My prior post was a thought experiment where I described a crazy-ass backwards strategy for dealing with Iran. The point wasn’t that it would work – I’m no expert in foreign affairs – but rather that it could help illuminate some flaws in our current way of thinking. Let’s take a look at how it performed on that score.
One thing that became clear from your comments is a fact that’s well known to trial lawyers: People learn by stories more so than by facts. In other words, we form our opinions based on what stories we are familiar with that seem the closest to the current situation.
In this case, many people drew on the story that all American kids learn in history class, that Neville Chamberlain’s idea of appeasing Hitler was a huge mistake. Thus we conclude that giving the Iranian leadership anything they are asking for would be a similar mistake.
For the record, let me say that this view could be entirely correct. I really don’t know. I wouldn’t rule it out on face value.
However, I have to clarify that the crazy-ass backwards plan I described doesn’t actually give the Iranians much of anything substantial. There would be economic benefits of trade, but those would be shared by anyone doing business with them. And if you believe, as I do, that they will continue building nukes no matter what we do, then we’re not really giving them that privilege either.
We would be giving them increased influence in Iraq, but that could work in our favor by getting us out sooner and even creating some order there via domination by the majority Shiites. And once we become trading partners with Iran, they’ll be happy to sell us overpriced oil.
Second, it’s worth pointing out that there is one other famous story where giving the enemy what they wanted was exactly the right strategy: Vietnam.
When the U.S. pulled out of the war in Vietnam, we gave the North Vietnamese exactly what they wanted. The result was that a lot of our allies got killed when the North took over the South, but it’s not clear that the number of dead was more than if the war had continued without a winner. Years later we can see that giving the enemy what they wanted was clearly in our best national interest. No other dominoes fell, relations are improving, and we got some help (perhaps not enough) recovering the remains of the fallen.
Is the Iranian situation more like Hitler, where appeasement is a bad idea, or more like Vietnam where retreat was a terrific idea? It all depends on whether you think Iran will try to wipe out Israel or if that is mostly rhetoric for political purposes.
The arming of Hezbollah seems to indicate that they’re serious about inflicting damage on Israel if the costs to Iran are minimal. But it seems to me that we saw what real Iranian commitment looked like during the Iraq-Iran war. Iran sent huge numbers of virtually defenseless volunteers against superior firepower. If they had the same level of commitment for destroying Israel, they’d be gathering their army at the border and gearing up for an offensive war. Is there any evidence of that? (That’s a real question, not rhetorical.)
From your comments I see that many of you believe Iran is crazy enough to drop a nuke on Israel and think they can get away with it should the U.S. seem weak and appeasement-minded. But I am under the impression that Israel has nukes on submarines. (Correct me if that’s wrong.) And if Iran got closer to having a functional nuke, I expect that Israel would keep a nuke-ready plane in the air at all times for that deterrent.
The other thing that I learned from the thought experiment is that many of you think that containment and pressure are the best way to stop the Iranians from their presumed suicide mission of destroying Israel and their own country at the same time. That strategy seems ill-fitted to the assumption that the Iranians are nut-jobs who will stop at nothing and suffer any pain to eliminate Israel. If you believe the Iranian leaders are that nuts, the only rational strategy is extermination, preferably by nuclear means, and the sooner the better. Otherwise Israel is toast, and time is on the Iranian’s side. Either way, Iran is annihilated, so it makes sense to strike first and at least spare Israel. (I don’t advocate this. I’m just saying that it seems to follow logically from the assumption I don’t share.)
I also learned that many people can’t tell the strategic difference between North Korea – which already has nukes – and Iran that wants them. If you assume the leaders of both countries are equally crazy, it still only makes sense to nuke Iran because they can’t yet fight back. North Korea just might be able to lob a nuke on South Korea. Big difference. They might be equally evil, but they aren’t equal.
Just to be clear, I’m not advocating nuking anyone. I’m just pointing out that if one assumes the Iranians will stop at nothing to build and use a nuke on Israel, the only sensible strategy is to nuke them first. Containment virtually guarantees that they’ll nuke Israel, since we know we aren’t going to stop their secret nuclear plot.
And if you believe that appeasement is never the right strategy, you need to put Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on your target list. Pakistan is allegedly not doing enough to catch Al Qaeda in its territory, and they’re the ones that spread nuclear technology to other countries. Saudi Arabia is allegedly still funding extremist religious teachings that are fueling terrorism.
The point of the crazy-ass backwards strategy is to move Iran into the same category as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where we have big differences, but because they are considered allies in some sense, flexibility doesn’t seem like appeasement.
Back to humor tomorrow.