At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.
The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.
It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.
Eliot A. Cohen: “There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran” – WSJ.com.
Comments 31
Iran’s recent launching of missiles that can travel over 1000 miles (from North Korea?) suggest that Iran is tempting the world. Does Ahmadinejad feel that if Israel or the U.S. strikes first, they will not be able to find or damage too many missiles or nuclear weapons, and that such an attack will justify an overwhelming response by an Iran that has not been seriously damaged? I can’t read Ahmadinejad’s mind. But demonstrations against his stolen election are taking place, despite the violence used against the demonstrators. Is he trying to unify his country? Again, I can’t read his mind.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
George, if anyone attacks Iran now, I’m pretty sure that they won’t find too many missiles or nuclear weapons.
But what overwhelming response could Iran have?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
All in all, this is a highly offensive suggestion.
Causing the Iranian regime to crumble in some “soft power’ fashion, and completely overlooking the opportunity to burn off a big mess of munitions on their hegemony-challenging butts is just the kind of crud that turns a person pessimistic.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
@fuster – um… you want to try maybe to make a clear statement so that we can figure out what you’re making fun of?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
…that is… if you’re making fun of something… I mean – do you actually have a position on what the US should do, or even a thought on the subject?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
fuster,
I don’t know what Iran has in the way of nuclear bombs and missiles. One possibility is that it has more than anybody thinks and that they are hidden in places nobody else knows about. A second is that Ahmadinejad is willing to risk an attack he can’t deal with in order to suppress his citizens by unifying them against a foreign enemy. A third possibility is that he can’t wait to get to heaven and meet his 72 virgins. What are your guesses for the explanation of the recent missile launchings?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
@CK MacLeod – If a had a thought, it would be that what’s there to disagree with?
Who in this country wouldn’t like to see the end of the Iranian theocracy?
All there is to argue about is method, and this contention seems to be that we can rule out substantial use of American force.
I thought that we should invoke the resident Tomahawker to rebut.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
There are no WMD in Iran.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
@J.E. Dyer -Hugo Chavez has been steadily supplying them.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
@George Jochnowitz – The same reason why we bullfrogs inflate our little selves, George.
We like to try to look big and powerful when we’re not doing well.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Cohen’s gotta be kidding.
“This is a corrupt…ruthless & unprincipled regime …willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power.”
The above quote describes Mister Peanut’s regime.
Mister Peanut does not like his own military and our military is learning to distrust him.
He does not like our intelligence services, so how could he work with them to construct a program to sabatage Iran?
I think Israel will have to go it alone.
This is a terrible price our side must pay for a botched presidential campaign. This is a terrible price for clueless liberal Jews to pay. No one can count on America. Under Mister Peanut, America is a bitch.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@CK MacLeod – How about an alternate contention of the day?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3448134194_e9c4021cf0.jpg
September 28th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
@fuster – how about not?
September 28th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
@CK MacLeod – @CK MacLeod – Not that one or none at all?
September 28th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
@fuster – there’s a difference between kinda wishing and hoping that the IR will fall and lifting a finger to do anything about it. The Obami do not have a regime change stance, much less a policy.
The Iranians appear to have correctly concluded that the US is desperate to avoid escalation – which in turn gives the Iranians a virtually free hand to escalate incrementally. They’re terrorists, and so they terrorize. They push and push wherever they can, and will very likely continue to push harder and further until they meet resistance.
Firing off missiles on Yom Kippur is a statement of utter defiance: “We don’t care if you call us antisemites. We really do, as we stated, wear your condemnation as a badge of honor. We don’t find your empty threats of sanctions or your international meetings even very interesting. We’re so confident that they won’t get anywhere, that we can fling our missiles right in your face – because we know that it will make you even more afraid, and even more desperate to negotiate, and from a position of even worse weakness. Our will is inexpressibly stronger than your collective will, and stronger than the will possessed by any one of you.”
In sum, we’re such cowards in their eyes, they don’t even need to have nuclear weapons to have deterrence against us. We are already acting as though they’re the nuclear power, and we’re disarmed.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
@fuster – both, neither. Why take notice of such fools? Both sides have them.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
@CK MacLeod – See my reply to George about the Iranian test.
About the administration’s stance, I suggest that you wait to see what the next weeks bring in the public part. The continued gas about Obama not opposing the Iranians doesn’t seem to be affected by actions that were never taken in the past years and that left us worse off than we should be at present.
Maybe you’ll see if Obama the appeaser decides to step up our stance in Yemen after three or five years of nothing much being done.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
maybe, maybe, maybe fuster. Please enlighten me, seriously, as to the “actions that were never taken in the past years.”
If a president demonstrates his “spine of steel,” and no one sees it, has he really demonstrated it?
September 29th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Oh, yeah, and while he’s stepping up in Yemen, maybe he can locate his ambassador to Iraq and stop that situation from “unraveling” – http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/28/iraq_the_unraveling_xxiv_us_embassy_vs_us_military_again .
September 29th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Lotta times you’re not supposed to see the steel,CK, just feel it.
(The saber-rattler rolled out of town in a chair)
Nothing got done and plenty got undone in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran in past years.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:14 am
I don’t think Abrams was listening to Obama’s UN speech. His whole point then was that one nation does not have a right (nothing about power, a right) to dominate another. Hard power, soft power, it doesn’t matter–he has categorically foresworn using American power to influence events in Iran.
I think Abrams has it exactly right; but that has already been ruled out by the moralist in chief.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Margo, you mean “Cohen,” right? The author of the WSJ piece?
September 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
The Iranian missiles are probably glorified scuds. The real danger is getting a small nuke or dirty bomb into Hezbollah/Hamas’ willing hands who’d fit it onto a short range missile to lob over the fence into Tel Aviv. After all, to paraphrase (the ‘moderate’ fromed of Moussavi) Rafsanjani: what’s the death of several million muslims if it meant destroying Israel?
September 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
@uzi silber – a very unlikely scenario. As for the incessantly cited and widely misunderstood Rafsanjani statement, we just finished discussing it (and not for the first time), starting here: http://ckmac.com/thewholething/2009/09/its-been-a-long-terrible-week/#comment-8542
September 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@uzi silber – or to paraphrase Lieberman, what’s the death of several million Muslims if it means saving the settlements?
Your paraphrase is about as accurate as the ridiculous one that I invented.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
fuster,
The difference is that Hamas and Hezbollah would be overjoyed to sacrifice the lives of millions of Muslims in order to kill the Israelis. The Israelis, on the other hand, prefer to live, since they have no faith.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
sorry, but rafsanjani was pretty clear about what he had in mind. nice bizarre twist fuster.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
@George Jochnowitz – George, there are always people willing to sacrifice other peoples lives, but those people prefer to live as much as anyone else.
It’s not easy to find people who want to kill Israelis at the cost of their own family’s lives.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
@uzi silber – uzi, I did mean it to be bizarre, just as I find your paraphrase.
Please follow CK’s rather more calm and sane link before you become too comfortable with your interpretation.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Yes, he was clear – about something completely different from the reading many, like yourself, impose on the statement. If you go to the link I provided, you will find the statement as distributed, as well as an additional link to the full context in which it was presented, as well as a discussion about what he meant, with our friend George taking your position.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Yes, I meant the Cohen piece. These scenarios about what we could do about Iran are starting to get to me. After all, we have a CiC who can’t decide what to do about a request from his own military commander implementing his own strategy in Afghanistan.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm