Iran - living through our mistakes all over again

A further thought, following my piece this morning on Iran.

The main argument against war in Iraq was that containment and sanctions were working. The best argument for the war (made, for instance, by Clinton adviser Kenneth Pollack in The Threatening Storm) was that sanctions were breaking down and could not be used to contain in Iraq in the medium term.

And it is worth remembering that the left (for instance John Pilger) strongly opposed the continuation of sanctions on Iraq. Only when war was suggested did the sanctions suddenly become popular.

We are now living through exactly this debate again, this time over Iran.

Strong financial sanctions are the only hope for a peaceful resolution to the Iranian missile crisis. Without them, the crisis can only end in one of two ways - Iranian missile capability, supporting their aggressive terrorist clients, or missile strikes to stop the nuclear clock.

Yet Europe (particularly Germany and Italy) cannot be persuaded to support a strong enough sanctions package. Sanctions, it seems, will only become a popular cause when it is too late to impose them.

It is immensely depressing to go through all this again.

Comments

[Kevin Smith]

An insightful argument. I think that the basic problem is that the left still values anti-imperialism above all else and this forms its framework for understanding the world. Thus they give reflex support to regimes under sanctions if the west (usually but not exclusively America) has strategic interests in the region. When sanctions fail and strategic interests dictate warfare, the left objects to this because it's anti-imperialist. Thus the left has the ability to be morally right in its own terms whilst avoiding the contridictions and can avoiding having to make a decision about least bad options.

[James Kennett]

Re: the original article

I admired the boldness and effectiveness of the Israeli strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, and if a strike on Iranian facilities could be equally successful, delaying the Iranian nuclear programme for 15 years, I would agree that it is a good idea.

Unfortunately the Iranians have learned the lessons of Osirak, and have distibuted and duplicated their nuclear facilities around the country, precisely in order to make such an attack ineffective.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad is deeply unpleasant, but he is not a fool, and he is not insane. His nuclear programme serves two political purposes. The first is to give Iranians the (accurate) impression that they are opposed by hostile foreign powers, thereby distracting attention from domestic politics: in particular the fulfilment or otherwise of his own electoral promises to help the poor. The second purpose is to deter attacks on Iran - particularly by the US.

Existing nuclear powers, including Israel and the US, will tell Iran that use of its weapons will result in immediate, decisive, and overwhelming retaliation. Iranian leaders will be dangerous only to the extent that they are willing to sacrifice all their cities and most of their people to a counter-attack.

The current wave of nuclear proliferation was initiated by Pakistan. We decided to forgive the Pakistanis, in return for their help in Afghanistan and in the wider "war on terror". Yet Al Qaeda and Sunni jihadism have deep roots in Pakistan, and a nuclear Pakistan (post-Musharraf) is at least as frightening as a nuclear Iran.

The underlying problem is one that does not have a military solution: third-rank countries such as Pakistan and Iran have caught up with the 1940s technology needed to manufacture fission bombs. Much more extensive proliferation is inevitable in the present century.

[sinna mani]

There seems to be an assuption that there are good and bad guys in this world and the good guys are permitted to have nuclear weapons.Good guys in this instance includes USA and Britain. Both countries have a habbit of intervening in other peoples' affairs on'high moral priciples', very often these turn out to be diguised self- interests. My argument is that these countries are not in a position to decide who is good and who is bad. Most sensible people want to get away from this kind of argument and move to a neutral ground and say loud and clear that nuclear weapons are bad per see and should be got rid of regardless of who possess them. Until such time we should hold our horses.

[Jay]

To Sinna Mani - there are good guys and bad guys - the bad guys fly planes into buildings and blow up buses killing thousands of innocent people in them for no good reason. The good guys don't!

[viswanath]

Why should world should restraint Iran in posssesing Nuclear weapon is not clear to a commoner? Is it because Iran is a muslim country? Why only Iran, North Korea alone Why not other Nuclear weapon countries like Pakistan ,India China, US ,France Russia. Isrel.
In managment theory one fundamental principle is that every body has to treated fair and on equal basis.
why we are treating each country based on ill conceived notions rather than valid arguments.Bush's non success in Iraq can be attirbuted to wrath on him by the Alimighty who wants fairer dealings and fairer society.

[Reza]

To Jay:
Well , so it seems good guys don't kill people and don't pour on them bombs and don't occupy their land and don't steal their wealth and don't....? huh?
So, if that is so ! then not even U.S and U.K , are not good guys.Both U.K and U.S has a proud histroy of killing innocent people.Oh buddy you can't sell this story anymore look at the blood stains on the pages of these democrat states' history then thats not difficult to see who is good and who is bad.Of course global piece and fighting against WMD proliferation are good ideas but hey look at baghdad ,basra ,Kabul and ...so you may point your finger to tehran but it is an old trick u point you finger once to saddam but after war truth proved Bush and company missled the world by their media propaganda .They are doing it agian and this time Iran.

[Tom]

To REZA: There are only enemies. So, in that spirit, get ready, in this century, to kiss your sorry third world middle eastern butt goodbye, oh enemy of mine. ;-)

You can either coexist in peace and do good business and everybody wins, or be a radical islamist and die. The West only watns peace and friendly business dealings. You guys invented the great satan garbage. Your choice, pal. Choose wisely.