Talking To The Iranian Wall
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in War — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“If war is politics by other means, the negotiation of treaties is war by other means, and should never be regarded as anything but.”
There are many good reasons why war with Iran should be an absolute last resort, and a ghastly one at that (more here from an advocate of invasion); while I continue to believe that the Iranian regime is a serious and multifaceted threat (Andy McCarthy at NRO notes that talk of the Iranian nuclear threat gives short shrift to the longstanding menace of Iranian sponsorship of terrorism), I really would prefer to see some answer to this crisis that doesn't require us to go to war. And while an internal revolution that topples the mullahcracy and installs a democracy along the lines of those in Turkey or Iraq or Lebanon would be the ideal resolution - since the problem with Iran, as with Saddam's Iraq, is the regime itself rather than the tools at its disposal - there's no way of predicting when or whether such a revolution might ignite, no security in relying on one developing, and no short-term prospect of fomenting one through American assistance. For now, in other words, we can't hide behind the hope that the threat will go away on its own.
We do not, yet, appear to be at an impasse that requires us to choose whether to fight, although the precise amount of time we have depends upon the imponderables of Iran's nuclear timeline (more here), and unfortunately the record of our intelligence agencies over the past 60 years or so in accurately estimating foreign WMD capacity is abysmal, giving the entire debate over when to act the flavor of Russian roulette. Still, for the moment the debate is to negotiate or not negotiate directly with the Iranians. The U.S. announced this week it is moving for the first time in the direction of joining talks with Iran, though insisting that such talks involve the entire permanent membership of the UN Security Council (Britain, France, Russia and China) plus Germany.
David Frum makes the case against negotiating, although Frum focuses mainly on the case against direct bilateral rather than multilateral talks. (Via Barone). I will add here two points to Frum's analysis. First of all, let's recall that negotiating directly with the Iranians gives them, free of charge and as a reward for their bad behavior, something of value they have lacked since 1979: diplomatic relations with the United States. That's not a good start to any negotiation, for us to reward the opposing party without demanding in exchange some face-saving compensation, at a minimum an apology for the 1979 hostage-taking and a promise not to kidnap our diplomats in future face-to-face dealings.
Second, a point I have been making for some time now, see here and here and here and here: we should never treat negotiations, or treaties, as ends in themselves, and never operate under the illusion that negotiations and treaties are a substitute for fighting. To the contrary, if war (as Clausewitz famously said) is politics by other means, the negotiation of treaties is war by other means, and should never be regarded as anything but.
As Justice Scalia, quoting Justice Holmes, explained in the context of commercial contracts:
Virtually every contract operates, not as a guarantee of particular future conduct, but as an assumption of liability in the event of nonperformance: "The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it, - and nothing else."
If there's a common lesson of Versailles (where we agreed to stop fighting Germany in World War I, an agreement violated without consequence by Germany leading to World War II), and of Vietnam (where we agreed to stop fighting North Vietnam by treaty preserving an independent South Vietnam, but hostilities were then resumed - again, without consequence from us - on more favorable terms by the North), and of the first Gulf War (where we agreed to stop fighting with Saddam but then let him get away for more than a decade, with minimal consequence, with violating the terms of the agreement) and of North Korea (where we entered into an agreement in the mid-1990s that was violated without consequence almost from the outset) it is that negotiating treaties only weakens us if we are not willing to keep ready to enforce them by military force.
Negotiations - unless entered into in bad faith solely for purposes of delay and/or public relations - are of value only if they have a chance of leading to a workable agreement. Workable agreements require that we get something of verifiable value, and that we make the consequences of violation both clear and credible. As of now, count me skeptical that talking to the Iranians gets us either. We will eventually need to decide if we are willing to go to war to stop the present Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons. Whether we negotiate with them or not will have little effect except to cede what little control we now have over the timing and circumstances in which we make that decision.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Jumping the gun in Ishaqi — Comments (105) »
Talking To The Iranian Wall 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
you have an underlying assumption that the negotiations with Iran are actually in good faith on our part and not a strategy to buy time by kicking this proverbial can down the road.
I think we'd like a verifiable agreement, but right now simply negotiating is buying us time.
Negotiations can be a valid end in and of themselves. As Winston Churchill famously observed "jaw-jaw is better than war-war." Negotiations usually means you aren't fighting, unless your opposition is Japan in December 1941.
Unlike with Iraq in 2002 where international sanctions were being whittled away under the flood of stories about starving Iraqi children, time is on our side with Iran for a while.
Certainly we will reach a decision point where we have to decide whether or not we will, in fact, allow Iran to have a nuke but there is no reason to preemptively bring that point nearer in time than need be.
Like I said, it depends if negotiations are in good faith. I am perfectly fine with us negotiating in bad faith with these cretins if we have valid strategic reasons for doing so, and of course that requires the Bush Administration to publicly pretend to be operating in good faith and to reel off all the varieties of humbug that are required to sustain that illusion. Including taking heat from conservative pundits and bloggers ;)
Negotiations will fail unless Iran abandons its goal of having nuclear weapons. As long as the ayatollahs and their nut case president are running Iran, Iran's goal will not change.
Negotiations can be useful from the perspective of alliance management. I don't have a problem with the US joining the multilateral talks with Iran. This doesn't cost us anything and reduces the ability of Iran to drive wedges between us and the "international community". It might also help dissuade the Europeans, Russians and Chinese from helping Iran's nuclear program, at least at the margins. Any help here, however slight, will postpone the day when the ayatollahs have their nukes.
With delay, we can always hope, like Wilkins Macawber, that something will turn up to spare us from drinking the poisoned chalice of war with Iran.
We should NOT negotiate bilaterally with Iran. That would enable Iran to split us from everyone else. Guess who the "international community" will pressure to make concessions when our bilateral talks reach their impasse?
just as Saddam did. He will do deals with our 'allies' that will undermine our efforts. Just as Saddam did. He will game the international community and any nuclear monitoring efforts. That buys him time. It just seems all too clear to anyone paying attention. I just think no one knows what to do about it short of armed conflict.
Ahmadinejad seems intent on having the hidden imam reveal himself. He is plodding down that path and will not deal with the devil (U.S.) to stop that. The best we can hope for is an internal uprising to overthrow the mullahs. Odds are slim for that since they have no reluctance in using the iron fist.
It will get very ugly.
to precipitate action against Iran in the past, and my reasoning still stands. It is much better to try everything else first. There is a time, however, when we may have to act.
This is more than a war of ideas; I am going to call it what it is, a war of religions, Christians and Jews against Islam. There I said it, politicians won't say it, diplomats wont say it but I did. But wait I'm not the first person to say that; the President of Iran said that not to long ago, now who should we believe, our politicians, or the person who threatens to destroy Israel and the United States by any means he can. So the question is do we believe him or not? If we don't believe him, then why talk to him? If we do believe him, then lets drop the "big ones" all over his country and make it glow in the dark. Who would complain? NOBODY
everyone who is for or against this war into those categories.
First of all, remember that any talks involving the US are contingent upon the suspension of uranium enrichment by the Iranian regime. That would be a major concession by them before they even get to the table.
Offering to talk strengthens our hand in the event of eventual military action, in that it cannot be said we did not reach out and try to resolve the problem through negotiations.
Also, before any strikes, our willingness to agree to talks strengthens our position in getting allies to go along with sanctions if talks are refused. Iran is one of the extremely rare cases where sanctions could work. They are enduring increasing unrest from ethnic minorities {ethnic Persians constitute only the barest of majorities in the population; there are sizable numbers of Azeris, Kurds, and Arabs who are very unhappy with their plight under Islamist theocracy. Students are also in near revolt nationwide.
For all their oil, Iran doesn't have the refining capacity to produce enough gasoline and diesel fuel for their domestic needs, and must import over one-third of those fuels from abroad. A strict embargo on fuel deliveries would have them in chaos in a week.
Now, I am generally inclined to respond to those who whine about "International Law" by inviting them to "Call an International Cop, then, moron!" However, in this case I feel obligated to note that under International Law, an embargo IS an act of war, just as much as an invasion would be.
Advocating religious war and nuclear genocide are good ways to get booted from the site. You have been warned.
I agree that talking can be useful if done solely for the purposes of browmie points with allies. That doesn't require us to actually be serious about the talks.
I disagree that the Iranians saying they have stopped enriching uranium is a concession. Count me skeptical that we can verify that.
so maybe in the end, a settlement is reached with the world community and Iran regarding nukes....big deal.
who is ever going to feel any comfort in the world, regardless of nukes, with the rhetoric that comes out of Iran?
this guy wants a fight, period. sooner or later, it will come to that. hopefully, the US won't bear the only burden