The main thing is to whoop up an attack on Iran by harping on their alleged prospective nukes.

We do not want the smoking gun to be a nuclear cloud after all.

These discussions must take place while hermetically sealed from any facts or viewpoints that are not one hundred per cent American.

If the US and others seem impatient...

Oh... come on! Don't be so disingenuous. Israel is the one getting impatient - the only one, in fact. The only dog the U.S. has in this fight is the powerful, relentless Israel Lobby here at home, shoving us into yet another military confrontation that benefits this country not at all. If Iran is so perfidious, why does it open its facilities to inspection? Israel doesn't. Israel tells the rest of the world to go hang, won't admit to having nuclear weapsons, never has heard of the Dimona facility and won't sign the IAEA accords. Iran has. But Israel can pull all this because it has the U.S. running interference for it. Wag the dog walker. No more wars for Israel. We're played out.

"A responsible Iran will be a significant regional power." According to whose definition of "responsible"? Why don't you just admit you want Iran to be a good little doggie. ...Or eliminated as a nation.

Sorry. I'm back. This is the funniest stuff I've read this week.

Iran's behavior has made it a source of regional and international concern...

You mean like... periodically invading its neighbors and destroying their infrastructure, blasting babies out of cribs, jugging up an entire population in a vast, open-air prison (who dat multiculturalism!)? Assassinating, as a matter of standing policy, its perceived opponents? Looting land, stealing property and bulldozing what it can't claw up?

Like that?

Eventually Israel's nuclear arsenal will be a subject of negotiation

David, This is news to many of us. What is the background to support such a statement?

Iran would be crazy not to get nukes. Look at the fate of North Korea vs. Iraq today. Iran is surrounded by countries occupied by US troops, and once again the CIA is trying to interfere in Iran itself. Plus, Israel has nuclear weapons, and keeps on threatening Teheran.

Getting nukes as a deterrent is the only way Iranians can be sure the US won't try to carpet-bomb or invade their country in the near future. That is why the reformers you seem to support are even more enthusiastic about nuclear "research" than Ahmadinejad.

David - Thanks for a thoughtful analysis. As I see it, there are three levels of nuclear danger (or lack of it). The safest would be a world without nuclear weapons. The intermediate level is the world we currently occupy, in which some nations have weapons and others do not. The most dangerous scenario entails further proliferation. Although some might favor this as a means of making the balance more equitable, I believe that view is equivalent to the opinion expressed by Archie Bunker a few decades ago on the show "All In The Family", in which he claimed that the best way to deal with airplane hijackings was to give every passenger a gun.

I agree with those who don't think a nuclear-armed Iran would be reckless, although I would not discount the posibility they might employ a weapon in response to a threat, real or imagined, from some other source, including even a non-nuclear threat. In addition, it is always a danger in a theocracy that the leadership may see itself acting rationally even when it is not, simply because it isn't receptive to advice or pressure from opponents of its policies.

The greater danger, however, is simply that permitting Iran to proceed on its current course toward nuclear weapons capability would further weaken constraints on other nations to follow suit. North Korea has already set a precedent, but the danger from reinforcing the precedent is substantial, and the benefits from avoiding another example are therefore very desirable.

I expect that sooner or later, even China and Russia will acknowledge the reality of the threat, and will join Europe and the U.S. in cautiously moving toward stronger sanctions, but whether the sactions will be strong enough remains to be seen.

Never having denied my membership in the foreign policy establishment, it shouldn't surprise anyone that I believe in US support for Israel and have serious apprehensions toward Iran. If people want to take their best shot, I guess that's fair, but it doesn't bring our respective worldviews into real dialogue.

As expressly predicted, to some readers my post is undistinguishable from the dominant exceptionalism of the entire establishment. From that vantage, the discussion that takes place within the parameters of the mainstream policy debate is a lot of blah blah blah -- distinctions among policy approaches that are without real differences.

No, I'm not accepting of a nuclear armed Iran (or a near-nuclear armed Iran). Nor do I think Iran's experience or perceptions warrant its actions and posture. Just because the United States bears some burden of proving its intentions, doesn't give Iran a pass.

So one last time, here's the burden the US does indeed have upon us:
-- Our aim with the nuclear program is policy change, not regime change (no, I haven't forgotten 1953)
-- Iran's own interests in developing nuclear technology and insistence that it is a non-weapon state will be an important part of the solution
-- The US should provide negative security assurances in the final deal
-- While the US has serious and valid concerns about the role Iran has played and how its leaders have governed, there is nothing inherently dangerous about the Islamic Republic

If that strikes you as meaningless, then you go your way and I'll go mine.

The only real danger posed to Americans at the present time by Iran’s nuclear program is the one Fred mentions: that the endless back-and-forth standoff and failure to arrive at a stable arrangement will undermine the broader nonproliferation agenda. This problem could probably be dealt with fairly quickly by a serious effort at engagement. Unfortunately, the administration’s “engagement” policy so far is an unserious charade, a lame skit written early on by Dennis Ross, driven by short-term domestic political considerations, not security considerations. The administration is conducting comically unconvincing show-diplomacy, filled with haughty and counterproductive hectoring, snotty petulance, noisy foot-tapping and furtive clock-watching. They act like a kid in the department store who has to pee. And this is all for domestic show. The idea that they are really nervous and afraid that “time is running out” doesn’t pass the laugh test. The actual implementation of the policy is designed to ensure the failure of engagement while presenting a simulacrum of engagement to the public.

It looks like “make an effective wide-ranging deal with Iran” falls into the same category for the White House as “pass a powerful and viable public health care option.” It’s a goal to which they sometimes pay lip service in order to dupe and bamboozle people like me, but which they are desperately eager to prevent at all costs from actually happening.

Anyway, our attempts to promote a nonproliferation agenda are undermined every day by much graver and more jaw-dropping failings, most centrally our nuclear policies toward Israel and India. One would expect any country that aspires to lead the global community in a vigorous drive to rid the world of nuclear weapons to insist, at the very least, that other countries sign on to the NPT, and to treat those countries that choose to remain outside the NPT framework as outlaw rogues, and targets for sanctions and isolation. But not only does the US not sanction Israel, it rewards that rich little country with an extravagant annual goody basket of gifts and “aid”.

And then there is the dopey posture of not mentioning Israel’s nukes in public, as though they don’t even exist. This embarrassing routine is sometimes dignified with some fancy IR label like “constructive ambiguity”. But that’s just a more decorous euphemism for “too big a pussy to face the obvious in public.”

No country looking on could possibly take our game seriously. If Obama hopped aboard the kiddie train at Euro-Disney, sucking his thumb, and clad in nothing but a poop-filled diaper emblazoned with a Star of David, he couldn’t make our country look more ridiculous. The US administration is lucky for the moment that is has a handful of zealous fellow travelers - like the Islamophobe Sarkozy – on hand to help out. But this is probably quite temporary.

Add to this that Obama’s Afghanistan speech was vague and unpersuasive. I don’t think he really knows what he is doing. Or if he knows what he is doing, the agenda must be so shameful and impolitic that he is forbidden from explaining it in public. Either way, he’s going to get a bunch of people killed for no good reason other than the fact that he is too big a coward to face down powerful domestic interests, and the American people are left swimming and sinking in cesspool of lies and confusion, without a life preserver.

An article in the latest Scientific American emphasizes just how important an issue nuclearization is:

In a hypothetical India-Pakistan nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs, 20 million die outright, but nobody escapes. The soot and ash from the incinerated cities create a global mini-nuclear winter in which sunlight is reduced, crops fail, and billions are at risk of starvation.

Nader Mousavizadeh, who was a special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan from 1997 to 2003, and is now a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, questions the merits of the sanctions approach in the current on-line edition of the New Republic, headed "Against the Green, Is Obama about to play into Ahmadinejad’s hands?"

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/against-the-green

I guess that there is a possibility of quid-pro-quo which is not mentioned.

We could get Iran's dropping elements of its nuclear program we do not like.

We could offer:

end of sanctions and return some billions of dollars that we froze

end of hindering Iran's purchases of conventional missile technologies/weapon systems

end of hindering Iran's efforts to build a pipeline to India

welcome larger role of Iran in Afghanistan (where our interests actually converge)

I think that the Iran's program is not worth anything much, but we will look good if we "achieve something". It we value THAT a lot. I suspect that this is the main Iranian rationale -- stake an irritating position that would allow the regime to achieve something that USA and Israel hate. That actual nuclear weapons are unnecessary, it is only a bonus -- they really cannot fail.

On the other hand, the concessions I listed do not cost us anything, to the contrary --- as it is not observed enough, our interests in Afghanistan -- Pakistan -- India are actually the same. Less drugs and violence streaming out of Af/Pak region.

Our interests on the Mediterranean end of Asia are divergent, so one could leave it out of the discussions. It is not like Iran will really threaten Israel or Israel will really threaten Syria and Hezbollah.

Evidently, piotr considers the Israeli bellicosity re Lebanon and the extensive IDF preparations to have another go at the place to be grandstanding. (Syria is another matter).

Let's hope he is correct. Unfortunately, such thinking ignores the outdated Israeli doctrine of deterrence that is predicated on the notion that no state can be allowed to have the means to "threaten" Israel; either offensively or defensively.

After Gulf War I contained Saddam, Israel shifted gears to concentrate on Iran as the most threatening entity in the region. It had nothing to do with any overt threats to Israel.

What has been, as usual, left out of these discussions is the re-alignment of forces in the region that signals drastic changes for our FP establisment to absorb. I don't think that the entrenched CW can deal with the fact that rapprochment with Iran is a growing factor in the region that is moving ahead without our blessing.

One would think that the signs that even our staunch "allies" such as the KSA and Egypt are exploring avenues of engagement w/Iran would cause some "rethinking" of our objectives and agenda.

So far, the independent efforts by the regional actors to stabilize their region appear to be causing consternation among our FP fossils.

For Israel in particular, the only bright signs are the active Islamist Turkish efforts to recruit Israelis into the big regional tent under their "zero problems with the neighbors" doctrine. If Israel can, in good faith, pursue the openings offered by the Erdogan government (and Syria's Assad), that way lays the path to real regional stability.

PS. aa's link to the NYT article above does signal some alarming changes to our FP that can be seen in our actions re Yemen.

Mr Schorr's comment:

Nor do I think Iran's experience or perceptions warrant its actions and posture.

You know, the amazing thing about the American dialogue is the sub-sophomoric quality of the discourse. You'd think, biggest most powerful western country in the world, a technological and social leader, you'd expect a lot of subtle and nuanced play.

Unfortunately, what we get are endless permutations of manifest destiny and american exceptionalism, with the uncomprehending promotion of the 'crazy negro' theory of international politics. There's nary a glance at history and never a whit of insight.

Which brings us to Mr. Shor:

[quote]...but their actions have belied their commitments and declarations too many times to take their claimed civilian intentions at face value. [/quote]

These actions being.... well, they've been Iranians at us all this time. They wear funny clothes, they follow old farts with beards, for some reason they don't like us. There's some sort of irrational resentment for thirty years of sanctions.

If they really really were acting in good faith, would they be Iranian at all? David Shor doesn't think so.

Truth of the matter is that Mr. Shor is talking through his hat. The evidence for an actual Iranian nuclear program is no better and significantly worse than for Saddam's WMD's.

But really, Mr. Shor doesn't actually have to worry about this... Because they're "EEEEVIL."

[quote]The purpose of the uranium currently deal on the table is to guarantee Iran's supply of civilian nuclear fuel and boost international confidence that Iran hasn't achieved a nuclear weapon capability.[/quote]

Notice how the goal post of US discourse has subtly moved. No assertion here, even by Shor, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Only that we don't want them to reach a technological threshold where they might have the capability to pursue a nuclear weapon.

And we think the Iranians are sneaky!

[quote] If the US and others seem impatient, it's because Iran is getting steadily and unnervingly closer to that technological capacity.[/quote]

Because they're Iranian!

[quote]Our sympathies and moral support are with Iranian reformers;[/quote]

Too bad they don't like us either. That's why we're forced to support terrorist groups like MEK, maintain sanctions, and look for ways to destabilize the country.

[quote]The previous policy that regime-change was the true objective severely undercut the US ability to deal with the nuclear issue.[/quote]

Regime change being the operative goal up until when? Last year? A month ago? A few hours ago? It's all very nice to see a black President, but Obama's foreign policy is all about American exceptionalism, he's restated America's right to unilateral aggression. Do the Iranians actually see a change in our foreign policy? Do they see it in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Israel?

Or do they just see the same bullshit, different packaging.

[quote]Iran's behavior has made it a source of regional and international concern;[/quote]

That behaviour being? Being Iranian? Not invading and occupying other countries?

[quote] Once Iran establishes itself as a non-nuclear weapon state,[/quote]

Like they are now?

[quote] mends its governance,[/quote]

Hey, who let REGIME CHANGE back into the discussion. Aren't we now the kinder, gentler exceptionalists?

Do we want them to be as Democratic as Saudi Arabia? As Quatar? As open as Yemen? As honest and incorruptible as UAE? Are we seeking the same standards of clear and open governance and administration as hold in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Ah, but none of this matters. The truth is for Mr. Shor, that his problem with the Iranian government and governance is that they are there.

Iran's real sin of governance is that they are not kissing our ass. They are not our peons. They are not obedient to American interests, open to American investment, tailoring their economic, political and technological agendas to American wishes.

In short, their real problem is that they are not sufficiently slavish.

What Mr. Shor really wants with better governance is an Iran that kisses our ass.

[quote] and ends sponsorship of terrorism,

Like MEK? Or like the Contras? Oops, they didn't support those guys. We did.

Iran does not support any terrorist group carrying out actions against the United States.

Iran does support local indigenous groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which surely piss off Israel. But Israel is its own kind of bad actor. So how does that involve us?

[quote] it will be a legitimate power in the Middle East. Its size, location, educated populace, and ancient civilization make for an irresistible claim.[/quote]

"Legitimate"? Who confers legitimacy? Oh gee. That would be us.

Set aside the flowery language, all Shor is really offering is the position of 'house negro'.

[quote]A nuclear-free world means a nuclear-free Middle East. Eventually Israel's nuclear arsenal will be a subject of negotiation --[/quote]

But first, we need to come down hard on Iran, which is not a nuclear power, which is not actually seeking nuclear weapons, but which is in danger of developing a level of technology which might allow them to pursue nuclear weapons. That makes so much sense.

[quote] along with the other de facto nuclear powers, India and Pakistan.[/quote]

But first, Iran!!!!

I really don't know which I find more tedious. There's the endless subliminal racism, versus the utter lack of any insight or originality in this pablum which has been circulating through the last 25 years of the Iranian debate and has arguably circulated for another 25 years of previous 'Crazy Negro' threats.

I'm quite sure that Mr. Shor is not a racist, subliminal or otherwise. However, what he's done is simply scooped up the American trope of 'crazy negro' foreign policy analysis, without ever taking a second look at it. He's absorbed pablum, and regurgitates it, unexamined, undigested, and in more or less the same form he swallowed it. He's added nothing to the discussion, just sort of embroidered it around the edges with some pretty sentiment.

Tragically, he imagines that this is some sort of contribution to the discussion. And in a sense, he is right. American discourse is no longer about an actual discussion. American discourse is about conformity, it's about cruising around the fact that the ideas are nonsense, by meticulously repeating them.

It does not occur to Shor to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, everyone is so certain of the wardrobe, he doesn't even look for himself. Mr. Shor truly does believe in fairies, and in writing this drek, he is clapping his hands so Tinkerbelle will remain alive.

I suppose I've been tough on Mr. Shor. So it goes. I suspect he's not a bad person, and I'm willing to assume that he is not a stupid person. He is merely representative of the crass and empty state of the American discourse.

Nuclear war deserves to be treated seriously. Iran is working on starting a nuclear war. Iran has no defensive needs for nukes. Anybody who would want to attack Iran has already done so; There is nobody who is waiting to attack after Iran gets nuclear weapons.

And if you think, even for a second, that they are just generating electricity and making medical isotopes, do some research on the Sajjil and Shahab series of missiles. They are ground-to-ground missiles that are only useful for carrying nuclear weapons, and Iran is spending a lot to develop them.

The holocaust-deniers running Iran are not sober, sane, reliable men. They are intoxicated with political paranoia and religious end-times beliefs. They believe their religion must dominate the whole world, and soon. And nuclear weapons are the way to do that.