For the record, this is not a Liberal Attack on Sarah Palin. I've just been reading about Iran's history and came across this article. I love FZ, and I like the different pov he brings to the table.
By Fareed Zakaria
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sarah Palin has a suggestion for how Barack Obama can save his presidency. "Say he decided to declare war on Iran," she said on Fox News this month. "I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today." Such talk is in the air again. Palin was picking up the idea from Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative Middle East expert who suggested a strike would reverse Obama's political fortunes. (Actually, Palin attributed the idea to Patrick Buchanan, but she obviously entirely misread Buchanan's column, which opposed Pipes's suggestion. It's getting tiresome to keep pointing out her serial gaffes, but Palin does appear to be running for president.)
The International Atomic Energy Agency warned last week of its "concerns" that the Iranian regime was moving to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability, not just nuclear energy. But this does not change the powerful calculus against a military strike, which would most likely delay the Iranian program by only a few years. And then there are the political consequences. The regime would gain support as ordinary Iranians rally around the flag. The opposition would be forced to support a government under attack from abroad. The regime would foment and fund violence from Afghanistan to Iraq and across the Persian Gulf. The price of oil would skyrocket -- which, ironically, would help Tehran pay for all these operations.
It is important to recognize the magnitude of what people like Palin are advocating. The United States is being asked to launch a military invasion of a state that poses no imminent threat to America, without sanction from any international body and with few governments willing to publicly endorse such an action. Al-Qaeda and its ilk would present it as the third American invasion of a Muslim nation in a decade, proof positive that the United States is engaged in a war of civilizations. Moderate Arab states and Muslim governments everywhere would be on the defensive. And as Washington has surely come to realize, wars unleash forces that cannot be predicted or controlled.
An Iran with nuclear weapons would be dangerous and destabilizing, though I am not as convinced as some that it would automatically force Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to go nuclear as well. If Israel's large nuclear arsenal has not made Egypt seek its own nukes -- even though that country has fought and lost three wars with Israel -- it is unclear to me why an Iranian bomb would.
The United States should use the latest IAEA report to bolster a robust containment strategy against Iran, bringing together the moderate Arab states and Israel in a tacit alliance, asking European states to go further in their actions, and pushing Russia and China to endorse sanctions. Former secretary of state James Baker suggested to me on CNN that the United States could extend its nuclear umbrella to Israel, Egypt and the Gulf states -- something that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has hinted at as well.
At the same time, Washington should back the "Green Movement" in Iran, which ultimately holds out the greatest hope for a change in the basic orientation of Iran's foreign policy. It remains unclear how broad or well-organized this opposition movement is, but as a long-term strategy we should support groups that want a more modern and open Iran.
Can we live with a nuclear Iran? Well, we're living with a nuclear North Korea (boxed in and contained by its neighbors). And we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union and Communist China.
Iran, we're told, is different. The country cannot be deterred by America's vast arsenal of nukes because it is run by a bunch of mystic mullahs who aren't rational, embrace death and have millenarian fantasies. But this isn't and never was an accurate description of Iran's canny (and ruthlessly pragmatic) clerical elite.
The most significant recent development in Iran has been the displacement of the clerical elite by the Revolutionary Guards, a military organization that is now the center of power. Clinton confirmed this when she warned of an emerging "military dictatorship" there. I'm not sure which is worse for the Iranian people: rule by nasty mullahs or by thuggish soldiers. But we know this: Military regimes are calculating. They act in ways that keep themselves in power. That instinct for self-preservation is what will make a containment strategy work.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.
By Fareed Zakaria
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sarah Palin has a suggestion for how Barack Obama can save his presidency. "Say he decided to declare war on Iran," she said on Fox News this month. "I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today." Such talk is in the air again. Palin was picking up the idea from Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative Middle East expert who suggested a strike would reverse Obama's political fortunes. (Actually, Palin attributed the idea to Patrick Buchanan, but she obviously entirely misread Buchanan's column, which opposed Pipes's suggestion. It's getting tiresome to keep pointing out her serial gaffes, but Palin does appear to be running for president.)
The International Atomic Energy Agency warned last week of its "concerns" that the Iranian regime was moving to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability, not just nuclear energy. But this does not change the powerful calculus against a military strike, which would most likely delay the Iranian program by only a few years. And then there are the political consequences. The regime would gain support as ordinary Iranians rally around the flag. The opposition would be forced to support a government under attack from abroad. The regime would foment and fund violence from Afghanistan to Iraq and across the Persian Gulf. The price of oil would skyrocket -- which, ironically, would help Tehran pay for all these operations.
It is important to recognize the magnitude of what people like Palin are advocating. The United States is being asked to launch a military invasion of a state that poses no imminent threat to America, without sanction from any international body and with few governments willing to publicly endorse such an action. Al-Qaeda and its ilk would present it as the third American invasion of a Muslim nation in a decade, proof positive that the United States is engaged in a war of civilizations. Moderate Arab states and Muslim governments everywhere would be on the defensive. And as Washington has surely come to realize, wars unleash forces that cannot be predicted or controlled.
An Iran with nuclear weapons would be dangerous and destabilizing, though I am not as convinced as some that it would automatically force Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to go nuclear as well. If Israel's large nuclear arsenal has not made Egypt seek its own nukes -- even though that country has fought and lost three wars with Israel -- it is unclear to me why an Iranian bomb would.
The United States should use the latest IAEA report to bolster a robust containment strategy against Iran, bringing together the moderate Arab states and Israel in a tacit alliance, asking European states to go further in their actions, and pushing Russia and China to endorse sanctions. Former secretary of state James Baker suggested to me on CNN that the United States could extend its nuclear umbrella to Israel, Egypt and the Gulf states -- something that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has hinted at as well.
At the same time, Washington should back the "Green Movement" in Iran, which ultimately holds out the greatest hope for a change in the basic orientation of Iran's foreign policy. It remains unclear how broad or well-organized this opposition movement is, but as a long-term strategy we should support groups that want a more modern and open Iran.
Can we live with a nuclear Iran? Well, we're living with a nuclear North Korea (boxed in and contained by its neighbors). And we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union and Communist China.
Iran, we're told, is different. The country cannot be deterred by America's vast arsenal of nukes because it is run by a bunch of mystic mullahs who aren't rational, embrace death and have millenarian fantasies. But this isn't and never was an accurate description of Iran's canny (and ruthlessly pragmatic) clerical elite.
The most significant recent development in Iran has been the displacement of the clerical elite by the Revolutionary Guards, a military organization that is now the center of power. Clinton confirmed this when she warned of an emerging "military dictatorship" there. I'm not sure which is worse for the Iranian people: rule by nasty mullahs or by thuggish soldiers. But we know this: Military regimes are calculating. They act in ways that keep themselves in power. That instinct for self-preservation is what will make a containment strategy work.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.
Why Iran's dictators can be deterred
23/02/2010 01:31:52 PM
- 733 Views
Not sure he showed us how they can be deterred
23/02/2010 01:56:42 PM
- 284 Views
Er yeah, that's totally the argument I was going for.
23/02/2010 02:06:52 PM
- 325 Views
No Palin was simply cover for the "we just have to accept Iran will get the bomb argument"
23/02/2010 02:26:45 PM
- 349 Views
She wasn't cover for anything, but I like how this argument keeps going that way.
23/02/2010 02:36:47 PM
- 324 Views
As I have noted it isn't conseratives that keep bring her up
23/02/2010 03:26:11 PM
- 275 Views
and I tried to take her out of the argument. But here we are.
23/02/2010 03:39:29 PM
- 310 Views
dealing with the repercussions of attacking another Islamic country may be our best option
23/02/2010 04:25:47 PM
- 405 Views
The world needs to decide how it feels about non-proliferation.
23/02/2010 07:11:51 PM
- 253 Views
yes American used the bomb so now we should let everyone else take a turn *NM*
24/02/2010 06:22:23 AM
- 178 Views
It would certainly demonstrate the folly of that view.
24/02/2010 06:49:56 AM
- 298 Views
well hell then why not just sel them nukes and get it over with
24/02/2010 02:33:00 PM
- 296 Views
I really don't think the folly need be demonstrated more than once.
28/02/2010 02:49:30 AM
- 235 Views
I think this guy lives on the moon
23/02/2010 02:51:20 PM
- 395 Views
I was just talking to Lupine about how I like your posts, but I'm gonna make an exception here.
23/02/2010 09:28:44 PM
- 355 Views
You'll have to link that then, I always like to read things that feed my ego
24/02/2010 12:17:37 AM
- 354 Views
Oh, it was on AIM.
24/02/2010 01:13:07 PM
- 418 Views
Ah well, I'll have to self feed my ego instead, fortunately I'm very good at that
25/02/2010 03:44:43 PM
- 354 Views
Here's an article in response to Zakaria's article
23/02/2010 03:19:41 PM
- 384 Views
I generally don't care for Fareed, but believe he's right this time.
23/02/2010 05:59:00 PM
- 417 Views
Iran is a thorny problem
24/02/2010 05:38:09 AM
- 315 Views
I still don't believe North Korea harmless.
24/02/2010 06:59:15 AM
- 415 Views
I never used the term 'harmless'
24/02/2010 10:01:14 PM
- 354 Views
Fair point, sorry.
25/02/2010 12:45:47 PM
- 382 Views
No worries - I was just making sure you understood my position
25/02/2010 05:19:10 PM
- 277 Views
Re: No worries - I was just making sure you understood my position
28/02/2010 02:30:26 AM
- 393 Views
Re: No worries - I was just making sure you understood my position
01/03/2010 03:53:58 PM
- 294 Views
A carrot without a stick is just a free carrot.
02/03/2010 08:01:23 AM
- 406 Views
They can hit Tokyo
25/02/2010 06:10:44 PM
- 310 Views
So?
25/02/2010 07:01:37 PM
- 457 Views
I think you are grossly overestimating our border security
25/02/2010 08:03:13 PM
- 246 Views
Well, I KNOW you're ignorant about a lot of things and this shows it.
25/02/2010 08:56:45 PM
- 292 Views
Yes you are the Great Cold War Warrior of the chairforce
28/02/2010 06:44:31 PM
- 358 Views
Oh I'm sorry - so you're not so much ignorant as idiot.
01/03/2010 03:48:32 PM
- 241 Views
Israel does not have the military capability to destroy or significantly damage Iran's nuclear sites
24/02/2010 12:33:00 PM
- 395 Views
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - and it shows to anyone who does
24/02/2010 10:33:29 PM
- 349 Views
I think this ties in well with this article
25/02/2010 09:56:04 AM
- 306 Views
It's going to happen regardless sooner or later; might as well get out in front and claim leadership
01/03/2010 06:29:57 AM
- 395 Views