U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter (Reuters / Yuri Gripas) / Reuters
With an agreement, the military option stays on the table and becomes more effective
Nineteen years ago, I was in Ukraine when the last nuclear warheads, orphaned during the Soviet Union’s breakup, rolled out of the country. As an assistant secretary of Defense at the time, I had worked with Washington colleagues and foreign counterparts to eliminate those nuclear weapons and thus one danger at the dawn of the post-Cold War world. Together — with bipartisan support in Congress led by Sens. Sam Nunn, a Democrat, and Richard Lugar, a Republican — we succeeded.
Update #1: Pentagon chief: Military will 'redouble' efforts after nuclear deal -- The Hill
Update #2: Defense Secretary Ash Carter: Iran Deal Safer Than Alternative -- US News and World Report
WNU Editor: I do not share the U.S. Defense Secretary's assessment. I see this agreement neutering any military options against Iran ... doubly so when sanctions are finally removed and the world community rushes in to do business with Iran.
4 comments:
Whatever the deal says the US was very lucky to get a document signed by Iran to show its public some success. As for its effectiveness I doubt very much the Iranians gave up anything serious and keeping the US away from the inspection process is not a slight, it is just common sense from the Iranian perspective.
Iran poses an existential threat to America. As such, it would seem at a minimum, the US would at least try and insist that its personnel have some access to the inspection process.
From the start, this was going to be a very difficult position for America to be in any way. With Russia and China as stalwart allies of Iran and the world's two most powerful countries militarily it would have been hard enough here. Add to this the other members of the P5+1 as members of the EU view America as a strategic competitor and would not pass up any opportunity to harm it and, as such, will implicitly back whatever position Iran wants.
With this type of arrangement we have the potential for the equivalent of a diplomatic gang rape of the United States. Given the danger of the situation to the US, it would seem experiential common sense that the US would want to be part of the inspection process and that other members of the P5+1 would fully understand America's position. Additionally there's no way Russia, China, or the other members of the P5+1 are going to allow the Americans to do anything underhanded even if they wanted to.
Including the Americans in the inspection process has no downside for Iran along with huge upside potential IF Iran is acting in good faith. By not doing this it would seem the logical conclusion is Iran has not given up on its main goal of "death to America."
At this point, I would suggest trying to forge good relations with the Russians and the Chinese here. They may be able to help us here in ensuring Iran that Iran is unable to realize its goal of destroying America.
Keeping the Americans out of the inspection process is "common sense" if Iran is not acting in good faith. If Iran is acting in good faith, there is no reason to keep the Americans out of this process and it will only serve to foster further distrust. As such, it would seem a lack of common sense.
I'd like to move towards some type of UN tribunal to resolve our issues with Iran, however, I see several basic problems with such a process at this time. 1.)At this point I don't see how the Americans can get a fair trial. Such a court would be a kangaroo court designed solely for the benefit of Iran if convened now. 2.)If the US is found to be at fault in certain areas and should be found to owe Iran reparations of some type, the international community, the news media, and other major world powers will stop at nothing to ensure the US pays up. Should Iran be found to be at fault on some level and owe us some type of reparations there is currently no comparable mechanisms in place to ensure Iranian compliance with the agreement. In other words, we'd just get a worthless judgment that would only add fuel to Iranian hatred of us. 3.)There is not anyone that the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians cannot intimidate to see things there way. Anyone so inclined to be impartial would face extreme harassment.
At a minimum, these issues will need to be addressed before being able to move forward with any kind of a diplomatic solution to this. In the meantime, America needs to get ready for a nuclear armed Iran. This was going to happen deal or no deal. Hopefully US military planners are working on this.
As for a military option, there really never was one for the Americans. As long as Iran has Russia and China supporting them, such an action for America will be impossible. Israel may have the piloting skills and the military leadership to pull this off. America does not.
"At this point I don't see how the Americans can get a fair trial." Yes and why should they? Karma sucks for sure.
Everyone should get a fair trial. If we are going to trust the outcome of judicial proceedings all parties involved need to know they are going to get a fair hearing. What America was at one time is not what America is today. Countries like people change over time. Who and what one was say 10 years ago is not necessarily who and what they are today. I think the same should apply to nations states as well.
Besides I'm not at all convinced that the standard narrative on the Iranian/American conflict as presented to us by the news media and other sources that places the entire blame for the conflict on America is correct on this. It seems a bit more complicated than this narrative. It may be that Iran is mostly at fault here. As for "karma" I would say threatening death to an entire country and civilization as Iran is doing is definitely bad seed being sown. In this case, "karma" as you put it may really be bad for Iran for sure.
We are never able to coherently represent our just interests in many aspects because frankly there are to many people in high positions in America and the "west" who are in charge of formulating and implementing foreign and domestic policy who reflexively blame America for all the problems without placing any responsibility on the other sides. American actions and those of others do not happen in a vacuum.
Post a Comment