Tag: United States
No no-brainer
Eric Edelman, Andrew Krepinevich, and Evan Braden Montgomery argue that President Obama should “take out” Iran’s nuclear program:
The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran’s incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold.
This is an argument to be taken seriously, as it is surely also being made inside the United States government. Dismissing it summarily, as commenters on the Foreign Affairs website have done so far, is foolish.
There are two propositions here: 1) fewer options in the future to stop Iran’s progress; 2) Iran’s incentives to back down only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold. There are problems with both.
Even after Iran develops and deploys nuclear weapons, we would have the option of striking their key nuclear facilities and as many of their nuclear weapons as we could find. The difficulty with doing this is that it invites a nuclear counter-strike with any surviving weapons, at Israel if not at the U.S. But even if we strike now, we are unlikely to be 100% successful, and we would be giving Iran an enormous incentive to accelerate their nuclear program as best they could with whatever facilities they had remaining. The danger of an Iranian counter-strike might not be immediate, but it would be just as real. This takes us down the road of repeated strikes on Iran. I’d like to discuss the regional consequences of that before assuming it is preferable to strike now.
As for Iran’s incentives, I think it likely they can achieve as much or more of what they want by approaching the nuclear threshold but not going over it, which in effect is what they say they are doing. Having the material and technology to produce nuclear weapons will give Iran regional prestige and clout without necessarily setting off the regional arms race that Edelman, Krepinevich and Montgomery fear. Going over the threshold will not only precipitate nuclear programs by far richer countries, it will also cause the U.S. to target Iran with nuclear weapons (let’s assume Israel already does), vastly increasing Tehran’s uncertainty about what might happen.
Edelman et. al. put the bottom line this way:
Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout.
Even in this formulation, the answer is by no means self-evident. But to imply that there will not be regional fallout from using military force is clearly wrong. I might reformulate it this way:
The United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon and repeatedly to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or continuing to ratchet up sanctions, cyberattacks and other efforts in convince the Iranians that crossing the nuclear threshold will be injurious and not beneficial to their national security.
We are going to have to live with regional fallout, which will be different but substantial whichever choice we make. This is not a no brainer.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Best freebie next week
Game Changer: Policy and Politics
For a New Middle East
The Grand Hyatt Hotel
1000 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Thursday, November 17, 2011
8:45am-5:30pm
Conference Schedule
8:45am-9:00am – Opening remarks
Ambassador (ret.) Wendy Chamberlin, Middle East Institute President
9:00am-10:30am – After the Arab Spring: Assessing US Policy in the Middle East
Steve Clemons, New America Foundation, The Atlantic
Ambassador (ret.) Daniel Kurtzer, Princeton University
Ambassador (ret.) Ron Schlicher, Former US Department of State
Tamara Cofman Wittes, Deputy Assist. Secretary of State-NEA
10:45am-12:15pm – The Road Ahead for Emerging Arab Democracies
Esraa Abdel Fattah, Egyptian Democratic Academy
Michele Dunne, Atlantic Council
Larry Diamond, Stanford University
Radwan Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy
2:15pm-3:45 pm – Shifting Regional Power Dynamics in an Era of Change
Abdelkhaleq Abdalla, UAE University
Jamal Khashoggi, Al-Arab TV
Haim Malka, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mohsen Milani, South Florida University
Paul Salem, Carnegie Middle East Center
4:00pm-5:30pm- Economic and Development Strategies for a Middle East in Transition
Adel Abdellatif, UN Development Programme
Odeh Aburdene, OAI Advisors
Iman Bibars, Ashoka/MENA
Ambassador William B. Taylor, US Department of State
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Nuclear cabal
The big news today is Iran’s progress towards nuclear weapons. The reports are based on information reported to have been given to the UN-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which administers the Non-proliferation Treaty (Iran is a “state party”).
It is the people who gave the information to the IAEA who seem to have leaked the information, which includes details of Iranian efforts not only to obtain the necessary highly enriched uranium but also to learn how to detonate a nuclear weapon. Foreign assistance from Russia, Pakistan and North Korea is alleged to be involved.
I have no reason to doubt the assertions, but no confirmation either. The IAEA will not necessarily publish its findings later this week with all the spin that accompanies today’s revelations. It is often more cautious than the Americans like, and presumably today’s leaks are an effort to box the IAEA into taking a hard line.
For what purpose? My best guess is that the Americans are trying to get the Security Council to go along with ratcheting up the sanctions on Tehran. While there has been audible saber-rattling from Israel the last few days, I don’t think we can expect that to happen in the lead-up to a real attack. Israel needs tactical surprise to pull it off. The rumbling from Israel is also preparation for tougher sanctions, I imagine.
The most interesting aspect of the reports today is the part about foreign assistance. Those in charge of nonproliferation policy in my past often assumed that no state with nuclear weapons would consciously help another get them. That assumption has evaporated. We seem to have a kind of nuclear cabal willing to do things thought anathema in the past.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s “peace picks”
Very busy calendar the first part of the week. Remember there may be registration and RSVP requirements not cited here. Best to check on the respective web pages.
1. The EU-brokered Negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia: Challenges and Prospects, Woodrow Wilson Center, November 7, 12-1 pm
Nearly three and a half years after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, the EU is bringing both sides back to the negotiation table. This meeting will address: why Serbian and Kosovar governments are negotiating now?; what is the nature, format and context of these negotiations, and what are the goals that the EU hopes to achieve?
Jovan Teokarevic, associate professor of political science at the University of Belgrade will compare the current negotiations with those that had been unsuccessfully brokered by the UN and describe the strategies; and tactics used by both sides; and the role of international actors – the EU, the US, NATO, EULEX–in this process. A number of possible outcomes will be presented and discussed, including the types of negotiations that might be developed in the future. Most importantly, Teokarevic will address the need for a sustainable solution for the Serbian enclave in northern Kosovo, which would be part of a general reconciliation between Serbians and Kosovar Albanians.
2. Economic Development in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Absence of Government and Its Consequences, SAIS, Bernstein-Offit 500, November 7, 2-4 pm
We hope you will be able to join us for this timely and informative discussion. Please RSVP to ktimlin@csis.org.
Dr. Mart Laar,
Minister of Defense, Estonia
Mr. William J. Lynn III
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Panel Presentations by:
Dr. Martin Libicki,
Senior Management Scientist, RAND Corporation
Col. Ilmar Tamm,
Director, Collective Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch,
President, Asymmetric Cyber Operations, LLC
Ms. Michele Markoff,
Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, U.S. Department of State
Dr. Stephen Flanagan,
Henry A. Kissinger Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mr. Frank Kramer,
Member of the Board, the Atlantic Council
Closing Remarks:
Dr. James Miller,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
Eric Schmitt
Terrorism Correspondent, The New York Times
and
Thom Shanker
Pentagon Correspondent, The New York Times
Introductory Remarks by
H. Andrew Schwartz
Senior Vice President, CSIS External Relations
Moderated by
Thomas M. Sanderson
Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, CSIS Transnational Threats Project
Tuesday, November 8, 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
1800 K Street, NW, CSIS B1 Conference Center
A reception will begin at 5:00 p.m. with light refreshments and snacks. The event will begin at 5:30 p.m. Books will be available for purchase. RSVP required for admission.
While the death of Muammar Gaddafi and the virtual collapse of his regime forces have freed Libyans from more than four decades of tyranny, it has also complicated the security situation for their neighbors in the Maghreb and Sahel. Fighters loyal to the deposed dictator have taken refuge abroad and, as cross-border attacks they have carried out from Algeria show, still pose a threat, not only to the new government in Tripoli, but to regional stability. Moreover, there is the question of the impact that the arrival of mercenaries and others who fought for Gaddafi as well as copious quantities of arms will have in a region already beset by various armed movements from Taureg tribesmen to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to the Nigerian group Boko Haram to the Polisario Front separatists as well as penetrated by narco-traffickers and other criminals.
Panel Discussion with
Geoffrey D. Porter
President
North Africa Risk Consulting, Inc.
Fadel Lamen
President
American Libyan Council
Roger Peña
Senior Legislative Assistant for Defense and Foreign Affairs
Office of Senator Kay Hagan
Edward M. Gabriel
Former US Ambassador to Morocco
Moderated by
J. Peter Pham
Director, Michael S. Ansari Africa Center
Atlantic Council
| DATE: | Wednesday, November 9, 2011 |
| TIME: | 2:00 PM – 4:30 PM |
| LOCATION: | Atlantic Council 1101 15th Street NW, 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 |
RSVP with your name and affiliation to ksmith@acus.org.
Religion has been a source of conflict throughout human history, but religion can also be a tremendous force for peacebuilding.
9. Religion and Peacemaking: Reflections on Current Challenges and Future Prospects, USIP, November 9, 9 am-1 pm
For ten years, USIP’s Religion and Peacemaking program has helped lead an evolution of the field. There has been a demonstrated interest in engaging religious leaders in efforts to advance conflict management and peacebuilding. Religious peacebuilding is now integrated into U.S. government policies.
To mark the program’s anniversary, USIP will host a workshop to reflect on what the wider field of religious peacebuilding has achieved and how best to move forward over the next decade. On November 9, a panel of practitioners, policymakers and academics will address the challenges and opportunities of religious peacebuilding and how outside actors, including the U.S. government, can support such opportunities.
Speakers:
- Richard Solomon, Introductory comments
U.S. Institute of Peace - Joshua Dubois
White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
- Suzan Johnson Cook
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom - Scott Appleby
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies - Rabbi Michael Melchior
Mosaica Center for Inter-Religious Cooperation - Jackie Ogega
Religions for Peace
- Qamar-ul Huda
U.S. Institute of Peace
- Mohammed Abu-Nimer
American University
- David Smock, Moderator
U.S. Institute of Peace
Fall 2011 Rumsfeld Fellows Samiullah Mahdi (Afghanistan); Ramid Namazov (Azerbaijan); Khatuna Mshvidobadze (Georgia); Uluk Kydyrbaev (Kyrgystan); Bayasgalan Naranzul (Mongolia); Kakhorjon Aminov (Tajikistan); Jamshed Rahmonberdiev (Tajikistan); Dadebay Kazakov (Turkmenistan); Hikmat Abdurahmanov (Uzbekistan), and Frederick Starr (moderator), CACI chairman, will discuss this topic. A reception will precede the forum at 5 p.m. For more information and to RSVP, contact saiscaciforums@jhu.edu or 202.663.7721.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Save me from Mickey Mouse!
Mickey Mouse is what my generation calls something superfluous, silly or trite. Morning Edition today brought me news of American efforts to revitalize tourism in Pakistan’s Swat Valley:
That’s the Mickey Mouse I’d like to be saved from, because it is the kind of international assistance that gives international assistance a bad name. I’m not against Pakistanis vacationing in nice hotels, but I can’t think of any reason at all why U.S. taxpayer money should be spent trying to make it happen. And there are at least 137 million reasons why it should not (that’s the number of U.S. income tax returns).
This example raises broader questions about American assistance to Pakistan. Christine Fair suggested in testimony yesterday:
U.S. efforts to elicit changes in Pakistani society through its USAID program are misguided. First USAID’s efficacy can be and should be questioned. The U.S. Congress has had numerous hearings about aid to Pakistan—and Afghanistan—and the objective results of these engagements have been less than satisfactory given the price tag. This does not mean that the United States should not continue to help Pakistan with its problems. However, it should do so with less publicity and with greater focus on projects that are executable such as power, roads and other infrastructure.
I don’t agree with Christine’s emphasis on infrastructure, as I’d rather see that done through competent multilateral organizations (she is sympathetic with that option as well). U.S. assistance should be focused more on civil society and democracy support. If that means we can’t spend the $1 billion and more appropriated for assistance to Pakistan, fine with me.
Christine’s broader point is that we should stop expecting Pakistan to forge a broad, strategic relationship with the United States when our strategic interests diverge. Instead, she recommends a more transactional relationship–deals that involve a well-defined quid pro quo in which what each side gives and gets is clear and verifiable.
I have my doubts that will work either. But it is certainly a direction worth trying before we deep six the relationship with Pakistan altogether, which the Congress may be tempted to do (and has done several times in the past). If we get even a 50 per cent return on our money, it would be better than we are doing today.
In the meanwhile, let’s get rid of Mickey Mouse projects, which put at risk the already minimal 1 per cent of the Federal budget devoted to foreign affairs.
PS, also November 4: a USAID friend says I am completely wrong about the tourism effort in Swat, which is important because of the recent history of the fight against extremism, so here is what I could find readily about it. Certainly more informative than the NPR piece. Judge for yourself.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Are things going to hell in Libya?
Not yet is the answer.
But you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. National Transitional Council (NTC) chair Mahmoud Jalil’s comment about allowing polygamy got a lot of ink. So too does every hiccup of the armed militias in Tripoli, not to mention what happens if an Islamist sneezes or a supposed Al Qaeda flag flies. I need hardly mention the disgusting, criminal behavior of the young men who capture Qaddafi and then allegedly sodomized and murdered him.
I wouldn’t want to minimize any of these issues. In fact, I drew attention to the militia and Islamist issues weeks ago. Integrating the militias under NTC control, establishing law and order and ensuring no room for Al Qaeda are vital, as is regaining control of as many surface-to-air missiles (MANPADs) as possible.
But any government that can peacefully switch out its prime minister and begin the process of appointing a new cabinet, in accordance with its constitutional framework, is not yet going to hell in a handbasket. Nor does the relatively chaotic situation outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the wasteland that used to be Sirte, prove that things are going in the wrong direction.
What we need to do now is ensure that they continue to go in the right direction. Where are the goals agreed between the Libyans and the international community? Where is the structure for donor coordination? What kind of program is the European Union putting in place? What are the Qataris up to? The internationals quickly lost their focus once the fighting was over.
This is a big mistake. Libya has bigger problems than Tunisia: the lack of a state, the violence of the rebellion, militia competition, some revenge killing and torturing. But it also has resources, good leadership, and some serious planning, including the constitutional framework. Let’s make sure it heads down Tunisia’s path towards good elections and a constitution.
RSS - Posts
