Nick Autiello, Staff Writer – Debut Column
Ideology: Moderate Republican | Writing From: Boca Raton, Florida
When President Obama came into office, he promised that he would take serious action against Iran unless they made concessions to the world community regarding their nuclear activities. Well, Mr. President, the end of the year is here, and not only has Iran not made any concessions, they have dramatically denied the opportunity to do so. Last week, the IAEA overwhelmingly approved a resolution rebuking Iran’s nuclear activities. They demanded that it stop all construction on its recently revealed Qom nuclear plant, and offered a reasonable compromise under which Iran would ship its spent nuclear fuel to Russia for reprocessing. Iran would be prevented from developing nuclear weapons but still be able to access to civilian nuclear technology (which Iran has every right to as a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty). But alas, those ever-pragmatic Iranians rejected this compromise, shouting that it is their national right to the full fuel cycle, and that the rest of the world is singling out Iran. India and Israel, they argue, actually have nuclear weapons and barely anybody cared when they got them.
There is little question the Iranians want nuclear weapons. However, they can hardly be blamed for this: at time when the United States essentially borders Iran to the east and west and with three nuclear powers in the region. If Iran were to ever dominate the region, it would need nuclear weapons. There is no hard evidence that the Iranians are in fact developing nuclear weapons, but the circumstantial evidence is undeniable: there is no reason to keep the construction of a uranium enrichment plant secret unless it is being used for weapons research. The argument of President Ahmadinejad that Iran is not required to report domestic construction activities under the NPT is almost as ridiculous as Lafayette telling the crowd in Paris that Louis XVI had been “abducted” when he fled France in 1791. And of those missiles they derive so much pleasure from parading around? Well, would a county that isn’t developing nuclear weapons really need missiles capable of delivering them? And if you’re still unconvinced, the three countries that voted against the IAEA resolution were Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia. When Russia and China are both fed up with Iran’s shenanigans, it clearly means that its time to get serious.
So the question becomes, how serious do we get? Obama has lost all political capital in Iran. He recorded a wonderful “Happy New Year” message over the summer that was laughed at by the Iranian power structure. Ahmadinejad successfully convinced a good portion of the Iranian population that the United States was behind the riots after their disputed presidential election in June. And now, having rejected the most reasonable offer they’re going to receive from the international community, Iran has proved John McCain right – they can’t be negotiated with. But is “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” the solution? No way.
Saying that the military option is still on the table with Iran is ridiculous. We can’t invade the country, and strategic air strikes would only work if we get every single nuclear plant in the country. Who knows how many are out there we don’t know about yet? So now it’s time for sanctions – but real sanctions. The international community needs to bring Iran to its knees. It needs to show the Iranian leadership that they cannot isolate themselves from the world, and if they try, the world will isolate Iran right back. The threat of Iran stopping oil sales is empty, so empty in fact that when they recently threatened to do so, the oil market completely ignored it. Some have called for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. It’s an interesting proposition; the United States would need to garner international support for such a blockade, bringing an international flotilla up to the Gulf and stopping all Iranian exports. Would it be painful for those who import from Iran? Of course it would, but unless the international community is willing to make sacrifices, Iran will have the bomb before we know it. A blockade would bring Iran’s economy to its knees, and the Iranian people will demand change. And if then, the mullahs don’t change their attitude toward nuclear development, then a poverty-stricken and hungry people will do what we’ve been waiting for since 1979: take the oppressive theocracy out of power and install a new government that is willing to open up relations with the world and afford its citizens the basic rights all human beings deserve. The United States can in no way be directly involved in any regime change, but policies aimed at forcing the Iranian people to throw out the mullahs should be sung from the mountaintops. And the first step in democratizing and preventing a nuclear Iran would be sanctions.
Nick Autiello is a sophomore at Florida International University majoring in Political Science. He has worked for the Charlie Crist, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain campaigns.
Nick you’re amazing.
This is a horrible idea, but let’s just look at your last two sentences.
“The United States can in no way be directly involved in any regime change, but policies aimed at forcing the Iranian people to throw out the mullahs should be sung from the mountaintops. And the first step in democratizing and preventing a nuclear Iran would be sanctions.”
1) Explain to me the difference between “regime change” and “force the Iranian people to throw out the mullahs.”
2) What the hell does “democratizing” Iran have to do with anything?
3) Your final assertion is misleading. The Obama administration IS pursuing sanctions, just not the imbecilic blockade that you propose, which could only legitimize the worst elements of the current regime while undermining the most promising.
Moreover, the reason the oil market didn’t respond to the previous Iranian threat was because a) it was not a credible threat, and b) they never followed through. If we blockade Iran, however, there is no need to consider credibility, because WE cut off the supply for them.
Regardless, you presume this would cause so great an economic shock that it would incite rebellion. Yet, the entire literature on punishment strategies (most notably: “Bombing to Win,” Robert A. Pape) suggests that they fail miserably. When citizens suffer, they are more inclined to rally around their government for help, not burn down the breadlines.
Sanctions do not work in general, nor will whatever the President comes up with work here. The fact is that Iran will proliferate at some point, or there will be a foolish preemptive strike to prevent it from doing so. This would reduce the credibility of our security guarantees to allies (if we’re overextending ourselves to fight elective wars, how can we protect them?) and panic our enemies (“maybe we’re next”), the combined product of which encourages further proliferation which leads to more foolish preemptive engagements, and which avails the international system to various minor wars in addition to our constant interventions.
In reality, proliferation is a stabilizing force in the international system. We ought to be encouraging a graded and highly monitored system of proliferation rather than blowing our load when states quite reasonably under the circumstances seek self-sufficiency via a nuclear deterrent. Our tilting at windmills only drains coffers and spills blood.
Like I said, a horrible idea.
Adam,
He didn’t say there was a difference between those two things, he used them interchangeably. You should re-read. His point was that we should not use military force to directly enforce a regime change, but rather use this blockade as an encouragement for the people do it themselves if I’ve understood his argument correctly.
But for you to call Nick’s idea “imbecilic” and then, just sentences later, suggest that the best way to solve this problem is to let Iran obtain nuclear technology would be a hysterical suggestion if it weren’t so irresponsible.
Sanctions and embargoes are premised on the responsiveness of the political elites to ordinary citizens — clearly not something at work in nations such as Iran. While such strategies are effective against nations that actually have free and fair elections on a regular basis, countries whose leaders lack dedication to the political process will easily ignore such reprimands.
Adam,
You sucessfully highlighted all of the reasons why this blockade is a horrible, horrible idea.
However, I have to agree with Alec – letting Iran obtain nuclear weaponry is extremely irresponsible. But that’s not to say that it isn’t warranted on their part. As Nick said, “they can hardly be blamed” for wanting the technology.
The fact that the US essentially borders Iran to the east and west, and with three nuclear powers in the region, Iran’s claim to the right to nuclear capability seems almost legitimate (if it weren’t for Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Fascist regime).
1) Alec, I can assert “X must equal Y” and “X cannot equal Y” interchangeably in the same sentence, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m contradicting myself. It is precisely the interchangeable use, to which you refer, that I’m criticizing as unsound.
2) Alec and Ian, what you call my “hysterical” or “irresponsible” suggestion is, first of all, not radically uncommon–eminent scholars and policymakers have been making this very suggestion since the 1960s (most notably: Gallois, Waltz, Mearsheimer). Post-Cold War policymakers merely created a norm of non-proliferation because it nobly, though misguidedly, aims at preserving our relative power advantage.
Doing this is surely a good idea, but it cannot, in and of itself, be mistaken for the ultimate objective. Rather, that objective is to secure a stable sphere in which domestic citizens can pursue their lives meaningfully.
In earlier times, the sort of offensive realism that ceaselessly pursued relative advantage (see: Machiavelli, Hobbes) was necessary in the absence of a “magic bullet” to level the field and render relative gains irrelevant. In those times, every inch counted.
But in the present, nuclear weapons, and their perfectly credible logic of mutual destruction, provides that magic bullet. Consequently, proliferation dissuades conflict and hardens isolated civil spheres in a manner which permits the sort of meaningful pursuits we are concerned with in the first place.
Even the risk of nuclear slip can be controlled if the US exchanged technology for oversight by a third party–of course, the US would have to submit to that third party as well, but why wouldn’t we?
Of course, if your endeavor is Empire, then my reasoning here fails. But you aren’t advocating for that, are you?
Proliferation does deter full conflict but imagine allowing the terrorist groups Iran sponsors to have a nuclear umbrella under which to practice their actions. Israel is the only nation that will stand up to Iran if it obtains nukes. All of the other Arab nations will be forced to except Iranian hedgemony in the region. This means complete control of valuable oil reserves and is unacceptable.
Also your point about how the people of Iran will act is interesting. They might cause a regime change since the nuclear program is only popular among the elite, or they might tap into their Persian pride and blame the U.S. for their economic problems. It is to close to call without heavy research.
This is an interesting solution but it also could be very risky. However we cannot under any circumstances allow Iran to arm itself.
Adam,
The world you imagine is oversimplified. The biggest problem with Iran gaining nuclear capability does not lie in the balance of power, or even some sort of a third world war.
Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is irresponsible because it would mean having to deal with nukes in the hands of terrorists. We already know that Iran supports terrorists throughout the Middle East and across the globe. There is “overwhelming evidence” (link) that Iran supports terrorists in Iraq and “compelling” evidence that it does the same in Afghanistan.
You see, the problem is not with states and diplomacy. It’s with non-state actors, which complicates the situation greatly. Thus, most of your allusions to classic theoreticians and scholars are fairly useless.
We can NOT afford to let terrorists get nuclear weapons.
Right on Ian,
I have no fear of the Iranian government using a nuclear weapon against any nation but I do fear them selling or giving away technology to non-state actors or empowering terrorists through the nuclear umbrella they spread
I agree in large part with what Adam said, though I (like many others) am hesitant to suggest that Iran will be a stabler place with nuclear weapons.
It’s a complicated issue contingent largely on whether or not we believe that Iran will give terrorist organizations the capability to make strikes against the US.
I think there’s a kind of implicit belief that obviously no one would nuke the US, for fear of the consequences, but I honestly can’t say that the kind of retaliation the US is capable of is an effective deterrent to organizations based on religious fundamentalism.
Basically, who knows.