that 98% of Conservatives would do, Iran would have to really think hard about continuing their nuclear weapons program, particularly if other countries joined in.
And, right on time, those on the left completely fail to understand what Jeffrey Herf was writing about. Ones such as Matty Yglesias
I understand the argument that the United States should give up on diplomacy with Iran and then follow that up with a hysterical overreaction and an unprovoked military assault. I disagree with it, but I understand what it’s proponents are saying. But when I read this kind of thing from Jeffrey Herf in The New Republic, I’m really baffled:
The only problem is, Matty, that is not what Jeffrey was saying. Diplomacy will not end. It will backed up by a credible threat of the big stick if the carrot fails. Do you have another idea, Mat?
Maybe they’ll be afraid of the IDF, too
Hopeâ„¢?
Changeâ„¢?
After that, I’m afraid he’s out of ideas..
No one believes that an attack on Iran is feasible. So far Iran has been pretty much a bystander in Afghanistan. Do we really need a second front/sanctuary there attacking us from the rear ? I think not. If the Bush clique even with Cheney pushing for it knew that it could not happen then certainly no one can expect Obama to do it. Also let’s remember that Iraq is now BEST FRIENDS with their former #1 enemy, Iran. They would not like their best friend being attacked and we still have 140,000 troops there in a nation of 25 million. And Teach maybe it is time that you woke up and saw/smelled the coffee: Iran is about 10 years away from having a workable nuclear bomb on a missile. Oh and also those “secret” nuke sites ? The ones that were “hidden inside of a mountain ? NOT !! They were never inside of a mountain, they were constructed on the cut-dig/ then cover technique. The hidden inside a mountain was just a flourish to make us think that it was like a Dr Evil scheme.
Look at the pics and see for yourself: then decide. Is this something like we went through before with WMD ?
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2481/cut-and-cover
Let’s hope so, Matthew.
Good points, Duncan. Folks like Matt are long on yap, short on solutions.
John, the point is, sigh, not about actually bombing Iran’s nuclear sites. It is, sigh, about using the threat of force as a backstop. But, hey, if you want to hide your head in the sand and think Iran is all cute and fuzzy and would never develop nukes, go ahead. BTW, world leaders are very concerned, as is Obama, as is the UN, as are the other Middle Eastern nations. And, if you think it will take them 10 years, you are nuts.