Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The War Over Iran
Matthew Kroenig, Steven Walt and others have given us a real Christmas treat in the form of the debate over Matt's recent article in Foreign Affairs. Walt responded to Matt's article, as did Dan Drezner and Paul Pillar. Although I was inclined to agree with Walt when the debate began, I was put off by the condescension -- as I perceived it -- in his original response, so I was especially pleased to see him then allow Matt a chance to reply before posting one final time himself. Students of international relations and Middle East policy should take the time to read through the informative back-and-forth, and I thank both scholars for getting their ideas out there in the public sphere.
I have a few problems of my own with Matt's original article. Those problems all concern second and third-order effects.
If Iran gets the bomb, I have heard all kinds of worries about what would then happen in terms of regional security. But in conversations with leaders around the region, I have heard very few specifics. Why, exactly, would a nuclear Iran be so much worse than a non-nuclear Iran? Bear with me here: Let's say Iran gets a nuclear weapon. What happens next? Would other states bandwagon? What would that bandwagoning behavior look like in real terms? (For the record, I have never heard any compelling answer to this question in travels around the region.)
Would other states seek nuclear weapons? How, exactly? Let's pick one example: Saudi Arabia. Why, first off, has Saudi Arabia not already begun a nuclear energy program? (And don't say "oil," because there is an opportunity cost to Gulf states using oil for their own energy rather than selling it on the open market for $100 a barrel.) Does Saudi Arabia have the technical expertise to start a nuclear program? If so, how long would it take them? Would Saudi Arabia instead buy a bomb? From where? From Pakistan, perhaps? Why would the Pakistanis sell one to them? Why might the Pakistanis not sell one to them? You can see where I am going here: once you start trying examine the second and third order effects and their various branches, it's tough to explain how, exactly, a nuclear Iran would be that much more dangerous than a non-nuclear Iran. I am not saying it would not be more dangerous -- I am saying it is very hard to explain how, exactly, a nuclear Iran would be more dangerous. And I think those arguing for war with Iran have an obligation to sketch out those specifics to both policy makers and to the public.
On the flip side of the equation, what might be the adverse second and third order effects of a U.S. strike on Iran? I agree with Matt's critics that he gives us the best-case scenario. But how does the situation look if we work through the effects of a U.S. strike on Iran country-by-country? How might another war affect U.S. security and economic interests elsewhere in the region? How might such a war affect U.S. interests outside the region? How might Iran respond?
I like Matt as both a person and a scholar. I think he owes us more analysis, though, than he has thus far given us.
Update: On the other hand, I can think of few people less qualified to answer the questions I have asked in the above paragraphs than this freaking guy. I mean, why in the world would any responsible analyst or policy maker listen to what John Yoo, J.D., has to say about the regional security architecture of the Persian Gulf? Or military operations? It's not as if the Republican Party does not have plenty of smart people who can speak about each. I have no idea what the editors at the National Review were thinking.
Concur. Additionally I would
Concur. Additionally I would implore all authors on this topic to be an emotionally detached as possible as well as please be so kind as to properly clarify all declarations. Even when I disagree if I understand the logic trail behind a thought then so be it however when it is merely rhetoric it is a waste of our collective time.
Also agree Andrew. On this
Also agree Andrew. On this one i think you are spot on correct. Ultimately what nuclear weapons give a state is a strong, strong strategic defense. As to the role an Iranian nuke would play in regional politics, that is a much more problematic issue.
thanks too for bring this exchange out, i would have missed it if you hadnt run it
gian
If Walt comes off as an
If Walt comes off as an asshole in his critiques, it's because Kroenig is proposing an asshole of an idea.
Visitor on December 29, 2011
Visitor on December 29, 2011 - 2:31pm Are you the comment Nazi? Bully?
Really you are part of the problem because that is what this discussion is about, emotions. Iran's game is using the least amount of energy to get the West to spend the maximum amount of treasure. Iran is right that cutting off the Strait of Hormuz is as easy as drinking a glass of water, all they have to do is get the West to it for them. Think about it, in the first place there will be so many US Navy ships in the channel there will not be room for others to pass. Just the presence of the US Naval fleet in the Strait gives the Iran threat creditability. If Iran gets people worked up enough, you start to get into risk aversion of the shipping companies that use the Strait. How much is shipping insurance going to cost? Derivatives on the oil trade? That has always been Iran's game. How many ships cruise the waters off Somalia these days? All those Pirates have are RPG's and pea shooters and they closed off shipping!
If Iran gets a nuke, I really could care less. It does not keep me awake a night.
I can guarantee that there will be a lot of powerful people whose multi-figure incomes and positions will be threatened by a nuclear Iran. The issue should really be limited to a regional discussion, it is between Iran and its neighbors. The US should get back to coaching rather than being a third team on the field.
As far as energy goes. Maybe it is time for America to reevaluate and manage its energy policy. The US sits on a huge coal reserve. Natural gas is the rage in many parts of the country. Nuclear power is a reality. Unfortunately we are using those resources to sell Internationally rather than managing them as a national energy reserve. That makes the US venerable to people that would cut our energy supply. It is the fear, emotion, and the cost of losing the energy supply that gives Iran influence. The humanitarian issues are what politicians use for high ground pulpit thumping and justification for getting into wars. The US EPA has shut down energy/mineral producers in the US. US Uranium mining companies have all but given up and Russian mining companies are looking at mining US Uranium deposits. Rare earth mining in the US is threatened by the US EPA, those materials are used for the magnets of the wind farm generators. The US opened itself up to Chinese influence by purchasing rare earths wholly from their market. The US needs a Canadian Company to build a pipeline through the US (unfortunately the pipe line is to get the tar sand oil to international market, what a nice North America reserve that source would make)! The world sells energy on the open market when fear comes into that market the prices rocket, but the supply has not really changed. Markets react to the perceived supply changes. Day traders make a fortune off of the rumors of Iran's conflict with the West, some of those traders help create those rumors. Stock markets have pressure relief measures, stock trading is stopped for unrealistic volatility. Why do we let energy prices fly around like a yo-yo when we know that there are unrealistic (which transcend free markets) market forces involved in the trading?
Visitor on December 29, 2011 - 2:31pm, what emotions keep you up a night? Get a grip.
Dealing with Iran is as simple as flushing the toilet, the only fear is fear itself.
BTW...If Iran gets a nuke, they are a nuclear power. Treat them like one and give them what they dearly want.
This is all that the US needs. TEHRAN, IRAN 35 40 N 51 26 E
Put Iran on notice and explain the responsibility of the their actions. The US can use some of the same advice.
The concern could be
The concern could be summarized as - Cuban Missile Crisis, Able Archer, and other near launch events. We have been lucky so far - how long can we depend on luck to prevent a nuclear war - - hope that it stays regional? Hell of a plan.
The adherents for war on Iran
The adherents for war on Iran need to explain why those most opposed to that option come from the top ranks of Israel's military/security services.
Visitor@ 12:21 your comment
Visitor@ 12:21 your comment is a rather breathtaking piece if logical fallacy. In fact it's double layered logical fallicies. At the top layer is your insistance that your debate opponent(s) explain why isreal brass are against war with Iran. In essence you are asking your opponent(s) to defend YOUR positiion. No my friend, you've brought this of info to the party YOU explain its signifigance and relevance. Which leads to the lower logical fallacy which is called argument from authority--you propose that we should agree with isreal brass merely because they are isreal brass--no my friend you need to provide us with your reasoning as to why the isreal brass's opinions on this subject should sway us.
P.S. I've discovered a third, even more obvious logical fallacy in your post-the infamous strawman. No one in this thread is arguing or even suggesting open war against iran.
"Let's pick one example:
"Let's pick one example: Saudi Arabia. Why, first off, has Saudi Arabia not already begun a nuclear energy program? (And don't say "oil," because there is an opportunity cost to Gulf states using oil for their own energy rather than selling it on the open market for $100 a barrel.) Does Saudi Arabia have the technical expertise to start a nuclear program? If so, how long would it take them? Would Saudi Arabia instead buy a bomb?"
Saudi Arabia has already started a nuclear energy program but it has nothing to do with weapons.
The price of oil in KSA is literally peanuts. Every barrel sold inside Saudi is money lost (since they can charge 10x higher for customers outside the country).
Saudi is going to develop nuclear energy (for the same reason the UAE did) because it makes perfect economic and business sense. They will use the nuclear energy at home, and sell the oil abroad and make more money.
It has nothing to do with complicated theories of political science and everything to do with basic economics. And the US will go along with it, because if they don't then the French, Russians or Chinese will happily provide the technology in their place.
The tone of Walt's first
The tone of Walt's first response to Kroneig was especially surprising given all the personal attacks Walt's been the victim of. I'm a big Walt fan (on things besides Israel Lobby although gotta give him credit for throwing away an admin position to do something he felt right) and he ripped apart Kroneig's article (not hard to do) but I thought his personal attacks on Kroneig were unwarranted.
As to Ex's piece, the reason why you never hear these things explained is because there's no evidence to back them up. Of the 9 nuclear-armed countries (and South Africa if you'd like) there has been one that's achieved regional hegemony: the United States at least 4 decades before it got the bomb. In all the other cases, nukes did little to advance hegemonic bids mainly because they don't have any offensive utility. Its also worth noting that countries like China and India gained far more regional influence from their economic rise than either did from their first nuclear tests (India's being the "peaceful one."
There's slightly more historical evidence to support reactive proliferation but even that's shaky. There's only a few clear-cut cases of state's acquiring nuclear weapons in direct response to rivals' doing so (Soviets in response to U.S., Pakistan in response to India) and some less direct but possible ones (India in response to China but other factors seemed to be at work also, and possibly China but even in that case Mao was also worried about U.S. (and later Soviet) conventional weapons). In any case, despite constant predictions of a nuclear cascade or nuclear tipping point, non-proliferation has been the norm. Philip Bleek has some good unpublished research on this topic which demonstrates that a nuclear acquisition causes neighbors to begin exploring nuclear energy but almost never going farther. And since none of Iran's neighbors have a realistic shot at building nuclear weapons except Turkey who already has U.S. nukes on its territory, its highly unlikely that Iran will set off a nuclear arms race in the region.
I think second and third
I think second and third order effects are irrelevant to the core issue. If Iran gets one bomb, they get two, then three, then a stockpile. The threat isn't what other countries do, the threat is that Iran, or at least some of their leaders, would use it without regret. Quite simply, if used, the second and third order issues being discussed won't be on anyone's minds.
And I think while Israeli leaders do consider this second and third order effects, their primary motivation is the ensure Iran never has the option, second or third order effects be damned.
Just a side note on Saudi
Just a side note on Saudi Arabia. I have a cousin with a degree in nuclear engineering (from MIT). He spent most of the 1970s living and working in Saudi Arabia. Somehow, I doubt he was working on oil fields.
So not only is is entirely possible for Saudi Arabia to undertake a nuclear program using ex-patriots (which is how the vast majority of their current technical programs are run), it is not impossible that they have long since done so.
"... why in the world would
"... why in the world would any responsible analyst or policy maker listen to what John Yoo, J.D., has to say..."
Ahem. Don't knock the JD.
Visitor on December 30, 2011
Visitor on December 30, 2011 - 11:58am
The concern could be summarized as - Cuban Missile Crisis, Able Archer, and other near launch events. We have been lucky so far - how long can we depend on luck to prevent a nuclear war - - hope that it stays regional? Hell of a plan.
Now we know what keeps you under bed at night.
Do you plan to live forever?
How many people have died a natural death on the face of the planet? From nukes? Think your chances of croaking from a natural death are worse. What international response do you have for that?
I will still get a good nights sleep.
"I have no idea what the
"I have no idea what the editors at the National Review were thinking."
The days when editors at National Review actually thought are, apparently, long gone.
The problem with dealing with
The problem with dealing with Pakistan illustrates potential issues with a nuclear Iran. People are terrified of destabilizing Pakistan, partly because we don't like those types of policies, but also partly because of the fear of "loose nukes". We pay them to kill our troops, yet playing off their sectarian divides (Pakistanis' biggest fear and thus our potentially biggest source of leverage) is considered beyond the pale. The second and third order effects, if you like, are too catastrophic to contemplate.
Letting Iran get a bomb would probably have the same effect. We would fear fomenting chaos or regime change, because the same generals who kill our soldiers and attack our allies would be considered the only serious and rational actors capable of securing the bomb.
The other issue to consider in letting Iran get the bomb is the fact that we have already said it is unacceptable, it's "a red line". Well is it or isn't it? What message does that send to friend, foe, and fence-sitter?
There was quite a good
There was quite a good discussion of the Kroenig piece at Duck of Minerva. I'm mentioning it b/c it wasn't mentioned or linked in the post.
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com
It's not as if the Republican
It's not as if the Republican Party does not have plenty of smart people who can speak about each....
What about the Democratic Party, they have plenty of smart people who can speak about it?
Like, that creepy dude Scott Ritter, He's more qualified than John (got his JD at Phoenix University) Yoo to discuss these topics.
Then again NR is a rag. Keep up the trash talking you policy nerds.
Iran is preparing for all out war and they realize they are being backed into a corner on this. When it goes down, they will respond with multiple small scale surgical strikes across the world, by any means possible. I hope J2 is working overtime to target these individual now, before the $&?@ hits the fan.
"What message does that send
"What message does that send to friend, foe, and fence-sitter?"
Don't be the last one on your block to get one?
I have seen the fear "of not
I have seen the fear "of not having one" change the the behavior of multinational corporations. In those cases, it was about having your manufacturing off-shore. Now the whole world is in the Asian rim cause to be left out meant that you would not be competitive (which is a fantasy). Forget the fact that your workers in the US and Europe which you left unemployed purchased your corporate widgets, the gains are short term. You can always find new customers but can you find a new government that protects your corporate offshore operations as well as the US taxpayer? In this case it is about profits and a least for the short term the US consumer is in control, but has no clue of their combined purchasing influence, the 99% own the 1%. That has a lot to do with self-interest and want.
In the case of nukes, "getting more than one" is what drove US policy for several decades. Many people owe their lifestyle to it. Now people make a living cleaning up the mess at various sites, not bad for a non-profit like Battelle. Jobs live on in Tennessee, right Exum!
The bandwagon approach gets people elected as POTUS has lot of juju, Obama thanks you for his $400,000/yr life salary. YOU get to pull HIM for the rest of YOUR life in your wagon. Problem with politicians is that they know the power of the bandwagon and it fuels their agenda cause they can not achieve their agenda with out moving people. It gets dangerous if that agenda is not in the good of the country's long term future and is only a means to an election.
Fear is why governments want nukes.
What will it take to take away Iran's fear? It is about the politics of want.
The flip side of the same discussion. What will it take to make the top guys in Iran fear losing their power? That is what mutual destruction was about. Fear of losing what you have, maxing out fear.
Politicians in the US will not play the dirty game card openly and Iran bets on that cause it is the way that terrorism makes US politicians fearful of losing their status. There is a lot of bandwagon power to be on high ground. If US politicians rely on sanctions alone, they need knowledge the method will apply leverage on the people in power in Iran and not move the Iranian people against the US. Sanctions could backfire and that is what the Iranian power brokers wish for, turning the strategy against their opponent. That is what the muscle flexing and war games are about in the Persian gulf, Iran is showing the world how powerful the are against the West and know there will be no response. In walks John Yoo do not beat him up if you campaigned for repeal of DADT, Yoo has a voice too.
What would happen if the US crated up a nuke and gave it to Iran as a Christmas present? Nuts huh. It would give the US a reason to put Iran on the mutual destruction list.
The US politicians can take off the gloves for total war. It makes Iran responsible fully for their actions, not about terrorism anymore.
Personally, I would rather get out of the ME and take away Iran's fears.
Glad that was dispassionate.
Glad that was dispassionate. Here we see why academics
so value it, a custom observed in the breech.
None short of the Jihadi are so fanatical in defense of the abstract.
North Korea would not be such
North Korea would not be such a great problem if it hadn´t had nukes. The same goes for Pakistan. Letting Iran enter the club would result in three states with irrational leaderships sitting on nukes.
Of course Iran can´t be allowed to get nuclear arms.
North Korea is about
North Korea is about China.
Pakistan is about a supply route for Afghanistan.
It is about what America wants and how we get it that is the problem. America gets dumb when we want more than we really need. It is all great until the growth stops or you run out of the other guys money. Then you have a payroll full the of the best and brightest that really are not worth the chair they sit in.
To know your enemy and yourself is a thousand victories. Nukes are just a tool in the box, they get to much credit. The guy that uses them is the village idiot.
BTW....The sanction on Iran is just America being dumb again. There are so many relief valves in the strategy to avoid disrupting the oil market, there is no leverage left in the negotiation. Iran knows it, Obama knows it, the American people just get high priced gasoline. It is a shot in the arm for green energy policy.
Be easier to just tell Americans it is time to save energy rather than playing some energy cost game to modify behavior. Obama can lead by not using AF1 as a daily commuter. Congress can stop flying home for the weekend. Americans can make less trips to the mall.
Really, this is the guy that wants to reduce green house gases...!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCj57Fk67qc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W14kc_81hms&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFu_gUfMyXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0isL5NtGhJk&feature=related
Add your comment