New at Reason

February 8, 2007

Michael Young looks at U.S. brinksmanship with Iran.

Comments

|2.8.07 @ 12:51PM|#

The other day one of my friends told me how to solve the brinksmanship problem with Iran once and for all. For the secret, mail me $5 to 8365 SW 131st Street Miami, FL 33156

|2.8.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Have we ever stopped anyone for getting the bomb?

|2.8.07 @ 1:39PM|#

Brazil. South Africa got rid of its bombs. Ironically, we did deter Iraq from continuing its development plan.

|2.8.07 @ 1:55PM|#

The Bush administration's surge option in Baghdad and in Anbar province has the potential to strengthen its hand if it can improve security in Iraq.

more wishfull thinking .. Michael, an honest advise .. stop daydreaming or stop smoking the stuff you are smoking . you are not making any sense.

Bush is stubborn enough, and infuriated enough by the Iraqi conflict, that the Iranians can't be quite sure of what he will do next.

It is not only the Iranians who can't figure what Bush will do next. You can't predict what one will do when he is advised by a bunch of lunatics.

wayne|2.8.07 @ 3:11PM|#

"...that the Iranians can't be quite sure of what he will do next."

Thankfully, the Iranians are quite predictable; let's see: annihilate Israel and murder the Jews who live there and finally show them what a real holocaust looks like; advance their menace of the middle east; put their size 14 shia boot on the throats of the sunni muslims in the region.

|2.8.07 @ 3:20PM|#

I've got an even better idea - put the Unabomber dude in charge of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. That would really keep the Iranians off balance.

|2.8.07 @ 4:03PM|#

"""Brazil. South Africa got rid of its bombs. Ironically, we did deter Iraq from continuing its development plan."""

Well, in the short term yes, we can prolong a country from acquiring them. In the long term, the answer is no. If a country really wants them, they get them.

You could have said the same thing about India and Pakistan in the 1970s.

|2.8.07 @ 9:30PM|#

Leaving aside for a moment the idea that Iran with a couple of nukes is substantially more threatening than perenially jittery Pakistan with nukes; leaving aside for a moment the idea that the world can be "saved" by a top-down global reform progam imposed by force;

we are left with Young's assertion that the best way to influence people is to behave in an aggressive and unstable manner.

Why not? After all, that's the foreign policy that's made North Korea the universally respected nation it is today. Historically, the response to the "madman strategy" is to make a tactical retreat, look for new allies and be ready for the next encounter. It does little but force people into new alliances against you. That's what Britain did when Hitler demanded the Sudetenland; it's what the North Vietnamese did to halt the Christmas bombing.

Iran will probably suspend enrichment if pushed hard enough. But suspensions aren't permanent, as much as the US would like to make it so. They will let the matter hang fire, cozy up to the Chinese, wait for the moment when the US is vulnerable, and then start up again. Right now Iran is isolated. Threatening them won't make them OUR friend, but it will send them looking for SOME friend. If you believe the best way to deal with our enemies is to push all of them into one big alliance against us, then the Madman Strategy makes a lot of sense. In other words, it doesn't.

|2.8.07 @ 10:08PM|#

Leaving aside for a moment the idea that Iran with a couple of nukes is substantially more threatening than perenially jittery Pakistan with nukes;

Yeah, I don't get that. Iran, for all of its problems, seems to have a military/intelligence establishment firmly under the control of self-interested, rational players. No, I'm not talking about Ahmadinejad (who has only as much power as the unelected authorities allow him to have), I'm talking about the unelected leaders who may talk about religion but act as savvy players who are interested in keeping power. Probably because, despite a plethora of restless minorities, there is still a unified state with key elements held together by a mix of nationalism and religion. And while they aren't exactly at peace with their neighbors, they aren't perpetually one inch away from all-out war with a neighbor either. Finally, if the regime does fall, it will probably fall due to popular protests.

Pakistan, OTOH, has an intelligence service that is a power unto itself, restless regions that don't really answer to Islamabad, a nuclear scientist who opened his own retail business, and a potentially explosive dispute with a large neighbor. And this place is kept under control by a man who has narrowly escaped assassination several times in recent years.

I'm not thrilled with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Tehran, but I am far more terrified by nuclear-armed Pakistan. There's the very real chance that some shady character will let something slip through a hole in a fence.

|2.8.07 @ 10:10PM|#

Oh, I wanted to echo my agreement with your response to this too:
we are left with Young's assertion that the best way to influence people is to behave in an aggressive and unstable manner.

It's one thing to carry a big stick and make it clear that you're willing to use it. That shows that you're a tough, rational player capable of responding, and people might decide that it's a good idea to keep you happy.

OTOH, a crazy guy flailing around on a rampage won't be catered to. A crazy guy on a rampage is NOT a rational player, so instead of trying to keep him happy people will arm themselves to fend him off.