Iran – What to do – Three views

Iran followed up its admission that they have a previously undisclosed nuclear facility with a move sure to be considered bellicose.

Iran has successfully test-fired some of the longest range missiles in its arsenal, state media says.

The Revolutionary Guards tested the Shahab-3 and Sajjil rockets, which are believed to have ranges of up to 2,000km (1,240 miles), reports said.

The missiles' range could potentially reach Israel and US bases in the Gulf, analysts say.

The tests come amid heightened tension with the big international powers over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Last week, Iran disclosed it was building a second uranium enrichment plant, despite UN demands that it cease its enrichment activities.

Iran is due to hold crucial talks with the five UN Security Council members plus Germany on Thursday on a wide range of security issues, including its nuclear programme… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <BBC>

While this missile is not a direct threat to the US, it certainly is to our troops in the region and to our allies.  So, we must ask, what do we do now, and present possibilities.  Here are three views on the best way forward.

The first is the type of response we’re most used to seeing after eight ugly years of the Bush/GOP regime.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) suggested on Meet the Press this morning that the way to deal with Iran and its nuclear program is to push for regime change.

What we're trying to do here eventually is to get a regime change with a group of people in there that are more representative of the Iranian people -- who we really can talk with in a way that might end up with a good result. I think it's very difficult to do that with the current leadership, and especially the elected President.

Kyl also implied that the time for talking with Iran is over…

 

Inserted from <TPM>

Of course, Kyl’s approach is war first, think later, the standard for the GOP.  I’m not saying regime change is always a bad idea.  It was a good thing for the US to remove the Bush/GOP regime from power, but if we refuse to talk with Iran, we move out of step with the rest of the world.  In a confrontation, Iran has the capability to block the Strait of Hormuz, cutting the world off from Persian Gulf oil.  Iran also has the ability to launch conventional missiles at US bases, troops and allies in the region.  Finally, our military is so depleted from long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to years of Bush/GOP neglect for our troops’ needs and well being, that all we have left for the vital boots on the ground component of such a conflict are troops of Brownie Scouts.  In a confrontation, the US will not get support from the Iranian people that the GOP thinks we will.  Since the GOP under Eisenhower overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator, the Shah, since the GOP under Reagan armed and financed Iran’s arch enemy, Saddam Hussein, even providing him the means to acquire chemical weapons to use against Iran, and since the GOP under GW funded terrorist groups within Iran, the Iranian people do not trust the US.  But the GOP does not really care what happens, as long as the get to blame Obama for the mess they created.

The second view comes from an editorial by Raymond J. Learsy, and is more reasonable than the first.

On June 21st a Huffington Post submission ("Boycott Iran's Oil Immediatley") [sic] called for the immediate boycott of Iran's oil. It was a seemingly draconian suggestion that was met with widespread skepticism. After all, what would happen to oil markets without Iranian oil?

Well, on today CNN's State of the Union program, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind), being interviewed by John King on the timely subject of Iran's nuclear pronouncements (or lack thereof), made a rather startling revelation. According to Senator Bayh, the Russians had informed their American interlocutors that the greatest fear of the current Iranian regime was that they would be denied access to world markets for their oil. Clearly the financial bounty generated by oil sales are key to maintaining their hold on government power and the funding of their nuclear and missile programs, not to speak of buying the loyalty of their goon militias giving them the wherewithal to terrorize their citizenry.

Certainly now is the time to establish the kind of international cooperation needed to boycott Iranian oil. With recent revelations about Iran's nuclear deception, the growing and shared concerns of the major European states and a far more amenable Russia and China, the moment for an international boycott has come.

The boycott would simply be a refusal to buy Iran's oil, either directly or indirectly (i.e. not lifting oil from Iranian ports nor from offshore storage facilities, nor turning a blind eye to third party exchanges). It would be analogous to boycotting Coca Cola (apologies Coca Cola) because of a nasty dispute with its management. No one buys Coke any longer. Soon their warehouse is full. Then their factories shut down. Then after a while one would hope the workers organize to oust the management so that business can carry on as before… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

While clearly an improvement over the idiocy promoted by Kyl, this plan has its own problems.  Even if we can get China and Russia to go along, Iran is likely to lower the price of their oil sufficiently that multinational corporations, including our own, will find ways to purchase that oil on the sly.  Corporate greed is patriotic about profit alone.  In addition, the removal of Iranian oil from the market will prompt China to seek oil elsewhere, driving up the price of oil at a time when we’re recovering from a recession.  This would be bad for the economy.  Still, the idea does have merit.

The third view is my own.

When I learned of Iran’s missile test, I asked why.  What possible reason could Ahmadinejad have for making a move that was sure to magnify the animus against him, especially from the US?  After considering it, I think I understand.  Ahmadinejad us up to his ears in a major controversy at home over an election as crooked as ours in 2000.  He is facing strong opposition and public discontent.  His hope is that US threats will fan the fear of the US that Iranians justly have, and that the Iranian people will unite behind him against the foreign aggressors, thus  solving his domestic woes.  It is in our best interest not to make any moves that the Iranian people perceive as a threat.  That includes Learsy’s option.  An oil boycott will not immediately hurt Iran’s ruling elite, but will be devastating to Iran’s people.  Ahmadinejad can then blame the US for their suffering, and in this way, solve his domestic woes.  Once his opposition at home is shattered, he can always back down and thereby avert the crisis.

The option that does not threaten the Iranian people is to negotiate.  It leaves Ahmadinejad’s domestic problems in place, thereby defeating his missile-test strategy.  Now I’m not suggesting that we cave in.  There’s no reason to do so, when we can take a hard line where our interests are concerned.  We have time. The worst case I have heard for Iran actually developing a nuke is one year, while most estimates range closer to five  years.  In addition Ahmadinejad has agreed to allow IAEA inspectors into the newly revealed facility, so it’s best to see where that leads.  Now it’s true that negotiations may fail, and if they do, the other options are still available, but isn’t it most rational to at least try the option that is least harmful to Ahmadinejad’s opposition, least harmful to the Iranian people, and least harmful to the world economy?