So, its economy being strangled, and building a nuclear bomb impossible without starting a war, what options does Iran have? Naturally, the Trump Administration is offering two -- capitulation or revolution. But looking from the Iranian perspective, these are things to avoid. What else is there?
I have read various suggestions such as an escalation in terrorist attacks, sabotage of rival countries' oil productions, or closing the Straits of Hormuz. But I have never heard anyone yet propose what seems the most obvious option -- a mutual defense treaty with Russia.
Granted, it is not clear that an alliance of this type would make any sense. It has worked in the case of Cuba, with a Russian subsidy propping up the Cuban economy, but just of that subsidy has taken the form of cheap oil. Since Russia and Iran are both oil exporters, an oil subsidy would be worthless. And I confess to not knowing enough about the two countries' respective economies to know how much of a subsidy would be needed and whether Russia can afford it. But given Iran's desperate situation, I imagine they will take whatever subsidy they can get.
The most obvious advantage to Iran from such an alliance is that it would eliminate the risk of war. To start a war with Iran would be to start a war with Russia, and Russia has nukes. So Iran would be safe from direct attack and receive some sort of subsidy, however inadequate. It also seems a safe assumption that the Russians would encourage Iran's "malign activities" such as occupying Syria and subsidizing Hamas and Hezbollah and, indeed, provide a subsidy.
Of course, there would be disadvantages. It seems a safe assumption that one condition of such an alliance would be giving up any nuclear ambitions. The last thing the Russians would want would be for a potentially obstreperous ally to get its own nuclear weapons and become even more independent-minded. And the Iranians would have to renounce any really aggressive and provocative behavior like interfering with oil shipments or closing the Straits. But I don't think Iranians would consider that to be all that great a sacrifice. Interfering with oil shipments or closing the Straits of Hormuz would be a sort of Sampson-and-the-pillars tactic, a mutually assured destruction that ceases to be necessary with a Russian alliance.
And what of Iran's rivals? Well, they would have to deal with a more deeply-entrenched Iranian government, one they can no longer remove or start a war with, and one that will continue its "malign activities" more or less unchanged. But they will have the assurance that Iran will not get a nuke and not do anything too crazy.
I wonder if they will consider it worthwhile.
Monday, May 27, 2019
A Further Thought
It should also be noted that even as Trumpsters denounce Obama's Iran deal as appeasement and a hopeless sellout that must be renounced they are benefiting from it.
At the time the deal was entered, Iran had an estimated breakout time to make a nuclear weapon of three months. That does not mean they were automatically going to have nuclear weapons in three months if the deal had not been entered. The Iranians had been at three months' breakout time for a long time. It meant that any time they decided to quit dithering and actually build a nuclear bomb, they had the capacity to do it in three months, without necessarily attracting attention or being caught.
The nuclear deal required the Iranians to shut down nearly three-quarters of their centrifuges, to close their plutonium reprocessing plant, to ship over 90% of their uranium stockpile out of the country, to limit uranium enrichment to 3.75%, well below weapons grade, and to submit to intrusive inspections to ensure that all these terms were kept. In return, they got sanctions relief. There was much questioning at the time whether it would be possible to restore the sanctions if the Iranians broke the agreement.
Well, we appear to have the answer now. Donald Trump has, indeed, restored sanctions and made them harsher than ever by threatening secondary sanctions against anyone who trades with Iran. So obviously it was possible to restore the sanctions. But the Iranians have kept to their terms of the agreement. Why?
I think there can be little doubt as to why. The agreement was carefully set up to ensure that Iran would not benefit from breaking the agreement. To do so would mean kicking out inspectors. It would mean building new centrifuges, or a new plutonium processing plant. These things would attract immediate attention and cause alarm. They would unmistakably signal to the international community that Iran was, indeed, pursuing nuclear weapons. But such actions would be futile. Iran's nuclear stock has been so depleted that it would take a year to build enough highly enriched to build nuclear weapons. That would be more than enough time for Iran's enemies to start a war and, regardless of how it went for other countries, it would be a disaster for Iran.
In other words, if the Trump Administration had imposed such harsh sanctions in the absence of the nuclear deal, Iran would probably have responded by building a nuclear bomb. Thanks to the agreement, that avenue has been cut off.
And naturally no Iran hawk ever acknowledges as much.
At the time the deal was entered, Iran had an estimated breakout time to make a nuclear weapon of three months. That does not mean they were automatically going to have nuclear weapons in three months if the deal had not been entered. The Iranians had been at three months' breakout time for a long time. It meant that any time they decided to quit dithering and actually build a nuclear bomb, they had the capacity to do it in three months, without necessarily attracting attention or being caught.
The nuclear deal required the Iranians to shut down nearly three-quarters of their centrifuges, to close their plutonium reprocessing plant, to ship over 90% of their uranium stockpile out of the country, to limit uranium enrichment to 3.75%, well below weapons grade, and to submit to intrusive inspections to ensure that all these terms were kept. In return, they got sanctions relief. There was much questioning at the time whether it would be possible to restore the sanctions if the Iranians broke the agreement.
Well, we appear to have the answer now. Donald Trump has, indeed, restored sanctions and made them harsher than ever by threatening secondary sanctions against anyone who trades with Iran. So obviously it was possible to restore the sanctions. But the Iranians have kept to their terms of the agreement. Why?
I think there can be little doubt as to why. The agreement was carefully set up to ensure that Iran would not benefit from breaking the agreement. To do so would mean kicking out inspectors. It would mean building new centrifuges, or a new plutonium processing plant. These things would attract immediate attention and cause alarm. They would unmistakably signal to the international community that Iran was, indeed, pursuing nuclear weapons. But such actions would be futile. Iran's nuclear stock has been so depleted that it would take a year to build enough highly enriched to build nuclear weapons. That would be more than enough time for Iran's enemies to start a war and, regardless of how it went for other countries, it would be a disaster for Iran.
In other words, if the Trump Administration had imposed such harsh sanctions in the absence of the nuclear deal, Iran would probably have responded by building a nuclear bomb. Thanks to the agreement, that avenue has been cut off.
And naturally no Iran hawk ever acknowledges as much.
At Least I Know What the Hawks Want Now
I have complained many times before about not understanding hawks' views on the Iran nuclear deal. They made hysterical warnings about the dangers of Iran getting a nuclear bomb and then, when John Kerry came up with an actual framework to prevent such a development, hysterically denounced the framework as surrender and demanded that we not place restrictions on Iran's bomb making capacities. All the while insisting that the didn't want to start a war.
What did they want?
Well, watching events unfold in Iran and North Korea, I am at least seeing what super-hawks think should be the proper approach to diplomacy with a hostile country:
(1) Draw up your wish list
(2) Declare every item on the list to be non-negotiable.
(3) Refuse any negotiations until the other country has implemented every item on our wish list.
(4) Assure the other country that just as soon as they have implemented our wish list, we are ready to sit down and negotiate whether they get anything in return.
Admittedly, Donald Trump did not follow this proper sequence with North Korea, leading to hysterical outcry from the usual suspects that he was engaged in "appeasement" and should never have agreed to a summit until the other side surrendered. But no bother Pompeo and Bolton made sure that nothing would come of it -- made clear that a gradual climb-down with concession traded for concession was not in the cards, and that only when North Korea scrapped all nuclear weapons, all nuclear programs, and all missiles of any kind would there be any relaxation of sanctions.
The approach to Iran has been similar except that in addition to scrapping all nuclear enrichment and all missiles, the Iranians must also withdraw all troops from Syria, stop backing factions in Iraq, cease all support for Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis and generally cease being a "threat" to its neighbors.
In other words, never negotiate until the other side surrenders unconditionally, and on all issues.
It also shows what even supporters of the agreement with Iran mean when they say it is not "perfect." They mean that Iran did not surrender unconditionally and get nothing in return. If that is your standard of an acceptable agreement, you are effectively saying that diplomacy should have no part our our toolkit.
What did they want?
Well, watching events unfold in Iran and North Korea, I am at least seeing what super-hawks think should be the proper approach to diplomacy with a hostile country:
(1) Draw up your wish list
(2) Declare every item on the list to be non-negotiable.
(3) Refuse any negotiations until the other country has implemented every item on our wish list.
(4) Assure the other country that just as soon as they have implemented our wish list, we are ready to sit down and negotiate whether they get anything in return.
Admittedly, Donald Trump did not follow this proper sequence with North Korea, leading to hysterical outcry from the usual suspects that he was engaged in "appeasement" and should never have agreed to a summit until the other side surrendered. But no bother Pompeo and Bolton made sure that nothing would come of it -- made clear that a gradual climb-down with concession traded for concession was not in the cards, and that only when North Korea scrapped all nuclear weapons, all nuclear programs, and all missiles of any kind would there be any relaxation of sanctions.
The approach to Iran has been similar except that in addition to scrapping all nuclear enrichment and all missiles, the Iranians must also withdraw all troops from Syria, stop backing factions in Iraq, cease all support for Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis and generally cease being a "threat" to its neighbors.
In other words, never negotiate until the other side surrenders unconditionally, and on all issues.
It also shows what even supporters of the agreement with Iran mean when they say it is not "perfect." They mean that Iran did not surrender unconditionally and get nothing in return. If that is your standard of an acceptable agreement, you are effectively saying that diplomacy should have no part our our toolkit.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
I Think I Get It
OK, I think I have figured out how Republicans have managed to square the circle of being outraged that the Justice Department investigated Donald Trump while he was running for President, while having the Justice Department investigate whoever runs against him.
It is simple. Criminal investigations are fine because they are public knowledge and investigation of past conduct. Counter intelligence investigations, by contrast, are secret and prospective and are therefore a big no-no.
Of course, given that counter intelligence investigations are secret, there is really no way of knowing whether the Trump Administration is launching one at any time against its opponents.
It is simple. Criminal investigations are fine because they are public knowledge and investigation of past conduct. Counter intelligence investigations, by contrast, are secret and prospective and are therefore a big no-no.
Of course, given that counter intelligence investigations are secret, there is really no way of knowing whether the Trump Administration is launching one at any time against its opponents.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Donald Trump Has Not Lost His Fondness for Wood Chippers
Apparently Donald Trump has not altogether lost his affinity for diving headfirst into a wood chipper. I thought his letter to the Fifth Circuit Court announcing that the Administration now favors repeal of the entirety of Obamacare might be as impulsive and transient as some of his tweets. But now the Administration has officially filed a brief calling for the repeal of the whole thing. No one expect the argument to actually prevail. But the Administration is now locked into standing out in public and arguing for stripping 20 million people of their health insurance. Who knows, this might even go to the Supreme Court and force the Administration to argue for stripping 20 million people of their health insurance in front of the whole nation.
Fortunately, he is almost certain to lose.
Pass the popcorn.
Fortunately, he is almost certain to lose.
Pass the popcorn.
Yet Another Exercise in Projection
With their uproar over the Trump investigation Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular seemed to be creating a new standard in politics. Running for President should immunize a candidate from investigation. But since that standard obviously was not applied to Hillary Clinton, they offered a slightly modified standard. Members of the opposition party running for President should be immune from investigation.
There is an obvious problem with setting up such a standard. Implausible though it may seem right now, sooner or later the Democrats will actually choose a candidate who will run for President in 2020. It seems a safe assumption that whoever the candidate is, the Trump Administration will want to investigate him/her. Are Republicans sure that they want to set a standard barring them from investigating their political opponents?
And we now seem to have the answer. Joe Biden is emerging (for now) as the Democratic front runner. And, predictably enough, the Trump Administration is attempting to open an investigation. Presumably Republicans are not (yet) brazen enough to argue that Republicans are our rightful rulers and therefore should be immune from investigation, but Democrats are illegitimate usurpers and therefore should always be investigated if they seek to usurp office.
So I wonder what excuse they will find.
How Donald Trump Differs from a Generic Republican
While Donald Trump resembles ordinary Republicans in some respects, in other respects he really is different.
Consider:
Donald Trump believes that there was serious criminality in the Obama Administration, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. Doubtless many ordinary Republicans agree.*
Donald Trump believes that lack of evidence is the result of Attorney General Eric Holder successfully covering up Obama's crimes. Again, many Republicans appear to agree.
The difference is that ordinary Republicans see Holder's alleged stone walling as an outrage. Trump sees it as exactly what an Attorney General is supposed to do.
Ordinary Republicans' firm commitment to alternative facts is troubling. But Donald Trump's viewpoint is even worse. It shows that he has absolutely no concept of the rule of law and sees the Attorney General and the Justice Department, not at law enforcement, but as the President's private fixers.**
____________________________________________
*I realize many Republicans will say there is plenty of evidence of criminality by the Obama Administration. So far as I can tell, it consists of three main things. First, allegations that the Obama IRS targeted conservative organizations for tax audits. That has since been proven false. The IRS targeted any organization with a political sounding name, liberal or conservative, to see if its claim for non-profit status was legitimate. Though a bit heavy-handed, it was not discriminatory. Second, the Obama Administration was blamed for Operation Fast and Furious. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), in an attempt to crack down on gun smuggling to Mexican drug cartels, knowingly allowed illegal sales to take place in hopes of tracing them. A Drug Enforcement Agent was killed by one such gun. This appears to have been a local operation, not involving any political appointees, and beginning before the Obama Administration. I was also rather unclear what the Republicans were really angry about, that that ATF allowed illegal gun smuggling to occur, or that it attempted to crack down on anything involving guns at all. Finally, Republicans are up in arms that the Obama Administration investigated the Trump campaign during the election.
**On the other hand, one might also say that simply means that Trump is more honest and less hypocritical than most Republicans. He wants the Attorney General to be his private fixer, but he will concede a Democratic President the same privilege. Republicans are outraged by a Democratic Attorney General's imagined cover-up of a Democratic President's crimes. Somehow, though, I doubt they will show the same outrage when the shoe is on the other foot.
Consider:
Donald Trump believes that there was serious criminality in the Obama Administration, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. Doubtless many ordinary Republicans agree.*
Donald Trump believes that lack of evidence is the result of Attorney General Eric Holder successfully covering up Obama's crimes. Again, many Republicans appear to agree.
The difference is that ordinary Republicans see Holder's alleged stone walling as an outrage. Trump sees it as exactly what an Attorney General is supposed to do.
Ordinary Republicans' firm commitment to alternative facts is troubling. But Donald Trump's viewpoint is even worse. It shows that he has absolutely no concept of the rule of law and sees the Attorney General and the Justice Department, not at law enforcement, but as the President's private fixers.**
____________________________________________
*I realize many Republicans will say there is plenty of evidence of criminality by the Obama Administration. So far as I can tell, it consists of three main things. First, allegations that the Obama IRS targeted conservative organizations for tax audits. That has since been proven false. The IRS targeted any organization with a political sounding name, liberal or conservative, to see if its claim for non-profit status was legitimate. Though a bit heavy-handed, it was not discriminatory. Second, the Obama Administration was blamed for Operation Fast and Furious. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), in an attempt to crack down on gun smuggling to Mexican drug cartels, knowingly allowed illegal sales to take place in hopes of tracing them. A Drug Enforcement Agent was killed by one such gun. This appears to have been a local operation, not involving any political appointees, and beginning before the Obama Administration. I was also rather unclear what the Republicans were really angry about, that that ATF allowed illegal gun smuggling to occur, or that it attempted to crack down on anything involving guns at all. Finally, Republicans are up in arms that the Obama Administration investigated the Trump campaign during the election.
**On the other hand, one might also say that simply means that Trump is more honest and less hypocritical than most Republicans. He wants the Attorney General to be his private fixer, but he will concede a Democratic President the same privilege. Republicans are outraged by a Democratic Attorney General's imagined cover-up of a Democratic President's crimes. Somehow, though, I doubt they will show the same outrage when the shoe is on the other foot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)