The Elite Debate on Iran

For several months now, Foreign Affairs magazine has featured something of a back-and-forth debate about Iran, its nuclear program, and war. In the January/February edition, Matthew Kroenig, Georgetown professor and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote a piece, the title of which said it all: “Time to Attack Iran.”

In response, Colin Kahl, who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense of the Middle East until December, wrote his own piece entitled “Not Time to Attack Iran.” Kahl saw a preventive strike on Iran as unjustified and counterproductive, preferring instead to heavily sanction Iran’s economy, continue to provocatively threaten Iran with military encirclement, while engaging in intense negotiations for some sort of political settlement which would be viable if both sides were willing to reciprocate valuable concessions.

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Kenneth N. Waltz, a renowned international relations theorist, argued another take with “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” He argued that Iran’s legitimate threat perception in the context of US and Israeli posturing is incentivizing the leadership to go for nuclear weapons, and that this would be a good thing for the stability of the region. There is an asymmetry in the balance of power in the Middle East, Waltz argued, since Israel has hundreds of warheads and doesn’t need to answer for them thanks to US support. Most importantly, he argued that new nuclear states typically become less bellicose and claimed they would not use the deterrence it would afford them to be more aggressive with proxies like Hezbollah. “In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less,” Waltz wrote.

Now Kahl has swung back with a response to Waltz (Waltz rebuts Kahl’s rebuttal at the bottom of the link).

Waltz correctly notes that Iran’s leaders, despite their fanatical rhetoric, are fundamentally rational. Because Iran’s leadership is not suicidal, it is highly unlikely that a nuclear-armed Iran would deliberately use a nuclear device or transfer one to terrorists. Yet even though the Islamic Republic is rational, it is still dangerous, and it is likely to become even more so if it develops nuclear weapons.

States are dangerous; that’s the nature of their inherent violence. The relevant question is whether Iran would be more aggressive than it is now. Or, perhaps more to the point, more aggressive than other states which have achieved nuclear weapons. As Waltz says, “Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly…has long fueled instability in the Middle East.” Israel has been involved in, and been the cause of several devastating wars and is in violation of a long list of international laws and UN resolutions. Yet nobody in Washington considered preventive war on Israel as a better alternative.

Another example to consider is Pakistan. Kahl disputes what Waltz says is the case, that Pakistan’s conflict with India has calmed ever since both states got nuclear weapons. There are still skirmishes between the two, but they are apparently less explosive. But Pakistan has also played a bit of a double game with Washington regarding insurgent groups and cross border attacks into Afghanistan. This is certainly not desirable from Washington’s point of view, but few argued for bombing and regime change in Pakistan to prevent them from getting nukes, probably because it was a much worse alternative.

This is not to say that Iran should get the bomb, but merely to put it in the appropriate context: war is not a desirable alternative to a nuclear armed Iran. In a cost benefit analysis, war as a preventive measure is far worse than a nuclear Iran, especially with all the stabilizing effects it is likely to bring.

Kahl:

A nuclear-armed Iran, believing that it possessed a powerful deterrent and could thus commit violence abroad with near impunity, might also increase the frequency and scale of the terrorist attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets carried out by Hezbollah and the Quds Force, the covert operations wing of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And a bolder Iran might increase the number of Revolutionary Guard forces it deployed to Lebanon, allow its navy to engage in more frequent shows of force in the Mediterranean, and assert itself more aggressively in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Unfortunately, these predictions take Iran’s actions to be in a vacuum. Again, Iran is operating out of a perception of threat, and this explains its postures. Washington could easily alter its policies to incentivize Iran away from even attaining a nuclear deterrent (or, once it has the deterrent, away from bellicosity and increased activity through proxies). But it chooses not to.

I think both forces would be likely to influence a nuclear Iran; that is, both Waltz’s calming effects and Kahl’s increased bellicosity. People tend to forget in analyses like these that the country in question is not a monolith. What is also easy to forget in these debates is the reality that  there is no known weaponization going on in Iran, that US intelligence has concluded that Iran has not decided to go for nuclear weapons, and that Tehran’s actual strategy is rather explicitly to not attain nuclear weapons. These annoying little facts can get in the way of a good establishmentarian debate though.

3 thoughts on “The Elite Debate on Iran”

  1. “A nuclear-armed Iran, believing that it possessed a powerful deterrent and could thus commit violence abroad with near impunity”

    Right, because neither the US or Israel have ever given Iran any reason to worry about punitive measures.

      1. Non-urban weddings in many cases are more official, with women and men segregated and also the bride's encounter covered having a veil throughout the wedding ceremony.

      2. That could be a color, a flower or perhaps a theme for example. By narrowing the actual search you will lay aside time and be happier together with your purchase.

      3. The actual major guide conferences as well as conventions include travel expenses for example airlines as well as hotel accommodations, and the week's investment of your energy. But guide fairs are available close in order to home, easily utilized by car and frequently are just a few days.

      4. Bad credit automobile financing come along with two variants. One is actually unsecured along with other one is actually secured kind. In the situation of guaranteed, you need to put some types of collateral for that loan add up to be approved. f you're thinking with regard to unsecured type then you will see no choice of security.

      5. If you want to find the most perfect BBQ, obtain them in Texas. Major BBQ cook-offs are easily found in the south part in U.S especially Texas. So, don't be doubt to have BBQ food [http://bbqsecretrecipes.com/] in your spare time by getting your mom's old recipes and taking pleasure in them.

  3. I heartily agree with Kenneth N. Waltz. Iran should have nuclear weapons in order to counter the Zionist entity. Iran would be no more "dangerous" than any other nation that has nukes. There's nothing wrong with nuclear parity in the Middle East.

    Attack Iran? Bullshit. They don't have nukes, nor are they a threat to anyone.

  4. The middle east is a tough place to live in, if you have power you will survive and if you dont you will parish. This atricle is too academic. but in order to add something to the discussion: Israeli stance is this: Iran is threatening to eliminate israel if it will gain the power to do so. Israel should act before Iran has the power to realize its plans. So the US need to decide not on two options (to attack or not to attack) but of three: Attack, not to attack, let Israel attack.

  5. I have a debate tomorrow about America going into Iran, because they declared nuclear power? My partner and I both don't really have any idea what is going on over there? Can any one please help me on this topic?
    Regards,
    <a href="http://www.trackvia.com” target=”_blank”>www.trackvia.com

  6. George has decided to "cut and run" on the invitation to debate Iran's president. Since he doesn't have the nerve to face his enemies like a man.

  7. Thanks for sharing so significative article with us. I agree with your idea competely.I am looking forward to another great article from you.

  8. quinceanera limo services
    “There are books full of great writing that don't have very good stories. Read sometimes for the story… don't be like the book-snobs who won't do that. Read sometimes for the words–the language. Don't be like the play-it-safers who won't do that. But when you find a book that has both a good story and good words, treasure that book.”

  10. “There are books full of great writing that don't have very good stories. Read sometimes for the story… don't be like the book-snobs who won't do that. Read sometimes for the words–the language. Don't be like the play-it-safers who won't do that. But when you find a book that has both a good story and good words, treasure that book.” safety bifocal reading glasses

  11. Your blog post rocks! Congrats. Seriously considered experienced learning this, an item wasn't just like another, what the heck is considered uncomfortable to go about. You have to do good work buddy. I'm looking good blog/site for post my comment. Now I got it. I'm very happy to your blog/site.

Comments are closed.

viewpoint highlights
breaking news
© 2024 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.
Antiwar.com Blog Stock Photos provided by our partner Depositphotos