Wanted: A Truly Credible Military Threat to Iran – By David Rothkopf | Foreign Policy
Wanted: A Truly Credible Military Threat to Iran – By David Rothkopf | Foreign Policy.
The Israelis and the Americans are zeroing in on a strike option that has a real chance of deterring the mullahs — and defusing Mitt Romney’s attacks.
BY DAVID ROTHKOPF | OCTOBER 8, 2012
In Mitt Romney’s “Hope Is Not a Strategy” speech at the Virginia Military Institute, the Republican challenger zeroed in on the current unrest in the Middle East as a sign that President Barack Obama’s foreign policy is not working. The most biting implication in the speech is the assertion that al Qaeda is resurgent — in other words that killing Osama bin Laden, emotionally satisfying as it was, was not the game-changer in the region that the Obama administration has implied it was.
But of equal importance to the Republican critique of Obama is Romney’s assessment that Obama’s efforts to reverse Iran’s course toward gaining nuclear weapons have been unsuccessful. In the hours before the speech was delivered, neoconservative Romney foreign-policy advisor Dan Senor suggested on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that Obama effectively had to be dragged against his will toward tougher sanctions on Iran — the same tough sanctions for which the administration is now regularly taking credit because they have started to work. Senor noted that both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Deputy Secretary of State James Steinbergpushed back against bipartisan congressional support for the sanctions out of concern that they would have unintended negative consequences for the U.S. and global economies.
A centerpiece of the Romney campaign’s argument that Obama has not been tough enough on Iran is that the president has not offered a credible military threat against the Iranians. Say what you will about the rest of Romney’s remarks — and broadly speaking, there was not much new in them except that for the first time, the Republican nominee has addressed foreign policy recently without tripping over one of his own misstatements — but even some of the president’s supporters have told me privately they wonder about his commitment and that of the U.S. military to taking action against Iran.
The reasons for these doubts are several. Despite the president’s regular assurance that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that force will be used if necessary, the American people’s war fatigue in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan has made any complex, costly, or highly risky action a tough political sell back home. Further, there have been multiple assertions by analysts that the likelihood of a successful strike on Iran is low. Finally, the public bickering with the Israelis suggested that the United States was dragging its feet and that the Israelis might be forced to act alone precisely because they did not expect to get U.S. support.
Despite the public histrionics in the run-up to the U.N. General Assembly meetings, both White House and Israeli officials assert that the two sides behind the scenes have come closer together in their views in recent days. While there may not be exact agreement on what constitutes a “red line” — a sign of Iranian progress toward the development of nuclear weapons that would trigger military action — the military option being advocated by the Israelis is considerably more limited and lower risk than some of those that have been publicly debated.
Indeed, according to a source close to the discussions, the action that participants currently see as most likely is a joint U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities. The strike might take only “a couple of hours” in the best case and only would involve a “day or two” overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support. Advocates for this approach argue that not only is it likely to be more politically palatable in the United States but, were it to be successful — meaning knocking out enrichment facilities, setting the Iranian nuclear program back many years, and doing so without civilian casualties — it would have regionwide benefits. One advocate asserts it would have a “transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come.”
While this approach would limit the negative costs associated with more protracted interventions, it could not be conducted by the Israelis acting alone. To get to buried Iranian facilities, such as the enrichment plant at Fordow, would require bunker-busting munitions on a scale that no Israeli plane is capable of delivering. The mission, therefore, must involve the United States, whether acting alone or in concert with the Israelis and others.
What does this have to do with Romney’s remarks? Were it clearer that the primary Iran option being discussed is this very limited surgical strike, then a U.S. threat of force would be that much more credible. And if it were more credible — because it seemed like the kind of risk the president is more willing to undertake — then it would have the added benefit of providing precisely the kind of added leverage that might make diplomacy more successful. In other words, the public contemplation of a more limited, doable mission provides more leverage than the threat of even more robust action that is less likely to happen.
With that in mind, and given the progress that the Israelis and the administration seem to have made in the past couple of weeks, it may be that the easiest way for the Obama team to defuse Romney’s critique on Iran is simply to communicate better what options they are in fact considering. It’s not the size of the threatened attack, but the likelihood that it will actually be made, that makes a military threat a useful diplomatic tool. And perhaps a political one, too.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
October 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM
A couple of hours of bombing will set back the Iranian nuclear program many years without harming a hair on the heads of Iranian civilians. US voters – the ones tired of endless mid-east wars – won’t be troubled by the tiny little raid that’ll give us Peace For Our Time! The foreign policy wizard Willard Romney will have been taken totally out of the presidential race.
Besides the mullahs wetting their pants, the Russians and Chinese will be awed by the display of the overwhelming American (and Israeli) weaponry.
A nice bonus will be that the Palestinians finally lose all hope and return to the diplomatic table to gratefully accept whatever crumbs (if any) which get swept off to them.
Totally awesome fiction here, and that’s how I’ll treat my Foreign Policy bookmark in the future.
October 9, 2012 at 7:28 PM
“A nice bonus will be that the Palestinians finally lose all hope and return to the diplomatic table to gratefully accept whatever crumbs (if any) which get swept off to them.”
Just for the record.
Do I understand correctly, that you prefer the “palestinians” achieving their goals by bombing the Israelis into submission?
October 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM
**** Do I understand correctly, that you prefer the “palestinians” achieving their goals by bombing the Israelis into submission? ****
The words are all English, and except for the lowercase “palestinians” to denote that group’s subhuman status, look to form a grammatical sentence.
But considering how I can’t make heads or tails of your remark, could you kindly explain what the hell you’re trying to say here?
October 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Zachary Smith Says:
October 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM
**** Do I understand correctly, that you prefer the “palestinians” achieving their goals by bombing the Israelis into submission? ****
The words are all English, and except for the lowercase “palestinians” to denote that group’s subhuman status, look to form a grammatical sentence.
But considering how I can’t make heads or tails of your remark, could you kindly explain what the hell you’re trying to say here?
——————-
Again you did it.
Your logic is messed up.
Is it impossible for you to imagine, that someone who puts words in lowercase instead of upper case is not a native english speaker?
Could you imagine, that this could be the reason why someone confuses upper case and lower case?
Instead you infer from my bad grammar that I must think of “Palestinians” as subhumans.
Do you realize, how ridiculious you are?
You said:
“A nice bonus will be that the Palestinians finally lose all hope and return to the diplomatic table to gratefully accept whatever crumbs (if any) which get swept off to them.”
It seems that it saddens you, that the “Palestinians” would have to come to the diplomatic table.
Would you prefer them not coming to the negotiation table?
Would you prefer, that they achieve their goals by other means?
Would you prefer, that they bomb the Israelis into submission?
Is this clear enough?
October 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM
**** It seems that it saddens you, that the “Palestinians” would have to come to the diplomatic table.
Would you prefer them not coming to the negotiation table?
Would you prefer, that they achieve their goals by other means?
Would you prefer, that they bomb the Israelis into submission? ****
At this point I’m going to attempt something you’ve refused to do — to put myself in the shoes of a Palestinian with some authority.
In regard to your first point:
While wearing my Palestinian hat, I’d ask “what’s to negotiate”? except for an Israeli departure from the lands they’ve stolen from me and my people.
On to #2: While demanding the Israeli occupiers and colonizers leave, I’d certainly attempt “other means”. I’d look for friends – powerful friends if possible. I’d try to publicize each and every atrocity committed by the illegal occupying force.
Regarding your third point, my options to “bomb the Israelis into submission” appear to be extremely limited, what with my not having an army with artillery, nor an air force with war planes. If I DID have such weapons, I’d make certain I used them with exactly the level of restraint exercised by the occupying army.
October 10, 2012 at 2:34 AM
“At this point I’m going to attempt something you’ve refused to do — to put myself in the shoes of a Palestinian with some authority.”
Since you are still repeating your illogical crap. I’ll just paste my previous answer:
You are wrongly assuming, that anyone who looks through “palestinian” eyes, must arrive at the same conclusion at which you arrived.
Therefore, you accuse anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you, that he did not see it through “palestinian” eyes.
It should be obvious, how utterly ridiculous your assumption is.
I just want to add the following:
You think, that if only someone would look from a “palestinian” perspective, he inevitably would see the justice of their cause and the evil of the “zionist”.
It is ironic, that you want to lecture me on this subject, because, well, I did precisely that for more then 25 years. Looking from the “palestinian” perspective.
And shurely enough I was pretty anti-Israel and antisemitic though I was never at the point of hating the jews or wanting them annihilated.
Maybe it has something to do that I visited the Dachau concentration camp twice in my life where I saw the ovens, the lamps made of human skin and all the other images of horror.
I saw firsthand where blind hate and human evil leads to.
It was just sickening.
My attitude towards jews, zionism and Israel changed when I was willing to sincirely listen to their side of the story and since I am interested only in the truth I was informing myself about the history of Israel, the Middle-East, Islam and Zionism, verifying as much as possible.
As someone who has seen both sides and cut true the lies and the propaganda, I have come to the conclusion that Israel and the jewish people have more legal, moral and historical rights to the Land called Israel and “Palestine” then the so-called Palestinians.
The “Palestinians” are nothing more than descendends of muslim arab invaders who stole the land from the christian and jewish population that lived on that land.
After wearing “palestian” shoes and a “palestinian” hat, do yourself the favor of putting a jewish kippa on your head, before you strap on your “palestinian” suicide-belt.
October 10, 2012 at 4:41 AM
First I want to make an interesting juxtaposition.
**** Again you did it.
Your logic is messed up.
Is it impossible for you to imagine, that someone who puts words in lowercase instead of upper case is not a native english speaker? ****
and
**** My attitude towards jews, zionism and Israel changed when I was willing to sincirely listen to their side of the story and since I am interested only in the truth I was informing myself about the history of Israel, the Middle-East, Islam and Zionism, verifying as much as possible. ****
I’m supposed to be dealing with a poor fellow who no comprendo the English too good, but is NOT a spammer/blogger residing somewhere in Greater Israel.
Supposing there’s a speck of truth to any of this, the first part means he/she isn’t from the US or anywhere else where English is “native”. The second one implies the poster was an ignorant babe-in-the-woods who’d never been taught anything about “the Middle-East, Islam and Zionism”. That is, until he/she became self-taught.
Readers can believe as much of that as they choose. Anyhow, for comparison purposes, I’d like to link to another “discussion” I had with this gentleperson before he/she tucked tail and ran.
https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/iran-minister-floats-trade-off-in-nuclear-dispute/#comment-20881
In neither instance could any discussion of Israeli misbehavior be tolerated. Where do they hold such views? Other than in Greater Israel and the redneck regions of the US South, I sure can’t guess!
🙂
October 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM
You are a joke.
Me running? Keep on dreaming.
While I demolished your pathetic excuses for arguments you adressed virtually none of my arguments.
Whats the point in adressing arguments I refuted time and again?
You sound to me like the typical liberal/leftist braindead loser who creates strawmen based on faulty and ridiculous assumptions and then attacks those strawmen..
Basically you resort to name-calling and throwing up points that are not related to the topic. Which proves nothing but your inability to form a consistent, sound argument and your inablity to address or refute my arguments.
You wanting to throw in the “palestinian issue” in each and every discussion makes it like me wanting to throw my toothache in each and every discussion.
In both cases our wishes are not relevant to the discussion.
Since I have only a limited amount of time, I am not going to address each and everyone of your foolish statements.