Slate asks: "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Ahmadinejad?"
So, here's the big question: If diplomacy is the only rational solution to this problem yet the Iranians just want nukes—in other words, if there is no deal (or at least no deal that the United States would realistically offer) that would compel them to give up their dream—what's the next step? - Slate, January 19, 2006I'm usually not one for fighting hypotheticals, but does this one leave much of an alternative? It assumes both that "diplomacy is the only rational choice" and that "there is no [realistic] deal" that would achieve our ends. So why exactly is the (assumed impossible) diplomatic solution credited as a rational choice? Under these assumptions, diplomacy sounds like a waste of time.
Fortunately, in the non-hypothetical world, diplomacy might actually not be a waste of time if Iran's rulers have a bottom-line understanding of their own self interest that is at all rational (as Saddam Hussein did not). If they don't, of course, then they are lunatics and no one should say diplomacy is the only rational solution.
Although it would be very "un-American" to explore the possibility, it would be interesting to see what kind of popular dissent could be stirred up within Iran if we took a very public, very hard line on their nuclear program (very hard line as in "your leaders' actions are putting your lives in jeopardy"). It would also be interesting to see what private but very credible threats could accomplish.
One hopes with all our military and intelligence resources we have some capability to create a reasonable facsimile of an unfortunate catastrophic accident at a foreign nuclear facility. That seems like a logical capability to have developed, and perhaps we have. Plausible deniabilty is all that can be hoped for. Similarly, we probably have some plan to prevent Iran from scuttling ships to block the Strait of Hormuz. It would have to be a fairly robust plan, but it would be stupid not to have one as part of a military option that Slate has declared to be not rational.
I'm not advocating that we do or necessarily consider the things I'm alluding to, but mention them as an exercise in thinking outside the box.
We could always just wait and do nothing on the theory that what hasn't happened won't happen. It worked so well with the weather last year that perhaps we should try it with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
posted at 4:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home