Middle East News 3

[dteowner]

I need to clarify my request. Let's take the specific situation of Iran out of the discussion (even though the question applies to then). I'm really asking about the folly of negotiating with a partner that cannot be trusted over issues that cannot be verified, backed by a "global sanction" that will not happen (as soon as you say, "without Russia and China", you might as well say "pointless and useless sanction"). That is the logic I'm questioning.

 

[Squeek]

The two points I like best about the CNP analysis are numbers nine and twelve, that there are no bridges between the US and Iranian societies and the need for patience (and that implies trust) in the peace process. IMO, fostering a culture of peace between the US and Iran is the first step toward avoiding what almost seems to be certain conflict.

That human connection should begin with dialogue between leading thinkers, but not just political and religious thinkers, and not even just intellectuals -- thinkers who also represent the thinking of each culture’s average Joes. An exchange of simply-stated honesty, and lots of it, would go a long way toward achieving peace. We need to build lots of bridges, big ones and little ones.

For years I’ve been one of those fools who dreams of world peace. Whenever I do, I imagine a complete abandonment of nuclear weapons, a concerted effort by everyone to remember the experiences of war, a new world view resulting from restored human connections between cultures everywhere and dialogue driven by both that and a determination to prepare ourselves together (for peace instead of war).

There’s too much hatred and suspicion between the US and Iran for any of that right now. I’d like to see leaders on both sides aim for something better, something like actual peace (and not just a pause between fighting).

 

[Rithrandil]

I need to clarify my request. Let's take the specific situation of Iran out of the discussion (even though the question applies to then). I'm really asking about the folly of negotiating with a partner that cannot be trusted over issues that cannot be verified, backed by a "global sanction" that will not happen (as soon as you say, "without Russia and China", you might as well say "pointless and useless sanction"). That is the logic I'm questioning.

Russia and China might be able to be brought on board, though - the Ambassador is definitely a realist (as is everyone else I hear talking about this issue - you can't be a serious member of the DC foreign policy crowd and be a liberal idealist) and they think there are steps we can take to bring Russia/China in on this. The plan that Bush offered to Iran about off-site enrichment was a plan from Putin. They don't want a nuclear Iran running around any more than we do. They DON'T stand to benefit.

EDIT: Hit send to soon, sorry:

But see, DTE, you CAN verify these things. We did it with South Africa. Basically Iran would just have to let the IAEA go where it wants. It is possible to arrange a system that would verify the nuclear issue - I asked my Boss that question (he worked for State writing the nuclear test ban treaty) and he worked for the NRC) and he said that "yes, you can verify they are not making nuclear weapons with proper inspections." I tend to believe him and waht the guys at DOD and State told me when I asked.

 

[Rithrandil]

The two points I like best about the CNP analysis are numbers nine and twelve, that there are no bridges between the US and Iranian societies and the need for patience (and that implies trust) in the peace process. IMO, fostering a culture of peace between the US and Iran is the first step toward avoiding what almost seems to be certain conflict.

That human connection should begin with dialogue between leading thinkers, but not just political and religious thinkers, and not even just intellectuals -- thinkers who also represent the thinking of each culture’s average Joes. An exchange of simply-stated honesty, and lots of it, would go a long way toward achieving peace. We need to build lots of bridges, big ones and little ones.

For years I’ve been one of those fools who dreams of world peace. Whenever I do, I imagine a complete abandonment of nuclear weapons, a concerted effort by everyone to remember the experiences of war, a new world view resulting from restored human connections between cultures everywhere and dialogue driven by both that and a determination to prepare ourselves together (for peace instead of war).

There’s too much hatred and suspicion between the US and Iran for any of that right now. I’d like to see leaders on both sides aim for something better, something like actual peace (and not just a pause between fighting).

Yup. We don't know if negotiations will work unless we try. And if they fail it's not like they'll "double develop nuclear weapons". We don't have anything to lose by trying that road.

 

[dteowner]

Except some number of years of unmolested mischief while the negotiators trade BS. A couple years of free reign, open checkbooks, and easy procurement can go a long way in a direction you're supposedly avoiding.

 

[Prime Junta]

I need to clarify my request. Let's take the specific situation of Iran out of the discussion (even though the question applies to then). I'm really asking about the folly of negotiating with a partner that cannot be trusted over issues that cannot be verified, backed by a "global sanction" that will not happen (as soon as you say, "without Russia and China", you might as well say "pointless and useless sanction"). That is the logic I'm questioning.

Your problem is your usual one -- you think in binaries. Either something is verifiable, or it's not. Either sanctions work, or they don't. A war is either won, or lost. The good guys win, or they lose. Iran develops a nuclear weapon, or it doesn't.

The real world rarely works like that. Inspections may not give 100% certainty over something, but they might give 70% certainty, or the effort needed to foil them might make progress towards a nuclear weapon slower by five years. A threat of sanctions combined with an offer of engagement might induce Iran to accept better inspections that would yield 80% certainty and slow down their program by ten years. A certain set of incentives and disincentives might cause Iran to get all the way to the point where they have a nuclear device they think will work, but they won't be able to test it, because doing so would have consequences that would wreck their economy. And a war may be won but the peace may be lost, or a war may end up in a stalemate, or a war may end up as a qualified victory, with some but not all of the strategic objectives met.

In this kind of real world, it makes sense to pursue these small gains, partial victories, and what not. We'll never see the kind of closure you like to get on TV or the movies, but we'll never see the cathartic, apocalyptic war to end all wars either. And sometimes that just has to be good enough.

 

[Rithrandil]

Except some number of years of unmolested mischief while the negotiators trade BS. A couple years of free reign, open checkbooks, and easy procurement can go a long way in a direction you're supposedly avoiding.

They're going to get that anyways. And like the guy said - timetable. It gives us time to build a coalition. Unlike Iraq this isn't something we can handle alone - and I don't relish the notion of a draft - especially since women STILL don't have to sign up for selective service (which, in my view, should make them ineligible to vote).

 

[dteowner]

OK, let me attempt to summarize.

Our stated goal is to avoid a specific event, so our plan is to pave the road toward that specific event because we believe that we'll be better equipped to put up a roadblock when they're within spitting distance of a finish line we've been facilitating for several years.

Yes, Mr. Tyson, I'm going to let you beat the dogcrap out of me for 11 rounds because I'm coinvinced you'll feel so sorry for me in round 12 that you'll forfeit the fight because you've gained new-found respect my refined and enlightened ways.

 

[Rithrandil]

OK, let me attempt to summarize.

Our stated goal is to avoid a specific event, so our plan is to pave the road toward that specific event because we believe that we'll be better equipped to put up a roadblock when they're within spitting distance of a finish line we've been facilitating for several years.

Yes, Mr. Tyson, I'm going to let you beat the dogcrap out of me for 11 rounds because I'm coinvinced you'll feel so sorry for me in round 12 that you'll forfeit the fight because you've gained new-found respect my refined and enlightened ways.

No, our goal is to stop that event. Negotiations with out partners + sanctions + possible last resort military strike is a better plan then what you are (i guess?) proposing, which is:

Immediate strike + lack of any international support + Iran getting a nuke anyways + massive asymmetrical retaliation against our forces in Iraq/Afghanistan + new wave of terror attacks against us and our allies in the region + further inflammation of tensions between US/Arabs + driving Iranian population right into the arms of their radical leaders = fun.

I'm saying if we decide not to negotiate, we might as well just carpet bomb the country into the stone age and kill everyone there, because that will be the only way to stop them from developing a nuke.

We don't know if negotiations or sanctions will work. We don't know if they won't work. But they have a better chance of accomplishing our myriad of goals with Iran than an immediate strike against the country.

And once again, I'm not willing to be drafted over this.

 

[Prime Junta]

Yes, Mr. Tyson, I'm going to let you beat the dogcrap out of me for 11 rounds because I'm coinvinced you'll feel so sorry for me in round 12 that you'll forfeit the fight because you've gained new-found respect my refined and enlightened ways.

dte, are you being intentionally obtuse? This isn't about "respect" or "pity," it's about incentives.

Imagine an Iran that's economically, politically, and socially integrated with the rest of the world.

It'll be much richer than now. Iranians will be traveling to Europe and the USA. Europeans and Americans will be traveling to Iran. European and American corporations will have set up shop in Tehran and Isfahan and Shiraz and wherever. Iranian oil companies will be selling petrol in the EU and the USA. And so on and so forth.

And -- *we* will have the power to pull the plug on that. We'll lose too, for sure, but Iran will be worth, what, a half a percentage point of our foreign trade -- in any case, so small it'll almost be lost to statistical noise. But that very same integration will account to 30% or 50% or whatever of the Iranian economy -- not to mention the cultural and social consequences of getting used to being able to travel, study, and work abroad.

IOW, in such a situation we will have a genuinely big stick to wield. Right now we don't, which makes all talk of sanctions let alone military strikes sound pretty hollow.

Soft power isn't a joke. Economic power is even less of a joke. Military power that is backed by neither is a paper tiger. Just ask Kim Jong Il.

Or hell, just ask the ghost of Eisenhower -- the USA didn't get to the peak of its global power by bombing the shit out of everybody until they did what it said; it did so by presenting a political, social, economic, and cultural model that was a damn sight more attractive than most things out there. In fact, most wars the USA fought after the end of WW2 *eroded* its power rather than extending it, with Gulf War 1 the only clear exception.

 

[Rithrandil]

dte, are you being intentionally obtuse? This isn't about "respect" or "pity," it's about incentives.

Imagine an Iran that's economically, politically, and socially integrated with the rest of the world.

It'll be much richer than now. Iranians will be traveling to Europe and the USA. Europeans and Americans will be traveling to Iran. European and American corporations will have set up shop in Tehran and Isfahan and Shiraz and wherever. Iranian oil companies will be selling petrol in the EU and the USA. And so on and so forth.

And -- *we* will have the power to pull the plug on that. We'll lose too, for sure, but Iran will be worth, what, a half a percentage point of our foreign trade -- in any case, so small it'll almost be lost to statistical noise. But that very same integration will account to 30% or 50% or whatever of the Iranian economy -- not to mention the cultural and social consequences of getting used to being able to travel, study, and work abroad.

IOW, in such a situation we will have a genuinely big stick to wield. Right now we don't, which makes all talk of sanctions let alone military strikes sound pretty hollow.

"Soft power" isn't a joke. Economic power is even less of a joke. Military power that is backed by neither is a paper tiger. Just ask Kim Jong Il.

See Smart Power: http://www.csis.org/smartpower/

 

[dteowner]

Actually, my personal opinion is that you're right about the end being inevitable with respect to Iran. I'd be a little more supportive of a surgical bombing run or two just to let the Iranians know we aren't screwing around and to slow their progress a bit (it's hard to concentrate when you've got to keep an eye on the sky), but boots on the ground is not a viable option in any way.

But let's at least be honest about what we're about, if that's the case. We're not negotiating to prevent this--we're negotiating to manage the loss. That's fine, but that's not how the UN and/or its more strident supporters like to paint their talkie talkie. We've run up the white flag and we're hoping not to take one in the shorts in the peace treaty. Sometimes, that's the best you're going to get, but it still looks like an insane option for our "enlightened first and foremost tecnique of choice".

 

[Rithrandil]

Actually, my personal opinion is that you're right about the end being inevitable with respect to Iran. I'd be a little more supportive of a surgical bombing run or two just to let the Iranians know we aren't screwing around and to slow their progress a bit (it's hard to concentrate when you've got to keep an eye on the sky), but boots on the ground is not a viable option in any way.

But let's at least be honest about what we're about, if that's the case. We're not negotiating to prevent this--we're negotiating to manage the loss. That's fine, but that's not how the UN and/or its more strident supporters like to paint their talkie talkie. We've run up the white flag and we're hoping not to take one in the shorts in the peace treaty. Sometimes, that's the best you're going to get, but it still looks like an insane option for our "enlightened first and foremost tecnique of choice".

I want to negotiate because it may work. We may be able to use negotiations and sanctions to force them to the table. On the other hand, surgical bombing runs right now all but guarantees that Iran develops a bomb and is in a much better international position.

 

[Prime Junta]

Actually, my personal opinion is that you're right about the end being inevitable with respect to Iran. I'd be a little more supportive of a surgical bombing run or two just to let the Iranians know we aren't screwing around and to slow their progress a bit (it's hard to concentrate when you've got to keep an eye on the sky), but boots on the ground is not a viable option in any way.

But let's at least be honest about what we're about, if that's the case. We're not negotiating to prevent this--we're negotiating to manage the loss. That's fine, but that's not how the UN and/or its more strident supporters like to paint their talkie talkie. We've run up the white flag and we're hoping not to take one in the shorts in the peace treaty. Sometimes, that's the best you're going to get, but it still looks like an insane option for our "enlightened first and foremost tecnique of choice".

Binaries again, dte -- either we "won" or we "lost." Somehow the option of managing the situation -- "containing" it, to pick another word I've used in another context -- indefinitely if need be, doesn't even seem to register in your brain.

I'm starting to suspect that this kind of thing has a neurological basis -- certain personality types just aren't wired for certain kinds of concepts, and their brains just reject them a priori before they're even able to consider them. I think certain types of religious thinking have the same underpinnings -- not merely a need for absolutes, but an inability to conceive of the world as consisting of anything other than absolutes.

IOW, if you say that you're not able to understand the reasoning, you may be stating a simple fact, the same way that a colorblind person would say that they aren't able to distinguish between red and green. If this is the case, then we'll all just have to agree to live with it.

Edit: N.b.: I've no doubt I have similar blind spots. I certainly have major problems understanding the reasoning of some people here, where others claim they can follow them just fine.

 

[dteowner]

If the score is 75-25, you lost. You might be happy with the 25 you got. If you think that your 25 is actually a victory, then you're operating under different criteria that assigns different weight to the various victories/defeats/partials/pushes that come out of any real world situation.

It's a question of honesty. Your conditions of victory are not what you state up front. For the Iran situation, you say you're negotiating to keep Iran from getting a nuke (that's a generic "you", btw), but in fact you're negotiating to be in better position to deal with them already having a nuke. It applies to the broader approach that I pointed out in getting this whole line of questioning started. You're lying about your goals, which allows you to lie about your score when it comes time to tally up. Because we always look back on history to determine who won. We don't look back to determine who "managed".

Now, it's entirely possible for both sides to win since each side will assign different weights to all the aspects of the conflict. Mr. Tyson will win because they raise his hand at the end of the fight; I will win if I don't require a body bag. But that doesn't preclude the concept of winning and losing. And I shouldn't be telling the world that I'm going to win the fight if my actual victory condition is simply to survive.

 

[coyote]

There isn't a single word I can think of, but we were just talking about in the education thread -- it's what happens to kids if you continuously tell them that they're the best in the world even if all they do is sit on their asses and watch TV. "Inflated self-esteem" would be one way to express it.

Hmm, I think in regard to Squeek's earlier post, "inflated sense of military superiority" was more or less what I was looking for, although it is a bit long and cumbersome to say.

There is a thread on education? Sounds interesting, but I could not immediately find it.

@Squeek: no insult intended, but I had to keep it short because I was leaving at that time. Nice post about building bridges -- I can agree with this at least.

It's a question of honesty. Your conditions of victory are not what you state up front. For the Iran situation, you say you're negotiating to keep Iran from getting a nuke (that's a generic "you", btw), but in fact you're negotiating to be in better position to deal with them already having a nuke. It applies to the broader approach that I pointed out in getting this whole line of questioning started. You're lying about your goals, which allows you to lie about your score when it comes time to tally up. Because we always look back on history to determine who won. We don't look back to determine who "managed".

Now, it's entirely possible for both sides to win since each side will assign different weights to all the aspects of the conflict. Mr. Tyson will win because they raise his hand at the end of the fight; I will win if I don't require a body bag. But that doesn't preclude the concept of winning and losing. And I shouldn't be telling the world that I'm going to win the fight if my actual victory condition is simply to survive.

Maybe I misunderstood, but Prime Junta does not seem to say that the diplomatic solution aims at dealing with a nuclearly armed Iran. It aims at economically integrating Iran in order to provide bargaining power in order to stop them from pursuing their nuclear weapons programme. Right?

I think we all agree that military occupation is not possible at this time. A surgical strike is possible, but it will also inhibit diplomatic attempts and it will not be effective in halting military nuclear development. While it will postpone development for a time, it will also destabilise the region* and make Iran even more dangerous when it finally does get the bomb. A diplomatic solution could be effective, but it will not be a short term solution. The fact is that diplomacy is the only course of action with any chance of "winning", as you put it.

*) maybe I am being a bit too pessimistic there, but it will certainly worsen relations significantly for a long time.

 

[dteowner]

My apologies in advance for invoking Godwin's Law.

What was the end result of WW2? Did Germany "manage"? What if Hitler's victory condition was to kill a million Jews before he himself was killed? What if Hitler's victory condition was to take a country completely crushed following WW1 and build sufficient economy and national pride to compete on a global scale? Do we need to re-write all the history books? Of course not--we deal in binary win/lose all the time.

Underneath that generalized win/lose are hundreds of specific instances (battles within the war, as it were) with a wide variety of results. Some are clear victories for one side or the other, some are stalemates, and some are "yeah, but" mixers. We still put it all together and come up with an "aggregate score" and say that the Allies won the war. I don't see that as strictly binary thought.

So, once again, the stated goal for Iran is to keep them from having nukes (the war). The proposed solution (the battle) is to negotiate to convince them to decide on their own to walk away from the program. Known fact is that negotiations with Iran will be hamstrung from day one by the determination (by our side) that they do no negotiate in earnest. So we're choosing a battle that we know is crippled before we ever get started. Negotiation is the enlightened approach.

OK, in the case of Iran, I'm conceding that a crippled battle plan might be the best option we've got. But to turn around and say that our goal all along was to let them have nukes but persuade them not to use them is dishonest. That's not the original stated goal; that's not our stated victory condition.

And, once again, let's take this back to the general case. I don't think it's out of line to say that negotiation is being held up as the end-all and be-all solution to every problem. So, in the case where one side does not negotiate in earnest, you're going to the job site with a broken wrench when there's another perfectly good wrench on the table. That doesn't strike me as enlightened in any way--that's just plain stupid.

 

[Squeek]

@Squeek: no insult intended, but I had to keep it short because I was leaving at that time.

Well, if you were in a hurry, then OK. It's perfectly understandable (and I'm just a rube, anyway). My wife read it and called you an ass, though.

There may be an exception or two, but just about everywhere I've ever been it turned out that the folks there had a much better understanding of themselves and their situation than I did. It's that way here too.

As to the ability of our military, I was talking about nasty stuff (like bombing). There are some Americans who think America is too nice when it comes to making war and want this country to crank it up several notches. Their votes count the same as everybody elses (and the rest of us really ought not to forget that, IMO).

I like to think I'm fairly smart. My wife is even smarter, btw (but I would never tell her that, of course).

 

[Rithrandil]

So, once again, the stated goal for Iran is to keep them from having nukes (the war). The proposed solution (the battle) is to negotiate to convince them to decide on their own to walk away from the program. Known fact is that negotiations with Iran will be hamstrung from day one by the determination (by our side) that they do no negotiate in earnest. So we're choosing a battle that we know is crippled before we ever get started. Negotiation is the enlightened approach.

OK, in the case of Iran, I'm conceding that a crippled battle plan might be the best option we've got. But to turn around and say that our goal all along was to let them have nukes but persuade them not to use them is dishonest. That's not the original stated goal; that's not our stated victory condition.

And, once again, let's take this back to the general case. I don't think it's out of line to say that negotiation is being held up as the end-all and be-all solution to every problem. So, in the case where one side does not negotiate in earnest, you're going to the job site with a broken wrench when there's another perfectly good wrench on the table. That doesn't strike me as enlightened in any way--that's just plain stupid.

Here's where you're wrong. We don't know if they negotiate in earnest because we have not negotiated with them in thirty years. We're sure they're lying about building a nuke, yes - but they haven't pulled a Saddam or Kim Jong Il and made some deal with us only to break it later. Our negotiations with Saddam and Kim Jong Il were/are hampered by the lack of international support for our position.

This, however, is not the case with Iran. Pretty much no one wants Iran to get a nuke. Russia and China are taking advantage of the situaiton to make our lives more difficult, but "Tehran with a Bomb" is not in their interests either. I'm flat out saying our goal is to prevent Iran from getting nukes. This may be an impossibility. They may not respond to negotiations or sanctions, at which point I'm in favor of using a military option as I view the resulting blowback from that as less of a threat then a nuclear-armed Iran (as does virtually every expert in the U.S., I may add). The Ambassador even said that we should keep the military option on the table, because if we take it off then it will be viewed as a sign of weakness by Tehran and they'll just do whatever they want.

However, negotiations (or super duper sanctions) may indeed work. Our main issue is getting Russia/China on board. Obama may be able to do this, he may not. The point is, we won't know if we don't try. There would be a time table to this too, like the Ambassador said, probably. We wouldn't just sit around for six years and let the Iranians waste time while they build a nuke. His point is that negotiations cost us nothing, may give us a net benefit (even if they fail - we'll be more likely to get international support for sanctions or a military strike), and might possibly succeed in their goal (Iran stopping nuke program).

On the other hand, your immediate military strike gives us a possible benefit of delaying the bomb by an uncertain amount of time (but most likely not a significant one - they have spread out their facilities quite well, it will not be like the Israelis blowing up Iraq's heavy water plant), gives us massive losses in terms of blowback from Iran, loss of international support, and futher destruction of US reputation overseas. Oh, and China and Russia will make a lot of money off the ensuing increased arms sales to Iran.

 

[dteowner]

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1060947683&postcount=9

I'll refer you back to the post that started this tangent in the first place. I'm accepting the Ambassador's judgment as accurate, lacking any evidence to the contrary. Given the games Iran has played with the UN on this nuke think over the past several years, I feel confident that there's far more evidence that the Ambassador is correct than his being wrong.