Fareed Zakaria Gets One Wrong...

The highly intelligent and thoughtful Fareed Zakaria gets one wrong when he writes:

Time to Face Reality on Iran - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com : American policy toward Iran... [has] a worthy goal: trying to stop Tehran from building nuclear weapons. We have gone about this in a sensible way, using allies, multilateral organizations and international agreements to pressure Tehran. But the policy simply isn't going to work. Washington and its allies need to come to grips with reality and switch course, coming up with a new set of goals and a path to attain them. Otherwise we risk not just failure, but a very public humiliation and the further erosion of our limited credibility--in Washington, the "West" and the "international community." The United States should begin the construction of an alliance to contain Iran. Our goals should be to prevent or massively slow down the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program, and to frustrate its meddling in the region, support for terrorism and opposition to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

Trying to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons is a worthy goal, yes. Building an alliance to contain Iran is a good idea, yes. Zakaria is right to condemn the false belief that airstrikes on Iran's nuclear program will help matters, yes.But Fareed's declaration that the Bush administration has gone about nonproliferation policy with respect to Iran "in a sensible way"? Wrong, completely wrong.

Back in the George H.W. Bush administration the end of the Cold War broke the mold of world politics, and made new modes and orders of world affairs possible. George H. W. Bush and his advisors worked like dogs to establish two principles:

1. Aggression and conquest across national borders would be rolled back by the world community.
2. Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council.

With these two principles in place, there was sound hope--well, some hope--that nonproliferation policy would succeed: diplomats could point out to countries thinking of developing nuclear programs that such programs (a) were expensive, (b) increased the chances that their citizens and cities would suffer thermonuclear death (are Pakistani and Indian citizens safer now that both have nuclear weapons? I do not think so), and (c) did not add to their national security--unless their government thought that it was so despicable and tyrannical that the entire Security Council would agree on its overthrow.

The George W. Bush administration broke principle number 2. It declared that there were three governments--Iraq's, Iran's, and North Korea's--that constituted an "axis of evil." North Korea's government claimed to have a nuclear deterrent and has survived. Iraq's government could not claim to have a nuclear deterrent and was overthrown. And Iran's government--and every other government--has drawn the natural conclusion: the threat of nuclear retaliation is the only protection against being overthrown by a U.S. president.

If this is going about nonproliferation policy "in a sensible way," I am Marie of Roumania.

Comments

[Anderson]

Lest BDL's allusion go uncaught:

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea,
And love is a thing that never goes wrong--
And I am Marie of Roumania.

--Dorothy Parker (from memory). See Wiki on Marie (they also have the poem, it turns out):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_of_Edinburgh

I had no idea she was Baha'i.

[JK]

It needs to be emphasised just how stupid throwing Iran into the axis of evil really was. Prior to that speech the Iranian state was even fairly on side with the "War on Terror" (of course there was no love lost between the Iranian mullahs and the Sunni Taliban).

There was a liberalising impulse amongst Iranian people. There still is. But the "axis of evil" speech did much to reinforce mistrust of the West. And for what? The suspicion has to be that it sounded good at the time. According to Ervand Abrahamian 'Colin Powell [then secretary of state] and the State Department had not been consulted about the speech, neither about its general thrust nor about the inclusion of Iran'. State Department officials privately complained that the speech would 'undermine their long-standing policy of rapprochement with Iranian reformers'. Abrahamian's book points out 'how arbitrary [the] trinity was': 'Consensus held that three countries sounded better than two....'(Quoted here

Let's hope it doesn't turn out to be a world-historical mistake

[Dale]

Yeah, we don't want no meddling in the region. All these nations that think they have a right to exercise power and influence in their own region. Don't they know it's our region- not theirs?

Less sarcastically- Is there anyone in this entire world who is thinkig about ways to deal with weapons proliferation, militarism abd violence in a non imperialistic way?

[rd]

Principle #2 would already seem to have been breached by the Clinton administration in Kosovo.

[Donna]

For so long as Bush and those Republicans who follow him are in power there will never be a return to diplomacy and and summits that once had the potential to resolve the most troubling issues. It may be that too much damage has already been done; our fomer allies have all but abandoned us and our policies (those policies not deserving support). We are no longer trusted. This administration has done more to divide the citizens in this country than I would have ever thought possible. The Republicans have spent all of their time and energy towards growing profits for big business and the protecting the "unborn" instead of worrying about the lives of free thinking citizens in the world and the soldier's defending them. The radical Muslims on the other hand have focues themselves and have taken the time to grow dramatically in number. The Muslim extremists are joined in a worldwide movement and are more dedicated than ever to destroy us and those like us (as we are infidels) in their worldwide Jihad. We, on the contrary, are busy isolating and promoting ourselves, driving potential allies away, and Bush creating more trouble for us by leveling threats against mentally unstable but powerful enemies. We have spent virtually no real time working on unity of purpose and strength between us and countries like us. Maybe last week we saw Bush reach out in a meeting with a new leader of another country (can't think of her name right now).

There is so much wrong with the majority leadership in our country that it's overwhelming. What happened to us that we fell so far? It's a nightmare to read that our President thinks he has a mandate from G-d!!!! If he wasn't President and was talking this way he would be seen as delusional to say the least. How can the leader of the United States say that he is literally working for G'd
and that isn't incredibly troubling to the majority of citizens?

(well I am rambling on and have lost sight of what I started so I won't re-read this and will just hit post....)

[Craig Ewert]

"Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council."

Was this ever an explicit part of U.S. diplomacy, or are you making it up? If it was really policy, it's a stupid one. The recurring presence on the Security Council of implacably hostile (to us) nations, and perhaps even the nation you intend to meddle with, makes unanimous S.C. support a bad prerequisite for intervention. Better to aim for "concensus" so that you can ignore the objections of 1 or 2 holdouts.

That said, you and JK have put your fingers on some serious strategic blunders of this administration. More proof, for those who can be persuaded, that this batch of rascals needs ejection as soon as may be.

[kharris]

It has come to the point that roll-back needs to be considered as an options over the long term. South Africa has led the way. I have no idea whether Israel, under a firm defense commitment from the US, and with a couple more peace treaties with neighbors, would be better or worse off after abandoning its nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan obviously should.

How, though, to you tell Pakistan and India to get rid of a deterent to China's military? To Russia's nuclear threat? How do you get past the West-vs-the-Rest impression of having all of Western Europe armed with nukes or in an alliance that has historically relied on nukes, while we call on everybody else to forgo nukes?

[sm]

The "strategic blunders" of the administration consist of a number of moves that demonstrate to Iran and just about anyone else that what the US government says cannot be trusted.

No Iranian government would take the slightest chance by relying on US goodwill or even enlightened self-interest.

[dearieme]

"in a non imperialistic way?" Why?

[Arun Khanna]

U.S. policy on nuclear proliferation cannot be sensible unless it imposes sanctions on Pakistan the sole supplier of nuclear know-how and material to Iran, North Korea, Libya and who (Hu?) knows who else?

[otto]

A political deal with Iran is still possible, if the US is willing for a wider range of political bargains. Ending US support for Israeli settlements outside the 1967 borders and forcing Israel into the Non-Proliferation Regime would both be a good start, as well as offerign fully normalised economic relations and even Iran's entry into the EU customs union (as per Turkey currently), in return for US and EU on-site gendarme monitoring and controls of suspected Iranian nuclear facilities.

US problems with Iran are not just from Bush's invasion of Iraq; rather US invasion of Iraq is part of a bipartisan policy decision towards maintaining Israel's ability to colonise the Palestinian arabs and maintain a regional hegemony, a policy which can only be maintained by repeated application of force against the rest of the region, in turn providing continued incentives for the other states in the region to arm anyway they can.

Many people think that "nothing is worse" than Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. But in fact US policy is premised on the view that "nothing is worse" than removing Jewish settlements around Jerusalem, even if that would enable a wider political deal with Iran and indeed the rest of the Arab/Muslim worlds.

[Pithlord]

According to Brad, GHWB established that Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council.

The bit about the "home region" was necessary to deal with that little police action in Panama. But what is the normative principle that permits the US to intervene unilaterally in Latin America? Does it mean Vladimir Putin should be able to send tanks into Prague?

From a prudential point-of-view, why wouldn't Latin Americans seek nuclear weapons in response to this exception? How does anybody else know whether they are in the US "home region" or not, at least with enough confidence that acquiring a few H bombs ceases to be worthwhile?

I recognize that Brad's imperialism is confined to one hemisphere, and is therefore more limited than that of the 2002 National Security Strategy, but I'm not sure that warrants a cookie.

[MarvyT]

Actually, G W Bush is responsible for the reactionary government in Teheran. He labeled Iran as part of the "axis of evil" and he attacked Iraq under false premises. He is also maintaining 150,000 troops on the eastern and western borders of Iran. All in all, I don't blame the Iranians for being nervous and turning to a virulently anti-Bush strongman.

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "The bit about the "home region" was necessary to deal with that little police action in Panama. But what is the normative principle that permits the US to intervene unilaterally in Latin America? Does it mean Vladimir Putin should be able to send tanks into Prague?"

I'm describing what George H. W. Bush's new world order was--and why he went to such lengths to assemble his huge (and limited) coalition for Iraq, and why NATO (a European power) gave Russia's wishes so much weight in the FRY. Positive, not normative.

The principle that permits the U.S. to intervene unilaterally in Latin America? It was set out by Thucydides in the Melian Dialogue: the strong do what they wish, and the weak suffer what they must.

George H. W. Bush wanted--in the interest of long-run world peace--to put some limits on this Melian principle even though we now live (for a while) in a one-superpower world. I think this was farsighted of him. His son has broken it.

[RT]

"George H. W. Bush and his advisors worked like dogs to establish two principles:

1. Aggression and conquest across national borders would be rolled back by the world community.
2. Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council."

Didn't the "world community," including the GHW Bush Administration, abandon #1 when we let Serbia invade Croatia in the fall of 1991?

IIRC, the response of one of Bush's top guys (this being shortly after Gulf War I) was "We do deserts. We don't do mountains."

[Arun Khanna]

"The principle that permits the U.S. to intervene unilaterally in Latin America?"
The policy that permits U.S. to protect its interests in Latin America is governed by the Monroe doctrine. The principle that governs U.S. involvement in world affairs is that it is better to have a superpower underwriting a system of minimizing (not eliminating) conflicts in the world compared to a world without such a system.

[Lola]

As a Jew I'm glad I live in sunny California where it's warm-that way I'll be ready for the next set of ovens that Iran is planning for me.

[liberal]

Arun Khanna wrote, "The policy that permits U.S. to protect its interests in Latin America is governed by the Monroe doctrine."

Which doesn't imply it's a consistent, fairly applied principle.

"The principle that governs U.S. involvement in world affairs is that it is better to have a superpower underwriting a system of minimizing (not eliminating) conflicts in the world compared to a world without such a system."

And the evidence that the intent of the US is to minimize conflict? Or that the system does indeed do so?

[Dale]

Whatever we do with this brief interregnum of ours- if we don't use it to promote real social learning opportunities on dealing with international conflict and legitimation- we will have lost an amazing opportunity to do some real good.

Who knows how many further opportunities we have, as a species, to learn- to advance the cause of enlightenment?

just to do something because we can isn't good enough. But if we are strong enough to do some real good- then shame on us for not seizing this moment. And of course it isn't good enough for us to believe we are doing good. For real learning to occur others must be able to see the new potentials and be free to make use of them.

[ac]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that the citizens of India and Pakistan are necessarily less safe with both countries having nukes. The two countries fought a mini war 6 years ago, and came close to war twice more after that. Had it not been for the nukes, you can make the argument that the hostilities would have escalated.
I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of nukes, you understand. But the deterrence argument has a lot of history on its side.

[Robert Waldmann]

I'd agree with commenters that the US has never been reliably respectful of international law. I think the way in which junior promotes proliferation is simpler. Back in the 20th century, leaders of countries could not trust the Security Council to stop the US but they could be fairly sure that the US wouldn't invade for no coherent reason.

I don't think it is clear to people who live in the US just how crazy the whole thing seemed to people who live over here in the old world.

Also the really appalling things about the "Axis of Evil" declaration is that it started with speach writers who didn't even pretend to know anything about intelligence on al Qaeda and that Iran and North Korea were added so as to avoid making it too obvious that they were already working on plans to invade Iraq. The last point is from "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward.

You might think he sold his soul to his sources, but, based on that book, I think he drove a decent bargain (his soul probably wasn't worth much to begin with).

[Arun Khanna]

"The principle that governs U.S. involvement in world affairs is that it is better to have a superpower underwriting a system of minimizing (not eliminating) conflicts in the world compared to a world without such a system."
Liberal asked: And the evidence that the intent of the US is to minimize conflict? Or that the system does indeed do so?

One could compare the number of conflicts per decade during the cold war when we had a bipolar world compared to post-cold war unipolar decade.

One could also go back further in history and examine times when the world was unipolar, bipolar and had multiple powers.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Back in the George H.W. Bush administration the end of the Cold War broke the mold of world politics, and made new modes and orders of world affairs possible. George H. W. Bush and his advisors worked like dogs to establish two principles:

Aggression and conquest across national borders would be rolled back by the world community.
Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council.
With these two principles in place, there was sound hope--well, some hope--that nonproliferation policy would succeed: diplomats could point out to countries thinking of developing nuclear programs that such programs (a) were expensive, (b) increased the chances that their citizens and cities would suffer thermonuclear death (are Pakistani and Indian citizens safer now that both have nuclear weapons? I do not think so), and (c) did not add to their national security--unless their government thought that it was so despicable and tyrannical that the entire Security Council would agree on its overthrow.

The George W. Bush administration broke principle number 2. It declared that there were three governments--Iraq's, Iran's, and North Korea's--that constituted an "axis of evil." North Korea's government claimed to have a nuclear deterrent and has survived. Iraq's government could not claim to have a nuclear deterrent and was overthrown. And Iran's government--and every other government--has drawn the natural conclusion: the threat of nuclear retaliation is the only protection against being overthrown by a U.S. president."

Your timeline is off and it pollutes the entire analysis. The problem is this theory of non-proliferation had already completely fallen apart before GWB gave his "Axis of Evil" speech. North Korea had been cheating on the Agreed Framework from nearly day one and they knew no one was going to stop them. Khatami revived the Iranian nuclear program before the Axis of Evil speech and Rafsanjani threatened Israel with nuclear destruction noting that the Muslim world could survive the counterstrike while totally destroying Israel before the Axis of Evil speech. India and Pakistan both gained nuclear weapons under Clinton administration (which we should note was before the Axis of Evil speech).

The idea that you couldn't attack a nation without the UN hitting down on you was disproven in the Balkans at the end of Bush I's presidency. The idea that the US couldn't involve itself outside it's regular sphere was disproven by Clinton when he went around Russia's UN veto over the Balkans.

The idea that the UN would act if you were being awful is disproven almost constantly, but is reiterated in the Balkans, Rwanda and right this very second in the Sudan.

The international order with respect to economic issues has been vastly more successful than it has on military/genocide/proliferation issues. I suspect that is why Brad has such unwarranted respect for the international order. He sees its success in the economic sphere without realizing that the same systems completely fail to work in other spheres.

[Jonathan Goldberg]

Concerning:

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that the citizens of India and Pakistan are necessarily less safe with both countries having nukes. The two countries fought a mini war 6 years ago, and came close to war twice more after that. Had it not been for the nukes, you can make the argument that the hostilities would have escalated.

This arguement has been around for quite a while. It may even have some substance. What worries some of us is that while the probability of a major conflict may be decreased by nuclear weapons, the loss if one does occur is increased by orders of magnitude. I, at least, prefer not to make bets I can't cover.

[Movie Guy]

Brad --

"George H. W. Bush and his advisors worked like dogs to establish two principles:

1. Aggression and conquest across national borders would be rolled back by the world community.

2. Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council."

Care to explain what happened with regard to these supposed "anchored in concrete" governing principles during the next administration? Clinton/Gore...

[wkwillis]

Lola
The Iranians don't want to stick you in an oven. The Iranians like you. You are a "good jew" in the Iranian point of view. There is nothing that would make the Iranians happier than if all the Jews in Israel were alive, well, and living in Southern California.
It's the Jews that are alive, well, and living on some Palestinian's farm in Israel that drive the Iranians nuts. You they like.

[Arun Khanna]

WK Willis said: "Lola
The Iranians don't want to stick you in an oven. The Iranians like you. You are a "good jew" in the Iranian point of view. There is nothing that would make the Iranians happier than if all the Jews in Israel were alive, well, and living in Southern California.
It's the Jews that are alive, well, and living on some Palestinian's farm in Israel that drive the Iranians nuts. You they like."

What if Lola (or any one of us for that matter) is visiting Israel?

[bad Jim]

What country has so far done worse by becoming a nuclear power? Nowadays it's practically a coming of age exercise.

Is anyone safer? The nuclear powers are, indisputably. None of them been invaded since they got the bomb.

[liberal]

Sebastian Holsclaw wrote, "India and Pakistan both gained nuclear weapons under Clinton administration (which we should note was before the Axis of Evil speech)."

Misleading. India's first nuclear test was in 1974. There was no testing for decades after that, but from a proliferation point of view India clearly had the fundamentals of nuclear weapons technology decades ago.

[liberal]

Arun Khanna wrote, "One could compare the number of conflicts per decade during the cold war when we had a bipolar world compared to post-cold war unipolar decade."

Sample size (in time) is too small.

"One could also go back further in history and examine times when the world was unipolar, bipolar and had multiple powers."

Yes, that's a valid way of looking at things.

[liberal]

Arun Khanna wrote, "What if Lola (or any one of us for that matter) is visiting Israel?"

Then he'll be protected by the deterrent effect of Israel's hundreds of nuclear warheads.

[João Carlos]

The King Bush II certainly broke the principle #2. But a lot of people too think he broke the principle #1 too.

Let's see, why US invaded Iraq?
Weapons of Mass Destruction? No, everyone (including King Bush II) knew Iraq had no one.
Democracy and freedom? Get real, Iraq will be a Theocracy.
Oil? Well, if US invaded Iraq for the oil, and everyone think that the oil is the real cause, US action can be defined as "aggression and conquest across national borders". USA is not better than Saddam Hussein that invaded Kwait....

Sorry to say it to you americans that are illuded with your Fox News and "babysitter" newspapers, but everyone think your country is an agressive country. That will not help if you intend to attack Iran.

João Carlos

Sorry my bad english, my native language is portuguese.

[Barry]

"The idea that the UN would act if you were being awful is disproven almost constantly, but is reiterated in the Balkans, Rwanda and right this very second in the Sudan.

The international order with respect to economic issues has been vastly more successful than it has on military/genocide/proliferation issues. I suspect that is why Brad has such unwarranted respect for the international order. He sees its success in the economic sphere without realizing that the same systems completely fail to work in other spheres. "

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw

Gee, Sebastian, then why aren't you writing page after page after BS page over on OW, demanding that all moral people support an immediate invastion of Sudan?

You, and the rest of the GOP, don't care at all about human rights; if anything, you dislike them, because it causes embarrassment to the USA when some of our proxy dictators' actions become public.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/opinion/24leverett.html?ex=1295758800&en=58871b8c8bba074e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 24, 2006

The Gulf Between Us
By FLYNT LEVERETT

Washington

AS the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan. But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.

In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.

Now Washington and its allies are faced with two unattractive options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. They can refer the issue to the Security Council, but, at a time of tight energy markets, no one is interested in restricting Iranian oil sales. Other measures under discussion - travel restrictions on Iranian officials, for example - are likely to be imposed only ad hoc, with Russia and China as probable holdouts. They are in any case unlikely to sway Iranian decision-making, because unlike his predecessor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disdains being feted in European capitals.

Alternatively, the United States (or Israel) could strike militarily at Iran's nuclear installations. But these are spread across Iran, and planners may not know all of the targets that would need to be hit. Moreover, a strike could prove counterproductive by hardening Iranian resolve to acquire a nuclear weapons capacity.

Is there a way out of this strategic dead end? Nuclear diplomacy with Iran, never an easy proposition, has been made harder not only by poor policy choices in Washington, but also by trends in Iranian politics. Mr. Ahmadinejad's electoral victory last year against former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani suggests that a significant number of Iranians linked Mr. Rafsanjani's call for rapprochement with the West with his corrupt past and rejected both in favor of Mr. Ahmadinejad's populist nationalism. Moreover, Mr. Ahmadinejad's execrable rhetoric about Israel and the Holocaust threatens to make future Western engagement look like appeasement.

These developments have severely circumscribed the possibilities for diplomacy between the United States and Iran. Iranian officials with ties to the Ayatollah Khamenei continue to stress in private conversations that key players on Iran's National Security Council - the chief decision-making body for foreign policy - remain interested in a strategic dialogue with Washington....

[JO'N]

>>> The United States should begin the construction
>>> of an alliance to contain Iran.

A quick check with reality reveals that the US has had such an alliance already in place, for years. Iran's neighbors are (a) Pakistan: allied with the US, home to US troops, (b) Afghanistan : ally of US, home to many US troops and bases, (c) Turkmenistan, home to US troops and bases, (d) Azerbaijan, with US troops and oil interests, (e) Turkey, a close US ally and NATO member, with US troops and bases, and (f) Iraq, which counts (for the time being) as a US ally and the home of 130,000 US troops and many bases. That doesn't even count the many wealthy US allies on the other side of the Persian Gulf.

So, say you're a rational Iranian strategic analyst. You're faced with these facts, and a US government which has called you part of the "axis of evil" and already taken action against another country on that list. How do you guarantee the security of your country, OTHER THAN with nuclear weapons? Is there a country that would enter into a mutual-defense pact with Iran? Is there a country (or countries) that can convincingly claim the ability to restrain American exuberance for attacking Iran?

That, or something similar, is their rational analysis of Iran's situation.

[cynic]

We should start by taking away Israels toys. (probably too late). Why should Iran be denied what Israel is allowed? I is really the agressor in the area and believes in it philosophically. Barring above as impractical, lets make an alliance with Iran that a nuclear attack on Iran will be considerd an attack on NATO.

[Arun Khanna]

Liberal said: "One could compare the number of conflicts per decade during the cold war when we had a bipolar world compared to post-cold war unipolar decade.
Sample size (in time) is too small.
One could also go back further in history and examine times when the world was unipolar, bipolar and had multiple powers.
Yes, that's a valid way of looking at things."

Your point about sample size is well taken. However one could use, "compare the number of conflicts per decade during the cold war...compared to post-cold war unipolar decade" suggestion to generate out of sample ex-ante predictions for U.S. policy.

One could use, "go back further in history and examine times when the world was unipolar, bipolar and had multiple powers" suggestion as a control for U.S. as a superpower era versus previous superpowers.

[Zealon Talent]

No Brad, Zakaria has it absolutely right.
As absolutely right as the Fed government became today, with the ascension of SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts.

America now has a reactionary rightwing
Executive, with global spy privileges and
the biggest money press in all history,
a reactionary rightwing Congress, that
masquerades as a two-party kaffee klatch,
and now a reactionary rightwing Talibani
Supreme Court to make it all Zionistical.

We're just another Chilean dictatorship.
The music is over, the fat lady is singing
Des Nibelungen, and Zakaria knows which
side his bread is buttered on, as well as
any foreign resident living in America.

Learn to kiss the ring, and lick the boot!

Iran is the Great Satan. You must believe!
Agree, or join your comrades in the gulag,
and sir, that ain't no hyperbole. Der Bush
has complete access to every communication
originating or received in the US, and has
full main-frame supercomputer data-mining
capability to scout out every ne'erdo'well
and refusenik in the Party, or the People.

Neo Soviets R US, Down the Rabbit Hole.
America just had a Socialist Revolution.
Think Politburo. Think Pravda. Lockdown.
Because the President loves his people.

[Arun Khanna]

Liberal said: "Arun Khanna wrote, What if Lola (or any one of us for that matter) is visiting Israel?
Then he'll be protected by the deterrent effect of Israel's hundreds of nuclear warheads."
Think Arrow, the ABM system not the economist.
The security threat from a nuclear Iran is primarily from the possibility it will (in certain circumstances) provide a nuke to Hezbollah.
The economic threat from a nuclear Iran is that it is likely to be perceived as the new leader in OPEC replacing Saudi Arabia.

[liberal]

Arun Khanna wrote, "Think Arrow, the ABM system not the economist."

Not sure there's a good reason to trust Arrow. Depends on Iranian missiles. Maybe they can shoot down a Scud. (It's not clear that Iran can really reach Israeli right now, IIRC, but when they have that capability, then it's possible Arrow won't be able to intercept. I don't know enough about theatre-interception. Certainly no one---including US---can do ICBM interception.)

"The security threat from a nuclear Iran is primarily from the possibility it will (in certain circumstances) provide a nuke to Hezbollah."

Seems unlikely. If a *smuggled* nuke goes off in Israel, I see Israel either figuring out whose nuke it was, and if they can't do that, nuking appropriate Arab capitals. So that would deter Iran from farming out a nuke. (I think it's rather unlikely anyway. I don't think state actors would ever give their nonstate proxies that much power.)

"The economic threat from a nuclear Iran is that it is likely to be perceived as the new leader in OPEC replacing Saudi Arabia."

That might happen regardless.

[liberal]

Arun Khanna wrote, "One could use, 'go back further in history and examine times when the world was unipolar, bipolar and had multiple powers' suggestion as a control for U.S. as a superpower era versus previous superpowers."

Right. I'll leave that to someone who knows more history than I do. Naively I'd say "Rome ==> unipolar, Pax Romana," etc, but I don't really know.

[tom f]

Concernting De Long's analysis:

First, regarding GHWBush, he analyzes his policy in terms of international political principles (non-aggression and UN Security Council consensus) the application of which are long term goals. Thus, when faced w/ evidence that GHWB himself wasn't much interested in applying the principles, De Long can retort that they're "long term". And evidence that they were indeed principles of Bush I? Perhaps because he said so?

Very interesting. I wonder what such a historical methodology would look like if applied elsewhere. We would learn that Pinochet was interested in the rule of law and human rights. Certainly not when he was himself in office, but, ya' know, long term goals, as perhaps stated in some august position paper or speech. And Castro? Human dignity, freedom, and the empowerment of the working class. Not - lets not be vulgar in our analysis- during his own tenure. Not in his own backyard. But nevertheless in some limited respects his policies followed these principles (for Castro himself has stated them) and he doubtlessly has worked tirelessly for them...um...in the long term.

US exceptionalism. Alive and well in the ideological premises of Prof. De Long.

Regarding GWBush's policy: by what definition does Bush break "principle" number 2 (No "military intervention" w/out UN Sec. Counc. consensus) but not "principle" number 1 (international aggression will not stand)? Exactly what seminar do I attend to discover the difference b/t "military intervention" as practiced in Iraq and "aggression"? Why does Bush leap out in De Long's imagination as breaching #1 and not #2?

[Barry]

Arun Khanna: "The economic threat from a nuclear Iran is that it is likely to be perceived as the new leader in OPEC replacing Saudi Arabia. "

I think that Mr. Khanna has had a gaffe, in the Kinsley sense. The real threat is that Iran is a large OPEC country not under US domination.

[Arun Khanna]

Barry said: "Arun Khanna: The economic threat from a nuclear Iran is that it is likely to be perceived as the new leader in OPEC replacing Saudi Arabia.
I think that Mr. Khanna has had a gaffe, in the Kinsley sense. The real threat is that Iran is a large OPEC country not under US domination."
With a nominal ally like Saudi Arabia according to me (under US domination according to Barry) we are having so many problems pre and post 9/11. Hence it seems reasonable to me that U.S. and to a lesser extent EU would not want a regime like Iran gaining leadership of OPEC.
I could be in error but I don't see any glaring error (gaffe) in this reasoning.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Gee, Sebastian, then why aren't you writing page after page after BS page over on OW, demanding that all moral people support an immediate invastion of Sudan?"

I think you should try google if you think I haven't written on the issue of the Sudan. And I pretty much do think the US should intervene militarily in the Sudan. Thanks for asking.

But on topic, I really do think that the international system has worked better on economic issues than it has on military issues. My guess is that this is because most of the powerhouse countries are willing to deal in economic issues, but for one reason or another are unwilling to commit themselves militarily even to stop genocide.

[Warren]

BDL's idea that Iran's nuclear program stems from George W Bush's speech defies history. The program started before that.

Iran is part of the AOE because of it's support of the suicide cult of terrorism, specifically Hezbullah and Hamas, that have worked effectively against peace.

Even if Israel had pulled back from the territories without a peace treaty the Iranian terrorist death cult and Iranian nuclear program would have proceeded full speed ahead. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not the cause of Muslim radicalism; it is an example of it.

Fareed Zakaria's use of the word "Sensible" is being read by BDL as "Perfect". The Bush I principles failed to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, which started in the 1980's under Rafsanjani. See http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wponac-nuclearhistory-0904.htm

[kharris]

Warren,

I am never quite clear on why assertions about alternate histories, in the form of "this would have happened even if that had not happened" should be given any weight. This is a belief statement, not a statement of fact, not an argument based on odds. You don't know what would have happened if Israel had pulled back from the territories, and there is no sense claiming you do. Make a reasoned argument, perhaps?

I don't see where Brad argued that Iran's nuclear program resulted from something Bush did, so claiming he gets his history wrong is likewise not all that convincing. The point is that Bush II's actions have made it harder to forestall the spread of nuclear arms, not that his actions were the source of the impulse to acquire those arms.

At any point along the way, what we need to do is reach for the best outcome we can get. At any point along the way, we should avoid making bad situations worse. It is not all that emotionally satisfying to bride our enemies, to give them access to trade, to avoid calling a spade a spade. Sometimes, though, that is the way toward the best outcome we can get.

[kharris]

...bribe our enemies... Bribe. Sheesh.

[Barkley Rosser]

JO'N,

You (and others) are right that Brad and Fareed are barking up a useless tree by calling for an alliance against Iran. However, it must be noted that Turkmenistan does not have any US troops. Its megalomaniacal leader has studiously remained neutral in all the regional conflicts.

Warren,

I am not aware that Iran has backed Hamas substantially. The latter is a Sunni organization, and Iran only backs Shi'i ones seriously, like Hizbollah. They may have done so for Hamas in a minor way.

Brad is right that Bush screwed up with his Axis of Evil speech big time. Yes, Iran was already going for nukes. But a deal like the one that Russia is offering (guaranteed uranium processing and thus peaceful nukes for general politcial-economic rapprochement) would have been much easier to achieve with the Khatami government if there had been no AOE speech or subsequent invasion of Iraq. Also, we would probably have the easier-to-deal-with Rafsanjani in power now than the Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad.

[Ari]

Consider carefully as the talk runs to military intervention here and there, from Sudan to Iran, the New York Times reported today that little Haiti is in a condition of chaos after 20 months of United Nations peace keeping. We can work with diplomacy and economic sanctions to stop the violence in Sudan, but we have far too much of a problem in Afghanistan and Iraq to think of other interventions. Iran has a population of 68 million, and we need no war there. Diplomacy and economic sanctions can limit Iran.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/international/americas/24haiti.html?ex=1295758800&en=20c46f11a83bc883&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 24, 2006

Fear and Death Ensnare U.N.'s Soldiers in Haiti
By GINGER THOMPSON

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti - Nearly 20 months after the United Nations arrived to stabilize the hemisphere's poorest country and avert a civil war, there is still no cease-fire in this violent city on the sea.

Blasts from tanks and machine guns go on for hours almost every day around Cité Soleil, a steamy slum of concrete hovels and canals of raw sewage at the capital's northern edge. No one knows for sure how many civilians have been killed inside because the bodies of the slum-dwellers and local gangsters rarely make it to morgues.

But last Tuesday, two Jordanian soldiers were shot to death in skirmishes with local gangs, and another was seriously wounded. It was the third fatal strike against United Nations personnel since December, a month when relations between the international peacekeeping mission and local people worsened.

The violence has raised demands in capitals from Brasília to Washington to Ottawa for an explanation of what has gone wrong with Haiti's transition to democracy. What is clear is that the $584 million a year mission has failed to bring peace to Haiti, and the caretaker government has failed to bring elections.

The interim government, appointed with the support of the United States after the downfall of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in March 2004, postponed the first round of new elections to Feb. 7 from Jan. 8, the fourth delay in four months. A second round is scheduled for March.

Uncertainty remains among the highest level organizers of the elections about whether a fair vote is possible in the corrupt and deeply polarized political atmosphere here.

The postponement has led to finger-pointing all around. The interim government blames the international community for the delays, saying it failed to deliver voter cards and train enough poll workers. The United Nations blames the interim government, accusing its leaders of stalling in fear of losing power.

Cité Soleil is among the most desperate corners of a desperately poor country. Fifty-five percent of Haiti's 8.5 million people live on less than a dollar a day, according to United Nations estimates.

The continuing insecurity has not helped. Just after the United Nations mission finally reached its full complement of 9,000 troops and police officers in December, incidents of kidnappings increased to more than 14 a day, bringing protests by this country's middle and working classes for the peacekeepers to get serious about fighting street gangs, or get out of Haiti.

"They need to do better than what is going on to make a dent in the fear that is affecting a million people in the Port-au-Prince area," said Andy Apaid, a wealthy Haitian businessmen who runs textile factories outside Cité Soleil. "We don't want them to kill anyone. But we want them to do strategic operations to get the criminals out."

Indeed, everyone here seems to have a finger on the trigger....

[anne]

Peace keeping is difficult enough, war making as has been found forever is terrifyingly difficult. Thank you, Ari.

[H.L. Mencken]

Anne,

Put the piece by Leverett (someone who's actually been involved in diplomatic background work for some time) that you posted alongside the one he wrote a couple of years ago called "Why Libya Gave Up the Bomb", and you'll see how miserably the Bush II administration's efforts at non-proliferation have failed.

People like to cite the fact that some of these nuke programs like NK and Iran pre-date the Bush II regime without also recognizing that the diplomatic groundwork for actually talking a nation (Libya) down from the nuclear ledge also predated the Bush II administration.

[Barkley Rosser]

Given the deserved attention the invasion of Iraq has received, it is rarely noted that probably the second biggest foreign policy blunder of the Bush II was his humiliation of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Kim Dae Jung, then South Korean president, when he visited the White House in March, 2001. This pretty much blew apart any standing we had with the South Korean people and ditched the long-developed negotiations with the North Koreans.

It is true that the DPRK was developing nukes. But it is also true that they were doing so by a method not addressed in the agreements they had signed. They were in a de facto, but not a de jure violation, although that is also pretty much forgotten in all the subsequent foofaraw and propaganda frenzy.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"But it is also true that they were doing so by a method not addressed in the agreements they had signed."

This is a popular myth. The Agreed Framework reaffirms North Korea's obligations under the NPT and the North-South Declaration for a Nuclear-Free Penninsula. Neither allows for weapon-uranium enrichment of the type done by the North Korean government.

[eteraz]

Please see my blog for a commentary on the future of islamic caliphate, linked as it is to the influence of iran in the muslim world.