The propoganda machines are in full swing again, which has me rather worried that the Bush administration will take some violent, punitive action against Iran before it loses the power to do so, which could well come in a few months. I honestly can't decide if this would be an effective strategy.
On one hand, if there is even an ounce of truth behind the Iranian rhetoric, they cannot, under their current government, have nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, the glaring example of Iraq is hard to miss, and we cannot afford another large scale military action at present. If we withdrew a significant number of soldiers from Iraq it would cause chaos, so we would have to field enough new infantry and armor to send to Iran.
Airstrikes against their nuclear facilities would be foolish, since, without using nuclear weapons (can you say hypocrisy?) to destroy these sites, we would likely not get all of even the ones we know about. Our lack of intelligence would further increase the risk that we simply give them the incentive to nuke someone without removing their ability to do so.
So, we are left with diplomacy. Unfortunately, since the US is unwilling to trust the Iranians and vice versa, the possibilities for an agreement are very limited, and usually amount to one side backing down. The Russians offered a compromise, but we don't trust them either, and they don't trust us. It is ironic that the Russian offer to manage Iranian reactors is similar to the deal the US just signed with India. China might be 'bribed' into supporting punitive actions against Iran, especially since they trade quite a bit, but I don't know that we are willing to pay the price. So the security council resolution cannot have much substance because the Russians and Chinese will not support it. US credibility in much of the world has been severely damaged in recent years, the Iranians know it, and it makes a diplomatic solution led by the US even more unlikely.
My solution is for the US to ask for neutral arbitration from a third party as if this was a dispute between two nations. It would go a long way towards fostering the idea that the US is not out to conquer the world, as well as removing the US as an easy opponent to distrust in negotiations.
Brazil has a good record on non-proliferation and wants to gain a permanent seat on the security council. I think they also trade a great deal with countries the US does not get along with.
Anyway, just some thoughts I figured I would write down...
On one hand, if there is even an ounce of truth behind the Iranian rhetoric, they cannot, under their current government, have nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, the glaring example of Iraq is hard to miss, and we cannot afford another large scale military action at present. If we withdrew a significant number of soldiers from Iraq it would cause chaos, so we would have to field enough new infantry and armor to send to Iran.
Airstrikes against their nuclear facilities would be foolish, since, without using nuclear weapons (can you say hypocrisy?) to destroy these sites, we would likely not get all of even the ones we know about. Our lack of intelligence would further increase the risk that we simply give them the incentive to nuke someone without removing their ability to do so.
So, we are left with diplomacy. Unfortunately, since the US is unwilling to trust the Iranians and vice versa, the possibilities for an agreement are very limited, and usually amount to one side backing down. The Russians offered a compromise, but we don't trust them either, and they don't trust us. It is ironic that the Russian offer to manage Iranian reactors is similar to the deal the US just signed with India. China might be 'bribed' into supporting punitive actions against Iran, especially since they trade quite a bit, but I don't know that we are willing to pay the price. So the security council resolution cannot have much substance because the Russians and Chinese will not support it. US credibility in much of the world has been severely damaged in recent years, the Iranians know it, and it makes a diplomatic solution led by the US even more unlikely.
My solution is for the US to ask for neutral arbitration from a third party as if this was a dispute between two nations. It would go a long way towards fostering the idea that the US is not out to conquer the world, as well as removing the US as an easy opponent to distrust in negotiations.
Brazil has a good record on non-proliferation and wants to gain a permanent seat on the security council. I think they also trade a great deal with countries the US does not get along with.
Anyway, just some thoughts I figured I would write down...
