Machiavelli is famous, or perhaps infamous in some circles, for presenting us with the hard and unvarnished truth of the nature of power. While the complete breadth of his writings shows him to be much less cynical than many who have read and commented on him, nevertheless, he was perhaps the first realist in the field of political philosophy, stressing that the actions of the state and the use of its assets, particularly its military, should ultimately be predicated on prudence, not idealism, lest the actions of the government bring ruin on the nation.
Today politicians around the world have become adept at making a show of their concerns about the poor and underprivileged, of the need to take actions to address this or that humanitarian disaster political-economic catastrophe. But when push comes to shove, it seems that politicians quickly shed the mask of philanthropist and return to the world of reality, to Machiavelli and RealPolitik as it has been labeled.
And so we find Washington continuing to sit on its hands as the Iranians continue to work to produce a nuclear weapon. There are many reasons why Washington may have refused to act: ignorance and incompetence are both possible. But there is also the distinct possibility that there are those in Washington who see this as an opportunity to accomplish several things at once. The scenario plays out this way:
We continue to negotiate while never pushing so hard that anyone feels threatened that we will take unilateral action, such as instituting a third party embargo, to wit: the US will absolutely not trade – anything – with anyone who trades with Iran. In as much as the US has the largest economy in the world and is the world’s largest importer and among the top three in exports, this would have monumental impact. While there are those who would ‘run the blockade,’ the fact is that such a move, if enforced, would cripple Iran. There seems little likelihood of this happening.
As should be obvious by now, US discussions with the UN Security Council ‘Perm 5’ will yield no binding resolution and no definitive action on the part of the international community. The UNSC is, in the light of Iranian nuclear weapon development, North Korean nuclear weapon development, and the host of other situations around the world about which it has pontificated and then done little of note, demonstrating it is not substantially more effective than the League of Nations, although it is a good deal more expensive.
In any case, eventually, perhaps within two years, the Iranians will complete their first nuclear weapon. There will be an announcement, and probably a test, which will be followed by a great deal of Iranian propaganda. Then one of three things will happen:
1) The international community will accept Iran as a nuclear power and Iran will act responsibly and everything will return to something resembling normal
2) The international community will accept Iran as a nuclear power and, emboldened by the worlds’ inaction, the Iranians will let a nuclear weapon out, either via a terror organization or deliberately in a military attack, and Israel will suffer a nuclear detonation or
3) Some nation, recognizing that an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is an insane and unacceptable risk, will act preemptively and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapon program. There is an even chance that this action might take place before the completion of the first test weapon.
Option 1, while possible, seems unlikely to many and, to anyone thinking about it, represents an unacceptable position for the entire world: a rash and unforgiving government sitting astride the world’s largest oil supplies, armed with nuclear weapons. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to explain why. Nevertheless, with the exception of a great deal of hot air being generated in a few capitals around the world, this is the de facto policy choice that most nations have bought into. Further, the possibility of a supposedly beneficent nuclear Iran suddenly ‘changing its mind’ makes this option untenable, because it leaves everyone who is sane waiting for Option 2 to develop.
Which leaves us with Options 3. The obvious question is: what countries are likely to act against Iran in a preemptive fashion? Four countries come to mind, in increasing order of likelihood:
Turkey: with a short common border with Iran, and as the nominal leader of the secular Middle East, it is conceivable that Turkey would either wish to keep Iran contained, or would support anyone who was willing to so act.
India: India already faces a nuclear-armed Islamic state – Pakistan. But with Pakistan there exists a certain balance of power, a certain ‘détente,’ which India can live with, at least for the time being. A nuclear and resurgent Iran would threaten the stability and balance that currently exists between Pakistan and India and might prompt India to act preemptively.
USA: The USA is obviously capable of acting against Iran and has at least made the most noise about the possibility of doing so. Whether anyone in Washington really has the disposition to do so remains to be seen.
Israel: Israel is the one country on the list, and the one country in the world, that is legitimately threatened by Iran. While it cannot be proven that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they were to obtain them, rhetoric from Tehran supports that conclusion, and from Israel’s perspective the consequences of such an attack are so dire that Israel has to consider preemption in order to insure survival.
Unfortunately, the fact that Israel is on the list, and everyone knows it, means that others will in all likelihood not act in anticipation of Israel acting. And the longer everyone waits and lets this drag out, the closer Iran moves to having a real nuclear weapon, the closer the world comes to Israel conducting a large scale strike, or series of strikes, against Iran. These strikes will even include, assuming the Israelis are not sloppy planners, a nuclear option, that is a final step in the event the others have failed, the use of Israel’s own nuclear weapons to destroy the Iran. And the Israeli planners are not sloppy. Which gets us to Machiavelli. Or, at least acting in accordance with the common perception of Machiavelli.
The “calculus” above is more or less common knowledge to anyone who has spent the least little time thinking about it. But, if that is the case, if it is that we are moving inexorably toward a large scale Israeli strike on Iran, possibly even a nuclear strike on Iran, why aren’t people more agitated? Certainly, no one wants that. Or do they?
In the end, getting Israel to act solves the most obvious of problems. For all of Israel’s (and Iran’s) neighbors, it eliminates one of the truly worrisome problems of the region: the rise of Iran. The countries of the Mid-East may rant against Israel, but most (Syria being the exception) are not worried about Israel attacking their country or trying to apply leverage over them. That is not true when they view Iran. An attack on Iran that not only eliminates Iran’s nuclear weapons program but also politically and militarily weakens Iran and weakens the regime would be seen as a good thing by nearly everyone in the Mid-East. That these countries engage in diatribes against Israel is irrelevant. They all understand the real power politics of the situation and would welcome Iran being taken down a notch. That they would use the event for some political theater for their own benefit is simply to be expected. But most would secretly welcome such an outcome.
For the far left in Europe such an attack would simply be viewed as an unalloyed horror. But, in as much as most of the European Left seems incapable of recognizing a real threat, just as they are incapable of mobilizing politically and economically to apply pressure against Iran, they are also incapable of recognizing that such an act would be to their long-term benefit. They will view every act by Israel to be unjustified and will recoil even further from Israel if and when she is forced to act.
For the US the situation is quite different. Despite all the hand-ringing about the collapse of the US empire (there isn’t one, but that doesn’t prevent pundits from talking about it), the US retains the capability to act against Iran politically, economically and militarily. Yet, it hasn’t. It would seem, rather, that those in Washington who might make a real effort to pressure Iran are refusing to do so, preferring to engage in Doris Day diplomacy (‘Whatever will be will be’). Which raises the question: Why?
Certainly, they are smart enough to understand that the longer this drags out, the closer Iran moves to having a nuclear weapon. Certainly, they understand that Israel has the capability to act and will be politically forced to act if no one else acts to insure Israel’s survival. But still there is no real move to apply the level of pressure needed to bring real change. There can only be two options: either they are incompetent and are not capable of understanding the gravity of the situation, or they wish this situation to develop along the lines discussed above. Such a wish is consistent with the most cynical political calculus: let the situation continue until Israel believes that no one is going to act to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon; give no definitive assurances that the US will, in the end act to prevent an attack on Israel; do not use the political and economic tools at your disposal to apply the pressure needed on the rest of the world to force Iran to change course; and in the end let Israel conduct the attack by herself.
Such an attack would be the best possible solution for the far left in the US, providing nearly limitless opportunity to lambaste Israel, while offering equal opportunity to cuddle up with the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezballah and Syria, and while continuing to lament Israeli unilateralism, labeling Israel (and US conservatives) as the real threat to peace and stability in the Mid-east, all with the comfort of knowing that the real threat to peace – a nuclear Iran – has been eliminated for the foreseeable future.
There is, of course, only one problem with all this: what happens if the Israelis fail to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons capability?
No comments:
Post a Comment